大乘玄論 4.4

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.