大乘玄論 4.6.1

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.