大乘玄論 4.7

4.7

Section 4: Treatise on cognitive object and gnosis. Now, gnosis does not arise in isolation; it necessarily arises from a cognitive object. Therefore, the cognitive object is the root of gnosis. A cognitive object does not stand independently; it receives its designation due to gnosis. Therefore, gnosis is the root of the cognitive object. For this reason, without a cognitive object there is no way to give rise to gnosis; without gnosis there is no way to illuminate a cognitive object. Since without a cognitive object there is no way to give rise to gnosis, the cognitive object is the agent of generation and gnosis is what is generated. Since without gnosis there is no way to illuminate a cognitive object, gnosis is the agent of illumination and the cognitive object is what is illuminated. That the cognitive object is the agent of generation and is illuminated by gnosis means that the cognitive object can be the object of gnosis; that gnosis is the agent of illumination and is generated by the cognitive object means that gnosis can be the object of the cognitive object. The cognitive object's being illuminated can generate gnosis, so the cognitive object's objectivity is gnosis's agency; gnosis's being generated can illuminate the cognitive object, so gnosis's objectivity is the cognitive object's agency. One cannot say that the cognitive object is prior and gnosis is posterior, nor that gnosis is prior and the cognitive object is posterior, nor that they are simultaneous; they can only be called cognitive object and gnosis through dependent co-arising.

Question: Taking what as the cognitive object can generate gnosis?

Answer: The Tathāgata constantly teaches the Dharma relying on the two truths; therefore, the two truths are called the teaching. Because they can generate the two gnoses, the two truths are called cognitive objects. Dharma Master Tanying of the Guanzhong region, in his *Commentary on the Madhyamakaśāstra*, directly received the oral instructions of Kumārajīva. Kumārajīva said, "The ones to transmit my undertaking are entrusted to Daorong, Tanying, and Sengrui!" Master Ying's preface on the two truths states:

"Due to ultimate truth there is no existence; due to conventional truth there is no non-existence. Being ultimate, there is no existence; yet though non-existent, it exists. Being conventional, there is no non-existence; yet though existent, it is non-existent. Though non-existent, it exists, so one is not stagnant in non-existence. Though existent, it is non-existent, so one is not burdened by existence. Not being stagnant in non-existence, views of annihilation and non-existence are extinguished. Not being burdened by existence, eternalistic clinging melts like ice. Quieting these extremes is therefore called the Middle."

Examining this meaning: "Being ultimate, there is no existence; yet though non-existent, it exists" is precisely establishing all phenomena without stirring from the true limit. "Being conventional, there is no non-existence; yet though existent, it is non-existent" is precisely expounding the real mark without destroying conventional designations. By expounding the real mark without destroying conventional designations, although called conventional designations, they are distinctly the real mark. By establishing all phenomena without stirring from the true limit, although called the true limit, it is distinctly all phenomena. Because the true limit is distinctly all phenomena, one is not stagnant in non-existence. Because all phenomena are distinctly the real mark, one is not burdened by existence. Not burdened by existence, it is not eternal; not stagnant in non-existence, it is not annihilated. This is the Middle Way.

From these two truths, the two gnoses are generated: because one understands the real mark of all phenomena, skillful means [that is] prajñā is generated; because one awakens to all phenomena as the real mark, prajñā [that is] skillful means is generated. Skillful means [that is] prajñā is distinctly skillful means; prajñā [that is] skillful means is distinctly prajñā. Because skillful means is distinctly prajñā, one does not cling to existence; because prajñā is distinctly skillful means, one is not stagnant in non-existence. Not being burdened by existence, eternalistic clinging melts like ice; not being stagnant in non-existence, views of annihilation and non-existence are extinguished. Quieting these extremes is therefore called the contemplation of the Middle. Therefore, the two truths as the Middle Way in turn generate the contemplation of the Middle as the two gnoses; the contemplation of the Middle as the two gnoses in turn illuminates the two truths as the Middle Way. Hence the cognitive object corresponds to gnosis, and gnosis corresponds to the cognitive object: the cognitive object is called the cognitive object of gnosis, and gnosis is called the gnosis of the cognitive object. Once the two cognitive objects are properly clarified, the meaning of the two gnoses is clarified; therefore one must determine gnosis with reference to the cognitive object. That the [practitioners of the] two vehicles do not attain the two gnoses is truly because they do not see these two truths; that they do not attain correct contemplation is also because they do not see that the two truths are precisely the Middle Way.

Question: If prajñā illuminates the real mark of all phenomena and skillful means illuminates all phenomena as the real mark, then prajñā does not illuminate all phenomena and skillful means does not illuminate the real mark. Would this not restrict the noble mind and forfeit its unhindered, subtle function?

Answer: Prajñā is the essence of skillful means, and skillful means is the function of prajñā. The essence discerns the real mark, and the function illuminates all phenomena. Therefore, opening these two gates, gnosis is completely round and illumination is entirely exhaustive. If they both illuminated the real mark together and jointly discerned all phenomena, then the two cognitive objects would not be distinguished, and the two wisdoms would oversee each other.

Question: The old explanations also say this; how does it differ from the present [view]?

Answer: It is not that the essence of prajñā cannot illuminate all phenomena; it is simply that since function already illuminates them, it does not trouble prajñā to illuminate them. If the function already illuminates all phenomena and the essence also illuminates them, then there would be two illuminations of a single cognitive object, and likewise one gnosis should arise from two cognitive objects; therefore the two wisdoms do not illuminate simultaneously. In the old meaning, prajñā could not illuminate all phenomena, and skillful means could not illuminate the real mark; although contemplating together, the functions of gnosis were constantly separate. This was precisely to confine the noble mind and cling rigidly to dual views.

Question: Previously it was said that prajñā does not cling to existence and skillful means does not realize emptiness; why later is it also said that skillful means engages existence without clinging, and prajñā discerns emptiness without stagnation?

Answer: Not clinging to emptiness generally has two meanings: first, prajñā illuminates the real mark, and since the real mark has nothing to rely upon, prajñā also has no clinging—this is the power of prajñā. Second, not realizing emptiness is called not clinging—this is the power of skillful means. Not clinging to existence also possesses two meanings: first, prajñā enters emptiness, so it does not cling to existence; second, skillful means is guided by prajñā, so it can engage existence without clinging—this is also the power of prajñā. Therefore, the sūtra also says, "Prajñā does not cling to emptiness; skillful means does not cling to existence." Or it says, "Prajñā does not cling to existence; skillful means does not realize emptiness." Each raises one gate, and their meanings do not contradict each other.

Question: If prajñā illuminates emptiness and skillful means discerns existence, then both gnoses illuminate; why is it said that prajñā has no knowing?

Answer: Although prajñā knows, it has nothing known; although it has nothing known, there is nothing it does not know.

Question: Prajñā knows the real mark, so it is said to have no knowing. Is it also because it knows prajñā that it is said to have no knowing?

Answer: Since the two gnoses are distinguished with reference to the two cognitive objects, it is because prajñā knows the real mark that it is said to have no knowing. One cannot say that because it knows prajñā it has no knowing; if it knows prajñā, that is skillful means.

Question: When prajñā tallies with the real mark, internal and external are both obscure, and the object and contemplation are both silent. When skillful means illuminates the conventional, how can it know this prajñā?

Answer: Prajñā knows through non-knowing, and is known by skillful means. Knowing yet having no knowing, it is not known by skillful means.

Question: Prajñā knows through non-knowing and has no knowing while knowing; can skillful means also be like this?

Answer: Pointing to the real as the provisional, pointing to the provisional as the real, the provisional and the real are non-dual, so it can also be like this. Non-dual yet dual, knowing through non-knowing is called skillful means, and having no knowing while knowing is called prajñā.

Question: Prajñā illuminates emptiness and possesses both knowing and non-knowing; why is skillful means discerning existence not like this?

Answer: Dual yet non-dual, both possess both. Non-dual yet dual, the cognitive object known by prajñā is empty, while the gnosis that can know is existent; therefore it possesses both knowing and non-knowing. But for skillful means, both the knower and the known, cognitive object and gnosis, are existent. Therefore prajñā has knowing and has non-knowing, while skillful means only has knowing.

Question: How does prajñā possess both knowing and non-knowing?

Answer: When prajñā knows the real mark, object and contemplation are both silent; therefore it is non-knowing. Yet cognitive object and gnosis are distinct, so it does not lose knowing. This is knowing through non-knowing, and knowing is non-knowing.

Question: If so, how does this differ from Kaishan's 'supreme oblivion while being ever preserved'?

Answer: His meaning of 'being ever preserved' is ultimately not 'supreme oblivion'; his meaning of 'supreme oblivion' is ultimately not 'being ever preserved'. Now, taking 'being ever preserved' as 'supreme oblivion', and 'supreme oblivion' as 'being ever preserved'—hence it is different.

Question: The old meaning was also like this; how does it differ from the present [view]?

Answer: At the time of their 'supreme oblivion', gnosis ultimately does not become the cognitive object, and the cognitive object ultimately does not become gnosis; thus these are the two views of cognitive object and gnosis. If gnosis is precisely the cognitive object, then since the cognitive object has no knowing, gnosis should also be like that. If the cognitive object is precisely gnosis, then since in gnosis there is illumination, the cognitive object should also be like that.

Now, regarding this single gate, we briefly set forth the pivot of the Mahāyāna and the profound storehouse of contemplative practice. A sūtra says: "Greedy desire is precisely the Way; anger and delusion are also like this. Within these three phenomena are the immeasurable ways of all buddhas." That greedy desire is precisely the Way means that greedy desire is originally quiet extinction and inherently pure in its own nature—it is precisely the real mark. Awakening to it like this is called prajñā. How could the cognitive object of the real mark be different from the contemplation of prajñā? Therefore cognitive object and gnosis are non-dual. Illuminating that although greedy desire is originally quiet extinction, yet for sentient beings greedy desire distinctly exists—this is called skillful means. Feeling sorrow that they take non-desire to be desire, and wishing to pull them out of it—this skillful means is called great compassion. Wishing to make them awaken to the non-desire of desire and giving them the bliss of non-desire—this great compassion is again called benevolence. Thus a single phrase of contemplative practice possesses the two gates of cognitive object and gnosis, and the two contemplations of benevolence and compassion. Initially having faith in this Dharma is called the ten faiths; next understanding this Dharma is called the ten understandings; up to realizing, awakening, and completely penetrating it, which is called the Buddha mind. How could all the buddha ways not be fully present within the single contemplation of greed?

Next, we discuss the two sūtras.

Question: The *Pañcaviṃśati* clarifies that the unborn and unextinguished real mark can generate prajñā; the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* states that the unborn and unextinguished twelve links of dependent origination generate contemplative gnosis. Both sūtras equally explain cognitive object and gnosis; what difference is there?

Answer: We briefly clarify four propositions: 1. Opening cause and effect, opening cognitive object and gnosis; 2. Combining cause and effect, combining cognitive object and gnosis; 3. Opening cause and effect, combining cognitive object and gnosis; 4. Opening cognitive object and gnosis, combining cause and effect.

As for opening cause and effect and opening cognitive object and gnosis: in what is clarified by prajñā, in the cause there is wisdom of the path and wisdom of the aspects of the path, and in the result there is all-knowledge and knowledge of all aspects—this is called opening cause and effect. The real mark can generate prajñā, being the cognitive object of real gnosis; conventional truth can generate skillful means, being the cognitive object of provisional gnosis—this is called opening cognitive object and gnosis.

Next, combining cause and effect and combining cognitive object and gnosis: like the meaning of the five natures in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*: 1. causal nature, 2. cause-of-cause nature, 3. fruition nature, 4. fruition-of-fruition nature, 5. neither-cause-nor-fruition nature. These five natures have no distinct substance. The twelve links of dependent origination, in their sense of being able to generate, are called the cognitive object; in their sense of being generated, they are called contemplative gnosis. Because contemplative gnosis is clear, it is called bodhi; bodhi without burden is precisely the fruition of fruition. However, the twelve links of dependent origination are inherently pure, never having been cause or effect, nor cognitive object or gnosis; therefore they are called neither cause nor fruition. Since these five natures have no distinct substance, the cognitive object is transformed into gnosis, and the cause is turned into the fruition. Such cause and effect have never been cause and effect; therefore this is called combining cause and effect and combining cognitive object and gnosis.

Third, combining cause and effect and opening cognitive object and gnosis: also like the *Pañcaviṃśati* taking prajñā as cause and sarvajñā as fruition. Cause and effect have no distinct substance; the cause of prajñā is transformed into the fruition of sarvajñā. Hence Kumārajīva said, "Sarvajñā is simply old prajñā." This is called combining cause and effect. As for opening cognitive object and gnosis: although the real mark can generate prajñā, it does not transform the cognitive object of the real mark into prajñā, nor does it transform the cognitive object of conventional truth into the gnosis of skillful means; therefore it is called opening cognitive object and gnosis.

Next, opening cause and effect and combining cognitive object and gnosis: also like the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* transforming the cognitive object into gnosis, which is called combining cognitive object and gnosis; yet it has cause and cause-of-cause, fruition and fruition-of-fruition, which is called opening cause and effect.

Question: Since it transforms the cognitive object into gnosis and also turns cause into fruition, it should be that cognitive object and gnosis are both combined.

Answer: The sūtra opens cause and cause-of-cause, fruition and fruition-of-fruition, so it is said to open cause and effect. But taking cognitive object and gnosis together as the name 'cause-of-cause', submerging the designations 'cognitive object' and 'gnosis', it is said to combine cognitive object and gnosis.

Question: Why do the two sūtras differ in opening and combining?

Answer: The *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* distinguishes the meaning of cognitive object and gnosis with reference to the twelve links of dependent origination, intending to clarify that sentient beings all have buddha-nature. Sentient beings are precisely the twelve links of dependent origination: that dependent origination can generate is the cognitive object; that which is generated is gnosis. There are no two distinct substances, so it clarifies combining cognitive object and gnosis. The *Pañcaviṃśati* distinguishes that the real mark generates prajñā: that which can generate is unconditioned prajñā, and that which is generated is conditioned contemplative gnosis; hence it does not transform unconditioned prajñā into conditioned prajñā, so it opens cognitive object and gnosis. These are all non-dual yet dual, hence the two sūtras differ; if dual yet non-dual, there is no difference at all.