大乘玄論 4.5

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.