大乘玄論 4
English (machine translation) 4
- Language
- English
Contents
- 4.6 — 4 parts
4.1
Composed by Jizang
4.2
Twelve gates on the doctrine of the two gnoses.
4.3
1. Gate of translating the name; 2. Gate of explaining the name; 3. Gate of explaining the path; 4. Gate of cognitive objects and gnosis; 5. Gate of identity and difference; 6. Gate of length and shortness; 7. Gate of the six gnoses; 8. Gate of opening and combining; 9. Gate of severing and suppressing; 10. Gate of subsuming gnoses; 11. Gate of permanence and impermanence; 12. Gate of gain and loss.
4.4
Formerly, when in Jiangnan composing the Fahua xuanlun, I already briefly elucidated the two gnoses. However, since this doctrine constitutes the parents of the contemplative minds and the dharmakāya of the noble ones, it must be thoroughly investigated, and hence I discuss it again. If this principle is mastered, then the various Vaipulya sūtras will become self-evident without needing explanation. Preserved fully in the Sanskrit original, it should be called prajñāpāramitā and upāyapāramitā. Hence this sūtra states: "Gnosis-crossing is the mother of the bodhisattva, and skillful means is the father." Gnosis is prajñā, and crossing refers to pāramitā. But translations of prajñā differ: some say "wisdom" (zhihui), as Master Sengrui said, "In the language of Qin, it is called zhihui"; some translate it as "transcendence" (yuanli), which comes from the Fangguang jing and was used by Shi Dao'an; some translate it as "crossing over through clarity" (mingdu), which comes from the Liudu ji jing; some translate it as "purity" (qingjing), which also comes from the Dapin and was used by Master Sengrui. However, prajñā fully encompasses meanings such as wisdom, clarity and purity, and transcendence; the translators of the sūtras each adopted one according to their preference to render it. Because prajñā severs all delusions and transcends the phenomena of birth and death, names and characteristics, it is called "transcendence." Because it is distinct and without darkness, it is called "clarity." Because its substance is completely free from defilement, it is called "purity." Because it thoroughly penetrates, illuminates, understands, and knows, it is called "wisdom." Although it has various meanings, "wisdom" (zhihui) is most commonly used. As for "wisdom" (zhihui), its single and compound names also differ: sometimes it is named singly as "gnosis" (zhi), as the Commentary [Da zhidu lun] and this sūtra call it "gnosis-crossing" (zhidu); sometimes it is only named as "wisdom" (hui), as the Commentary says, "Prajñā in the language of Qin is called hui"; or both are combined and translated as zhihui, which is common in many sūtras. Now, carefully reconciling these meanings, each sense has its rationale. Speaking generally, gnosis is wisdom and wisdom is designated as gnosis; although broad and brief differ, their substance is not distinct. Regarding its translation as "wisdom" (hui), there are four senses in total: first, to distinguish the difference among the ten perfections; second, to reveal the difference between emptiness and existence; third, to clarify the distinction between cause and fruit; fourth, to distinguish between ordinary beings and the noble ones. As for the ten perfections, the sixth is named prajñā, translated here as "wisdom" (hui); the tenth is called jñāna, named here as "gnosis" (zhi). Question: If jñāna is gnosis, what is vidyā translated as? Answer: It is called "clarity" (ming) here, which still carries the meaning of cognitive vision. Regarding the difference between emptiness and existence: illuminating emptiness is wisdom (hui), and discerning existence is gnosis (zhi). Hence this sūtra states: "Knowing the gateway of the single characteristic gives rise to the activity of wisdom; knowing the gateway of manifold characteristics gives rise to the activity of gnosis." Regarding the distinction between cause and fruit: the Treatise says, "In the causal stage it is called prajñā; in reverse, in the fruit it is called sarvajñā." Sarvajñā is called omniscience (all-knowledge); thus we know that prajñā is called wisdom (hui). Since the name "wisdom" is inferior, it is fitting for the causal stage; "gnosis" (zhi) is decisive and complete, and thus occupies the fruit stage. Furthermore, the Buddha illuminates emptiness and existence exhaustively, to which "all" (sarva) is added; the bodhisattva has not yet exhausted them, so it is merely called wisdom (hui). One cannot say that in the causal stage it is called gnosis and in the fruit it is called all-gnosis; nor can one say that in the causal stage it is called wisdom (zhihui) and in the fruit it is called all-gnosis. One should simply say that in the causal stage it is called wisdom (hui) and in the fruit it is called gnosis (zhi); thus the superiority and inferiority between cause and fruit are made manifest. Regarding the distinction between ordinary beings and noble ones: as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, "Prajñā belongs to all sentient beings; this is called wisdom (hui)." Since the meaning of wisdom (hui) is pervasive, both ordinary beings and noble ones possess it, like the mental factor of concentration and wisdom among the ten mahābhūmikas. Vipaśyanā designates "viewing," meaning that all noble beings clearly see the principle. Jñāna is gnosis, which is penetrating and decisive. Next, translating it as "gnosis" (zhi) has three senses: first, since the name "wisdom" (hui) is inferior and "gnosis" (zhi) is superior, now wanting to praise it, prajñā is named "gnosis." Second, to demonstrate that the term is more convenient in phrasing, as in saying "gnosis-crossing" (zhidu); if one were to say "wisdom-crossing" (huidu), the expression would be awkward. Third, to clarify that gnosis is precisely wisdom: their names differ but their substance is identical, so either may be used. Next, combining them to call it "wisdom" (zhihui) also has three senses: first, to clarify that prajñā fully discerns emptiness and existence, hence its name encompasses both zhi and hui: hui illuminates emptiness and zhi discerns existence. Second, to show that prajñā pervades both fruit and cause: prajñā in the causal stage is hui, and prajñā in the fruit stage is zhi; hence among the three virtues there is the virtue of prajñā. Third, to clarify that the meaning of the six perfections encompasses the ten: that the sūtras only explain six perfections and do not explain ten is because the name prajñā already encompasses both zhi and hui, and the tenth perfection of gnosis is contained within it. Question: Since it possesses all three names, which translation is the correct one? Answer: "Wisdom" (hui) is the correct translation, and the others are established by interpretation. How do we know this? We judge by the majority of texts. This sūtra speaks of "wisdom and skillful means" (hui yu fangbian); the Commentary speaks of the "path of prajñā and path of skillful means"; the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says "prajñā belongs to all sentient beings." Jñāna is gnosis, which is matched to bodhisattvas; thus gnosis is not prajñā. Furthermore, the sixth is named hui and the tenth is zhi, both having these distinct terms; therefore we know that hui is the correct translation. Moreover, the Treatise states: "Prajñā does not belong to the Buddha, nor to the two vehicles, but only to the bodhisattva. Bodhisattvas possess wisdom of the path (mārgajñatā) and wisdom of the aspects of the path; the Buddha possesses all-knowledge (sarvajñatā) and knowledge of all aspects (sarvākārajñatā)." It also states: "Prajñā is called the wisdom of the true characteristic of all dharmas." Because there are many such passages, hui is taken as the correct translation. Question: If hui is the correct translation, why do the sūtras mostly say zhihui? Answer: The sūtras mostly expound the six perfections, so they mostly say zhihui; they rarely expound the ten perfections, so they rarely speak of hui alone. Furthermore, the names of the six perfections all have compound translations: just as dāna is called bushi rather than merely shi, prajñā is likewise. Although it is hui, in order to pair with the preceding five it also maintains a compound name, hence it is called zhihui. Next, distinguishing the doctrine of non-translation. Someone said: Because the name prajñā encompasses five meanings, it cannot be properly translated, and it is fitting to represent its name with hui. As the Commentary, fascicle 71, says: "Prajñā fixes the true characteristic; it is profoundly deep and exceedingly weighty. Because wisdom (zhihui) is light and shallow, it cannot weigh against prajñā." This was adopted by Zhaoti [Senglang], but I now say this is incorrect. The Commentary actually clarifies the meaning of "cannot be weighed against" (bu ke cheng), not "cannot be translated" (bu ke fan). Question: What is the difference between weighing against (cheng) and translating (fan)? Answer: Weighing against was already explained in India; translating came to China. Converting the foreign into the native entails different contexts before and after, and the thematic scopes differ. Furthermore, the Treatise says, "Because prajñā fixes the true characteristic, it cannot be weighed against"; it does not say that because it encompasses many meanings it cannot be weighed against. Therefore, this explanation is erroneous. Another person said: That prajñā cannot be weighed against clarifies that contemplative wisdom cannot weigh against the prajñā of the true characteristic. The prajñā of the true characteristic is by nature eternally abiding; contemplative wisdom only arises upon meeting the cognitive object. Therefore, the true characteristic is profound and weighty, while contemplative gnosis is light and shallow. This is the explanation of northern scholars. This is also incorrect. The sūtra praises prajñā with five eulogies, not the true characteristic; how could one say the true characteristic is profound and weighty? Moreover, it says "prajñā fixes the true characteristic": the true characteristic is what is fixed, and prajñā is that which fixes. If one says the true characteristic is profound and weighty, could the true characteristic in turn fix the true characteristic? Another person said: That wisdom is light and shallow and cannot weigh against prajñā means that worldly wisdom and the wisdom of the two vehicles cannot measure the great wisdom of bodhisattvas. Why? Great wisdom illuminates the principle of the true characteristic, and the path accomplishes manifold practices; how could other shallow wisdoms measure it? This is the explanation of southern scholars. I now say this is incorrect. The sūtra says "wisdom cannot weigh against prajñā"; it does not say shallow wisdom cannot weigh against deep wisdom. Furthermore, if both shallow and deep are named wisdom, then both are light and shallow, and neither could weigh against prajñā. Now, explaining it according to the Treatise: the Treatise says, "Because prajñā fixes the true characteristic, it is profound and weighty, and wisdom cannot weigh against it." As for the word "fixes" (ding), "fixing" is a designation for convergence and union. The ten thousand transformations are not without a source, yet that which sources them is signless; the empty source is not without convergence, yet that which converges with it is mindless. Therefore, the sage uses marvelous wisdom without mind to converge with that empty source without signs; thus inner and outer are both obscured, and cognitive condition and gnosis are both tranquil. "Wisdom" is a name for knowing and illuminating; how could it weigh against prajñā which transcends contemplation? Question: How can prajñā converge with the true characteristic? Answer: Because the true characteristic generates prajñā, prajñā is able to converge and unite with the true characteristic. Question: According to this explanation, it is still shallow gnosis that cannot weigh against deep gnosis. Answer: The deep transcends both foolishness and gnosis, whereas the shallow still possesses knowing and illuminating; is this not shallow gnosis failing to weigh against deep gnosis? Question: Since fixing the true characteristic is a designation for convergence and union, how does it differ from the old explanation of dark union (minghui)? Answer: The words are the same, but the intent is different. But there are two masters who explain dark union: one says union is precisely dark union: because of correspondence it is dark, and because dark convergence does not diverge it is union, without superiority or inferiority. This is the doctrine of Zhuangyan [Sengmin] and Longguang [Sengbiao]. The second says that union is a designation of correspondence, while darkness is the meaning of blending into one; thus darkness is superior and union is inferior. Why? In the causal stage, there are four conditions, so it is not yet dark: first, delusions are not exhausted; second, its substance has arising and ceasing; third, gnosis is not yet complete and round; fourth, its substance relies on location. Hence it is merely called union. The buddha-fruit is free from these four conditions, which is why darkness is spoken of. Darkness is one with the unborn; thus cognitive object and gnosis are not divided, and there is no distinction between response and illumination. Yet the unborn does not contradict the conventional, and darkness does not obstruct union. The buddha-fruit in its entire substance is dark, and in its entire substance is united: because it is united, its response and illumination fill the ten directions; because it is dark, everything is completely cut off. Now I generally interrogate this: Since darkness is blended into one with the cognitive object, does gnosis become the cognitive object, or does it not become the cognitive object? If it does not become the cognitive object, how can one say they are one? If gnosis becomes the cognitive object, then since the cognitive object has no knowing, gnosis should also have no knowing; if gnosis has knowing, then the cognitive object should also be likewise, because they are one. If one says that because it is equally cut off along with the dharma-nature it is called dark, while union is still different from the dharma-nature, then on the day of union and darkness, one would still see cognitive object and gnosis as two; how then could the sūtra state, "The bodhisattva accords with prajñā, not seeing accordance or non-accordance, union or non-union"? Furthermore, if it only becomes dark by possessing the four conditions, then in the teaching of prajñā the buddha-gnosis would still have arising and ceasing, and could not be called dark. Nor would there be the meaning of equalling the dharma-nature, and hence no meaning of fixing the true characteristic. Question: What is meant by "profoundly deep and exceedingly weighty"? Answer: If something can be weighed, it is not called exceedingly weighty; precisely because it is exceedingly weighty, it cannot be weighed. The treatise author wished to explain the sūtra's meaning of "cannot be weighed," hence he said "weighty." Question: He should simply have said "weighty"; why say "profoundly deep"? Answer: To qualify and explain the meaning of weighty: it is not the weight of a heavy object, but rather profoundly deep, hence he simply said weighty. Question: Having said "exceedingly weighty," why add "most" (ji)? Answer: The three vehicles equally converge with the true characteristic, but the two vehicles are like the hare and the horse, not exhausting its source; therefore they do not obtain the name of prajñā, and are not called profoundly deep and exceedingly weighty. Now, wishing to distinguish them from the two vehicles and clarify that the bodhisattva illuminates its source exhaustively and obtains the name of prajñā, he says "profoundly deep and exceedingly weighty." Question: Why is wisdom said to be "light and shallow"? Answer: The substance of prajñā transcends conditions and contemplation, while the name "wisdom" pertains to contemplation; the substance of prajñā transcends gnosis and folly, while the name "wisdom" pertains to knowing and illuminating; the substance of prajñā transcends names and characters, while "wisdom" still touches upon names and words. Therefore, against the weight of prajñā, the lightness of wisdom is clarified; against the depth of prajñā, the shallowness of wisdom is distinguished—shallow is equivalent to thin. Question: Since the substance of prajñā transcends wisdom, why establish the name "wisdom"? Answer: Not knowing how to designate it, it is forcibly named wisdom. Although the name of wisdom is established, it does not truly weigh against the substance of prajñā. Question: One should simply say that the substance of prajñā is deep and weighty and the name of prajñā is light and shallow, and the substance of wisdom is deep and weighty and the name of wisdom is light and shallow. Why instead say that prajñā is deep and weighty, and wisdom is light and shallow? Answer: Now according to the Sanskrit text, it says the substance of prajñā is deep and weighty, and the name of prajñā is light and shallow. Applying this meaning, one should indeed say the substance of wisdom is deep and weighty and the name of wisdom is light and shallow. Fearing that this meaning would be difficult to show, the translator borrowed the local term "wisdom" (zhihui) as unable to weigh against the Sanskrit prajñā. Question: What is the difference between "cannot be weighed" (bu ke cheng) and "cannot be measured" (bu ke liang)? Answer: The sūtra has five eulogies, saying that it arises for great matters, for matters that cannot be weighed, for matters that cannot be measured, for unequalled matters, and for inconceivable matters. Since there are distinctly matters that are immeasurable and so forth for which it arises, weighing is not measuring. "Cannot be measured" adopts the sense of having no boundaries; "cannot be weighed" clarifies that being profoundly deep, it is supremely weighty. For example, the "Dharmadhvaja Chapter" clarifies that relics cannot weigh against the prajñā sūtra scrolls; now the name and meaning of wisdom cannot weigh against the prajñā that transcends contemplation. Question: The Treatise says, "Because prajñā is much and wisdom is little, it cannot be weighed against." What is meant by much and little? Answer: Previously, "cannot be weighed" was explained in terms of heavy and light; now, "cannot be weighed" is clarified in terms of much and little, meaning the little cannot weigh against the much. But explanations of much and little differ. Someone said: The true characteristic is present in all dharmas, hence it is much; wisdom is confined to the mind, hence it is little. I now say this is incorrect. Previously, "cannot be weighed" was clarified in terms of fixing the true characteristic; now, "cannot be weighed" is clarified in terms of its encompassed meaning. The substance of prajñā is neither folly nor gnosis, yet it can be folly and can be gnosis; wisdom only pertains to gnosis; therefore prajñā is much and wisdom is little. Furthermore, prajñā fixes the true characteristic: since the true characteristic is pervasive, prajñā is also pervasive; wisdom is not like this, hence it is called little. Question: The meanings of translating and not translating prajñā are now understood. What of skillful means? Answer: The "Sadāprarudita Chapter" says: "Upāyakausalya is the Great Master's power of skillful means." Upāya is skillful means; kausalya is named excellent gnosis. The skill of prajñā is named upāya; since its function is superior, it is named excellent gnosis. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa takes skillful means as the father, taking its capacity to generate and bring to fruition; the Dapin takes upāya as the master, clarifying its virtue of instruction and guidance: skillfully transforming living beings and not realizing [the fruits of] the two vehicles are all the power of the Great Master.
4.5
Second, explaining the names. There are again two sections: first, explaining the expedient and the real; second, elucidating the meaning of 'great'.
Speaking generally, both kinds of gnosis illuminate in accord with reality, and so both are called 'real'; both possess skillfulness, and so both are designated 'expedient'.
Speaking specifically, *prajñā* is called real, and *upāya* is designated expedient. In brief, there are eight meanings:
1. *Prajñā* illuminates the cognitive object of the true nature of phenomena (*dharmatā* / real mark); taking its name from what it illuminates, it is therefore called 'real'.
2. *Prajñā* arises from the true nature of phenomena; receiving its name from what produces it, it is therefore called 'real'.
3. Because it illuminates in accord with reality, its intrinsic essence is called 'real'. As the treatise says: '*Prajñāpāramitā* is a real dharma that is not inverted.' Its essence is free from falsehood and is non-inverted wisdom; hence it is called 'real'.
4. In contrast to the inverted and unreal wisdom of ordinary worldlings, *prajñā* is praised as 'real'.
5. In contrast to the two vehicles who deem what is not yet real to be real, *prajñā* is clarified as 'real'.
6. In contrast to the function of expedient means, *prajñā* constitutes the essence; hence it is called 'real'.
7. To clarify the real in contrast to the false is not yet fine reality; neither false nor real is truly termed marvelous reality.
8. False and real constitute duality; neither false nor real constitutes non-duality. Both duality and non-duality are termed unreal; neither duality nor non-duality is truly called 'real'. Therefore, the treatise says: 'When thinking, conceptualizing, and observing have been eliminated, the dharmas of verbal expression also cease.'
'Expedient' (*upāya*) is the name for skillfulness. This meaning has many aspects; here ten pairs are briefly discussed:
1. Directly illuminating emptiness and existence is called *prajñā*; practicing emptiness without actualizing [extinction], and engaging existence without attachment, is called expedient means. This illumination and skillfulness have no two distinct essences: although skillful, it illuminates, and is therefore called real; although illuminating, it is skillful, and is therefore called expedient.
*Question:* If illuminating both emptiness and existence is called real, should not both cognitive objects—emptiness and existence—be entitled to be called ultimate?
*Answer:* The gnoses capable of illuminating are all called real gnosis; the cognitive objects illuminated are likewise called real objects. Within real gnosis, there is gnosis of emptiness and gnosis of existence; within real cognitive objects, there is the ultimate object and the conventional object—this constitutes the distinction.
*Question:* Since there are ultimate and conventional, why are they all called real cognitive objects?
*Answer:* Because they are the cognitive objects of reality-accordant gnosis, they are called real cognitive objects, receiving their name from gnosis. Furthermore, reality is both ultimate and conventional, not falsely so named; by their very essence they are called real.
2. Illuminating emptiness is the real; engaging existence is the expedient. As the *Explanatory Treatise* (*Dazhidulun*) says: '*Prajñā* leads one into ultimate emptiness; expedient means leads one out of ultimate emptiness.' Because emptiness is the true nature of phenomena, it is called real; because *prajñā* illuminates emptiness, it is called real. Although it illuminates emptiness, it can immediately engage existence; since this function is skillful, it is called expedient means.
*Question:* If so, then although it illuminates existence it can immediately perceive emptiness; this function is also skillful, so should it not be expedient means?
*Answer:* Although this illumination is skillful, it takes real gnosis as its essence; therefore its name of 'skillful' is concealed and it is given the designation of 'real'.
3. Inner quiet illumination is the real; outward responsive movement is the expedient.
*Question:* How does this meaning differ from the preceding one?
*Answer:* This clarifies that whether illumination or skillfulness, the meaning of quiet illumination is in all cases called real; because outward responsive movement turns outwards, it is called expedient.
4. *Prajñā* is the real; the five perfections are the expedient. Why is this? *Prajñā* is the understanding of emptiness, and because it is the understanding of emptiness it is called real; the five perfections are the practice of existence, and because they are the practice of existence they are called expedient.
*Question:* How does this differ from the above 'illuminating emptiness is the real, engaging existence is the expedient'?
*Answer:* Previously, illuminating emptiness and illuminating existence were both wisdom; thus expedient and real were distinguished through two types of understanding. Now, the two gates are distinguished according to understanding and practice: understanding of emptiness is the real, and practice of existence is the expedient. This differs from the above.
*Question:* Why is the practice of existence the expedient?
*Answer:* Although it illuminates emptiness, it can immediately initiate practice; since this principle is skillful, it is expedient. Furthermore, emptiness is the true nature of phenomena, while existence is not the true nature of phenomena; therefore understanding of emptiness is real, and practice of existence is expedient.
5. Illuminating emptiness is the real; knowing that emptiness is also empty so that one does not actualize emptiness is called the expedient. Why is this? The two vehicles do not know that emptiness is also empty, and further regard emptiness as the marvelous ultimate; thus it is called 'emptiness that is merely empty', which is why they actualize emptiness. The bodhisattva knows that emptiness is also empty, which is called 'unobtainable emptiness'; hence he does not actualize emptiness and can immediately engage existence, and so it is called expedient. This clarifies that directly knowing the meaning of emptiness is the real, and this real meaning is inferior; knowing that emptiness is also empty enables one to engage existence, and since this function is superior, it is called expedient. However, these two wisdoms have no two separate essences: at first, when the contemplative mind is not yet marvelous, it can only illuminate emptiness; when it becomes ever more refined and skillful, it knows that emptiness is also empty; having known that emptiness is also empty without destroying conventional designations, it can immediately engage existence. Discussed from beginning to end, it is still a single wisdom; expedient and real are differentiated according to whether it is skillful or not yet skillful.
6. Knowing suffering and impermanence is called the real; not seizing upon extinction is called the expedient. Because the body of birth-and-death is truly a dharma of suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and faults, illuminating it in accord with reality is the real. When the two vehicles know this, they immediately wish to extinguish it; hence they lack expedient means. Although the bodhisattva knows this, he maintains his body and dwells amidst illness, practicing for himself and transforming others; hence it is called expedient.
7. Directly knowing that bodily illness is neither old nor new is called the real; not being averse to it or renouncing it is called the expedient. This distinguishes expedient and real solely with respect to the gate of existence.
8. Vimalakīrti leaving his trace in Vaiśālī: his non-ill body is the real, while his trace of manifesting illness is the expedient. This clarifies expedient and real based on the meaning of true and manifested.
9. Illuminating the duality of emptiness and existence as above is the expedient; illuminating non-duality, which is neither empty nor existent, is the real. Neither empty nor existent is precisely the one real truth; illuminating the one real truth is therefore called the real. Although it is neither empty nor existent, emptiness and existence remain distinct; without moving from non-duality, it skillfully operates duality, and hence it is called the expedient.
10. Emptiness and existence constitute duality; neither empty nor existent constitutes non-duality. Illuminating both duality and non-duality is called the expedient; illuminating neither duality nor non-duality is called the real. Vimalakīrti closing his mouth and Śākyamuni shutting his chamber are alone termed the real.
Expedient and real have many gates; here these ten pairs are briefly laid out. They constitute one sequence, and all have sūtras and treatises [as authority]; they may be applied according to the text.
Discussing the meaning of 'great' (*mahā*).
*Question:* Why is *prajñā* called *mahā*, while *upāya* is not called *mahā*?
*Answer:* In general, both can be termed great. As said above: '*Upāyakauśalya*, the great master's power of expedient means.'
Speaking specifically, *prajñā* is called great for ten brief reasons:
1. The true nature of phenomena is vast and boundless, deep and bottomless; not a single dharma lies outside the dharma-nature (*dharmatā*). *Prajñā* illuminates the true nature of phenomena, and is therefore called great wisdom; although *upāya* is skillful, it does not illuminate the true nature of phenomena, and is therefore not called great.
*Question:* The two vehicles also illuminate the true nature of phenomena; why are they not called great?
*Answer:* The two vehicles do not exhaust its limits; the bodhisattva illuminates and reaches its very source and bottom, and is therefore called great.
2. The real gnosis of the three vehicles is entirely born from within *prajñā*. Why is this? Since the true nature of phenomena illuminated is one, the illuminating *prajñā* is non-dual. However, because capacities and dispositions cannot bear it, within the one *prajñā* the wisdom of the three vehicles is differentiated. The wisdom of the three vehicles is subsumed within the contemplation of *prajñā*; hence it is called great.
*Question:* How does *prajñā* give birth to the wisdom of the three vehicles?
*Answer:* Due to the true nature of phenomena, *prajñā* is produced; due to *prajñā*, there are bodhisattvas; due to bodhisattvas, there are buddhas; due to buddhas, there are the three vehicles. That is, taking *prajñā* as the root, it gives birth to the three vehicles; hence it is called great.
*Question:* The three vehicles identically contemplate the true nature of phenomena, so they take the true nature of phenomena as root; how can they take *prajñā* as root?
*Answer:* It is essential that the buddhas and bodhisattvas personally realize *prajñā* and only then preach the teachings of the three vehicles, so that beings can first begin identically contemplating the true nature of phenomena; therefore *prajñā* is the root.
*Question:* If *prajñā* originally produces the three vehicles, it should be the common teaching of the three vehicles.
*Answer:* The *Śrīmālādevīsūtra* states that embracing the true Dharma produces the five vehicles, just as the great earth produces the four treasure troves. The *Nirvāṇasūtra* says: 'It is the śrāvaka treasury that produces śrāvakas, the pratyekabuddha treasury that produces pratyekabuddhas, and the Mahāyāna treasury that produces bodhisattvas.' Could these be the common teaching of the three vehicles? Furthermore, as the *Lotus Sūtra* explains, inside the elder's mansion there are not only the seven treasures, but also earthen pots and the like; yet it is named the elder's great mansion, not the 'common mansion'. *Prajñā* is also like this: although it contains the wisdom of the three vehicles, it is called the bodhisattva dharma, not the common teaching of the three vehicles.
*Question:* If it is not the common teaching of the three vehicles, why are the three vehicles exhorted to contemplate it together?
*Answer:* People of the three vehicles are exhorted to contemplate the *prajñā* of the true nature of phenomena together, but they are not exhorted to study *mahāprajñā* together.
*Question:* Why is *mahāprajñā* not commonly studied by the three vehicles?
*Answer:* The treatise says: '*Prajñā* does not belong to the two vehicles.' Why is this? Since it is called *mahāprajñā*, it is the Mahāyāna, distinguished from the two vehicles; thus we know that *prajñā* is exclusively the bodhisattva dharma. Furthermore, this *prajñā* is called *pāramitā*; *pāramitā* means reaching the other shore of the Buddha path. The two vehicles do not reach the other shore of the Buddha path and are not *pāramitā*; therefore *mahāprajñāpāramitā* is exclusively the bodhisattva dharma and does not belong to the two vehicles.
*Question:* The sūtra merely says: 'Those who wish to attain the state of śrāvaka and so on should study *prajñā*.' Why do you instead say they should study the *prajñā* of the true nature of phenomena?
*Answer:* The *Explanatory Treatise* (*Dazhidulun*) makes this determination; when you search the text, you will naturally see it. Moreover, inferring by principle, it is certainly not that people of the two vehicles are exhorted to study *mahāprajñā*. Since *mahāprajñā* is the bodhisattva's contemplative gnosis, how could the two vehicles be made to study it? As the *Nirvāṇasūtra* says: 'By contemplating with inferior wisdom, one attains śrāvaka bodhi; by contemplating with superior wisdom, one attains bodhisattva bodhi.' This clarifies that the three vehicles identically contemplate the Middle Way; how could it cause inferior wisdom to study superior wisdom?
*Question:* *Mahāprajñā* is exclusively the bodhisattva dharma, yet within the *prajñā* teaching it is said that people of the three vehicles identically contemplate the true nature of phenomena; this is precisely the common teaching of the three vehicles.
*Answer:* If so, when the *Nirvāṇasūtra* says that people of the three vehicles identically contemplate the Middle Way, should that also be the common teaching of the three vehicles?
*Question:* If it is not the common teaching of the three vehicles, why are people of the two vehicles caused to expound it?
*Answer:* When the elder entrusts the wealth, there are two intentions: first, to explicitly instruct the bodhisattvas; second, to secretly instruct the two vehicles. This is intended to bring rest to the three vehicles and unite them in becoming bodhisattvas; how could one call it the common teaching of the three vehicles?
3. *Prajñā* is born from the true nature of phenomena; since the true nature of phenomena has nothing on which it relies, *prajñā* is also without attachment. Because *prajñā* is unattached, it can guide and accomplish all practices, which are also without attachment; therefore it does not abide in the three realms, does not rest midway in the two vehicles, and proceeds straight toward the Buddha path. Having the capacity to guide, it is called great.
*Question:* The five perfections were originally not perfections (*pāramitā*), but because *prajñā* guides them, they are called perfections. Similarly, the five perfections were originally without eyes, but because *prajñā* guides them, they should come to have eyes.
*Answer:* In general terms they are analogous, but in specific terms they are not equivalent. Just as five blind persons, following someone with eyes, go along the road and enter the city, thereby attaining the name of having crossed over, yet the intrinsic nature of the blind is ultimately still without eyes; so too, although the five perfections follow *prajñā* along the Eightfold Noble Path to the city of the Buddha path, the intrinsic nature of the five perfections is ultimately not *prajñā*. Therefore, the distinction between the two adornments of merit and wisdom is revealed here.
*Question:* The *Diamond Prajñā* says: 'A bodhisattva who gives without abiding in characteristics is like the light of the sun shining, seeing various colors.' How can it be that *prajñā* guiding the five perfections does not constitute eyes?
*Answer:* Originally, *prajñā* constitutes the eyes, while the five perfections are not eyes. It is only that *prajñā* guides them to become non-attainment, so that they do not abide in the three realms, do not fall into the two vehicles, and proceed toward the Buddha path; for this reason they are called eyes, but it is not that they become the eyes of *prajñā*.
*Question:* If non-attainment serves as the eyes among all practices, non-attainment should also serve as wisdom. How then can the two adornments of merit and wisdom be distinguished?
*Answer:* Non-attainment is general; merit and wisdom are specific. If non-attainment is taken as wisdom, there is also this meaning, but it is not the wisdom of *prajñā*. Why? *Prajñā* possesses non-attainment and also possesses illumination; the five perfections only possess non-attainment and do not possess illumination, and therefore are not called wisdom.
4. The fifty-two stages of great worthy and noble ones are encompassed within the contemplation of *prajñā*; hence it is called great. Why is this? Now there is solely one *prajñā*, but because clarity and dimness differ, it is divided into fifty-two stages.
5. Cultivating this great wisdom for three great incalculable eons (*asaṃkhyeyakalpa*), it is therefore called great.
6. It can sever great delusion, namely fundamental ignorance (*avidyā*); therefore the sūtra says: 'The entrenchment of ignorance possesses the greatest power.' Although the two vehicles overturn the four entrenchments, they cannot sever it; only when the bodhisattva illuminates and exhausts the true nature of phenomena is this great delusion eliminated; hence it is called great.
7. Uprooting all great suffering inside and outside the three realms, it is therefore called great.
8. Being the dharma practiced by all great bodhisattvas, it is therefore called great.
9. Being the most supreme and unsurpassed among all practices, it is therefore called great.
10. Believing in it brings great merit, while slandering it incurs great guilt; therefore it is called great.
These ten meanings either pertain specifically to *prajñā* or apply generally to both wisdoms; they may be matched according to their sense.
*Question:* Is *prajñā* called great in dependence on what is small, or is it called great without depending on what is small?
*Answer:* It possesses both meanings. First, it is called great in dependence on the small wisdom of the two vehicles.
*Question:* The two vehicles have small wisdom and the bodhisattva has great wisdom; the two vehicles have small *prajñā* and the bodhisattva has great *prajñā*—why is it said that *prajñā* does not belong to the two vehicles, and that in the minds of the two vehicles it is named the factors of enlightenment (*bodhipakṣa-dharmas*)?
*Answer:* Lecturers do not understand this purport and are fond of clinging to these words. When the treatise says '*prajñā* does not belong to the two vehicles', this refers to *mahāprajñā*, the bodhisattva's great wisdom, which therefore does not belong to the two vehicles; it does not mean that people of the two vehicles lack wisdom of emptiness.
Regarding being called great without depending on the small: the intrinsic nature of *prajñā* is great; hence it is said to be non-dependent. It is unlike the wisdom of the two vehicles, which is great when compared to worldlings, but small when viewed against the bodhisattva.
*Question:* The bodhisattva is great when compared to the two vehicles, but when viewed against the Buddha, *prajñā* is small, which is why in the Buddha's mind it transforms its name to *sarvajñā*; how can you say its intrinsic nature is great?
*Answer:* *Prajñā* is the culmination in the causal stage, its efficacy residing in the ten stages (*bhūmi*); hence it is called great, not in comparison with the Buddha. Furthermore, *prajñā* spans cause and effect; the *prajñā* of the fruition stage is supreme and unsurpassed, so its intrinsic nature is great. As Master Kumārajīva said: '*Sarvajñā* is simply the elder *prajñā*.'
Furthermore, regarding the absolute (*mukta-sāpekṣa* / beyond opposition) great: attaining greatness in relation to the small, although transcending the small, does not yet transcend the great; because it falls within names and words, it is not fine greatness. Only when both great and small are mutually transcended is it fine greatness.
*Question:* What text proves this?
*Answer:* The title says *Mahāprajñā*; *prajñā* is so deep and momentous that 'wisdom' does not fully name it, and *mahā* is so deep and momentous that 'great' does not fully name it—this is its proof. Furthermore, the 'Illumination Chapter' says: 'Not making great or small is called *mahā*'; this is another fine proof.
*Question:* If both great and small are mutually transcended, and now praising what is neither great nor small as 'great' still depends on the small, how can it be called absolute?
*Answer:* This greatness transcends small and transcends great, and therefore is called absolute.
*Question:* Calling what transcends great and transcends small 'great' means that depending on great and depending on small are both called small; this is still the relativity of great and small—how can there be an absolute great?
*Answer:* Looking toward what precedes, it is absolute; looking toward what follows, it is relative; the principles do not contradict each other.
*Question:* How does the greatness of *prajñā* differ from the greatness of *nirvāṇa*?
*Answer:* Speaking generally, there is no difference. Therefore the treatise says: 'If one contemplates the Buddha, *prajñā*, and *nirvāṇa* in accord with the Dharma, these three are of a single characteristic. The illumination of *nirvāṇa* is precisely *prajñā*; the extinction of *prajñā* is precisely *nirvāṇa*. When no affliction remains unexhausted in *nirvāṇa*, it is called liberation; when no cognitive object is unilluminated, it is called *prajñā*; the ultimate reality that can serve as a model is called dharmakāya. Therefore possessing the three virtues, it is called *nirvāṇa*.' *Prajñā* is precisely *nirvāṇa*, and therefore also possesses the three virtues. *Prajñā* is merely wisdom, and since it is designated specific, *nirvāṇa* is also merely fruition, and fruition is likewise specific.
*Question:* *Prajñā* is one virtue among the three virtues of *nirvāṇa*; should *nirvāṇa* likewise be one virtue among the three virtues of *prajñā*?
*Answer:* It can also be treated as analogous. Because the specific nature of *prajñā* constitutes *nirvāṇa*, one also takes the specific nature of *nirvāṇa* to constitute *prajñā*. The specific nature of *prajñā* is wisdom; the specific nature of *nirvāṇa* is extinction and crossing over. Therefore the fruition-virtue of *nirvāṇa* and the *prajñā* of the Buddha stage both possess the general and the specific.
*Question:* Sūtras speak of the three virtues constituting *nirvāṇa*; why do they not speak of the three virtues constituting *prajñā*?
*Answer:* Whichever single virtue is raised, it subsumes [the others]; why should it be lacking? It is simply that the emergence of teachings each has its own occasion. The *nirvāṇa* teaching arose precisely to refute the Hinayana extinction into ash for lacking the three virtues, and to praise the Great Nirvāṇa as possessing all three; the *prajñā* teaching arose precisely to clarify causal practice, to refute the two vehicles for lacking the two wisdoms, and to distinguish the bodhisattva as possessing both expedient and real.
*Question:* Why does *nirvāṇa* pertain to fruition, while *prajñā* pertains to cause?
*Answer:* *Nirvāṇa* is called extinction and crossing over; extinction and crossing over means that great afflictions are eternally extinguished and one crosses beyond the four currents. This name is necessarily ultimate, and therefore pertains to the fruition gate. *Prajñā* is called wisdom; wisdom is not yet definitively settled, and is suitably treated with respect to cause.
4.6.1
The third [section], Explaining the Paths. Question: The Treatise states: "A bodhisattva has two paths: first, the path of wisdom; second, the path of expedient means." What are these two paths? Answer: Some say that the path of wisdom is wisdom as true mark, and the path of expedient means is wisdom as expedient means. This is not so. In general classification, the two paths may be distinguished in three ways: First, following the Sanskrit completely, one should say the path of prajñā and the path of upāya. Second, opening both in Chinese, one should say the path of wisdom and the path of expedient means. Third, combining the two, as explained in the treatise: "wisdom" follows the Sanskrit term, while "expedient means" preserves the Chinese word. Now, if one speaks of "wisdom as true mark" and "wisdom as expedient means," both are termed "wisdom," so the two paths would not be differentiated. Moreover, wisdom as true mark is an object, and wisdom as expedient means is gnosis; how could object and gnosis be treated as the two paths? If one says that wisdom as true mark is real wisdom and wisdom as expedient means is expedient wisdom, taking these to be the two paths, this also is not so. The treatise says, "Prajñā and upāya are the two paths." How could both be called prajñā? If so, both paths should also be called expedient means. Furthermore, the establishment of the three wisdoms is discussed entirely within the path of wisdom: first, wisdom as true mark; second, wisdom as contemplation; third, wisdom as written letters. The true mark can produce wisdom; hence it is called wisdom. Written letters can express wisdom, taking their name from what is expressed; hence they are also called wisdom. Third, wisdom as contemplation, in its intrinsic reality, is called wisdom. Question: Why are only these three established, neither more nor less? Answer: There are three meanings: the true mark is the object capable of producing, contemplation is the gnosis produced, and written letters are the text capable of expressing. One must have these three, neither increased nor decreased. Again, combining these three produces three pairs: the true mark is the object, and contemplation is the gnosis—this is the pair of object and gnosis. Object and gnosis are what is expressed, and written letters are what can reveal them—this is the pair of what reveals and what is revealed. Object and gnosis pertain to one's own practice, while written letters exist for the sake of explaining to sentient beings—this is the pair of one's own practice and transforming others. Second, the true mark is unconditioned wisdom, and contemplation is conditioned wisdom. Why so? The treatise says: "The true mark of all phenomena is that mental activity and speech are severed, unborn and unceasing, quiescent like nirvāṇa." Since the true mark is devoid of arising and ceasing, it is unconditioned wisdom. The true mark can produce contemplative gnosis, and contemplative gnosis is newly arisen; hence it is called conditioned wisdom. In all things there are only these two; that which expresses this conditioned and unconditioned is called wisdom as written letters. Written letters take their name from what they express and encompass both conditioned and unconditioned; considered in their own intrinsic reality, they are subsumed under the conditioned. Third, the true mark is unconditioned wisdom, written letters are conditioned wisdom, and contemplation is both conditioned and unconditioned. Since the bodhisattva's burdens are not yet exhausted, they have not yet escaped arising and ceasing; hence it is called conditioned. The Buddha has no affliction that is not purified, and has no further arising or ceasing; hence it is unconditioned wisdom. Question: Why is there arising and ceasing when there are afflictions? Answer: Because there are afflictions, one cannot comprehend that there is fundamentally no arising and ceasing; hence there is arising and ceasing. If there are no afflictions, one comprehends that the contemplative mind is fundamentally unborn, which is the unconditioned; this does not mean that by transforming conditioned wisdom it becomes unconditioned. These three approaches totally subsume object and gnosis, conditioned and unconditioned, principle and teaching, cause and fruit; therefore only three are established. Question: Can the true mark also be real wisdom, and contemplation be expedient means? Answer: If one takes buddha-nature to be the true mark, fundamentally possessed from the beginning, it is called real wisdom; contemplation, which newly arises through cultivation and practice, is called expedient means. This does not mean that illuminating the existent is expedient means and illuminating emptiness is real. Whether provisional or real, whatever has the meaning of newly arising is called expedient means, and the meaning of fundamentally possessing buddha-nature as awakening illumination is called real. The Daśabhūmika masters hold that wisdom through true cultivation is fundamentally possessed, whereas wisdom through conditioned cultivation newly arises through practice. The same applies to naturally pure nirvāṇa and expedient nirvāṇa; this is still the old theory of root and beginning. Question: How does this differ from the present view? Answer: The fundamental nature being pure is called "fundamentally possessed," and newly awakening to this fundamental purity in accordance with conditions is merely called "newly possessed." However, the correct path has never had root or beginning, nor is it defiled or pure. Furthermore, in the old traditions, conditioned and unconditioned are definitively two; we now clarify that before attaining bodhi, the unconditioned becomes the conditioned; when one attains bodhi, the conditioned becomes the unconditioned. How could there be an unconditioned separate from the conditioned? It is as explained earlier. The same applies to conditioned and unconditioned: all phenomena are called unconditioned because their fundamental nature is pure, and they are called conditioned because one has not yet awakened to fundamental non-arising and non-ceasing; yet wisdom has never been conditioned or unconditioned. Question: Since the path of wisdom is divided into three, does the path of expedient means also have three? Answer: Generally speaking, it also has them: namely, object, gnosis, and written letters. However, real wisdom takes its name from the object, so one must differentiate the object; expedient means receives its designation from skillfulness, so one need not differentiate the object; and written letters apply to both paths. Nevertheless, although expedient means does not take its name from the object, it actually illuminates the cognitive object of conventional truth, so it also possesses the three. Since contemplation is both conditioned and unconditioned, expedient means is also like this. The Tathāgata's two gnoses are unconditioned, whereas the bodhisattva's two paths are still conditioned. Question: Is wisdom as true mark only the cognitive object? Or can it also be gnosis? Answer: Some say that wisdom as true mark is only the name of an object. Fascicle forty-three of the Treatise states: "Question: Previously you explained wisdom as prajñā; why do you now speak of emptiness as prajñā? Answer: The cause is spoken of within the fruit, as when one speaks of 'eating cloth.'" This meaning should be speaking of the fruit within the cause; yet it says "speaking of the cause within the fruit" because, investigating backwards to clarify the meaning, wisdom is properly prajñā. The true mark can produce wisdom, so wisdom is the fruit of the true mark; yet speaking of the true mark as prajñā in relation to wisdom is why it says "speaking of the cause within the fruit." Both North and South agree on this explanation. Some say that the Buddha has three kinds: first, the dharmakāya; second, the saṃbhogakāya; and third, the nirmāṇakāya Buddha. The true mark is the dharmakāya Buddha; because the true mark can serve as a model, it is called dharma. This dharma has an essence, so it is called a body. Yet the true mark is not the Buddha; because it can produce the Buddha, it is called Buddha. Second, the saṃbhogakāya Buddha: through practice, one accords with the principle of the true mark. Since the true mark is eternal, the saṃbhoga Buddha is also eternal; because the Dharma is eternal, all Buddhas are also eternal. Third, the transformed Buddha, which is the function of responding to beings. This is the explanation of the northern masters of the treatises. Some say: cultivating emptiness and signlessness, completely penetrating the principle, with mind, thought, and consciousness extinguished and afflictions purified—this unconditioned wisdom is precisely the true mark. If there are active cognitive objects and one has not yet escaped arising and ceasing, this constitutes the bodhisattva's six perfections, attaining the distinctions of the ten grounds, which is called conditioned wisdom.
First 6 of 21 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 大乘玄論 — Classical Chinese