止觀輔行傳弘決 8.17

8.17

次明三十六句般若等者，雖因涅槃，準論問起。答者，此中亦是即同而異，屬般若德也。言「生」等者，此準《大品．照明品》中「舍利弗問佛：『云何應般若波羅蜜？』佛言：『色不生，般若生。乃至一切種智不生，般若生。』」雖歷諸法，但成一句。今準此句，開為三十六句也。經從色心以至種智，為攝經意，不可委歷但云諸法。諸法既遠，般若通深，故約三智以釋般若，亦約三諦以釋諸法。若作與前名異義同，諸法秖是煩惱，般若秖是涅槃，涅槃從斷、般若從智。智斷雖殊，共破諸法，故得稱為名異義同。且從智斷不同義邊，復名為別。又此般若諸法一十六句，各攝前來兩處三十六句，此乃句句從圓說也。若從次第，即如前明煩惱涅槃出入，先約藏通入空出假，義兼圓別攝在衍門。依此則應諸法諸智生不生等俱通四教，是故前文三十六句，次因料簡方復別出別圓之相。今般若中即對三智三境，則一切智中已含析體，餘之二智即是假中，三智宛然不須重問，是故則無料簡之文。又前名煩惱及以涅槃而論出入，宜且先約前兩教以明。今云般若，般若本通，是故即約三智俱釋。又前煩惱，一向約於顯露定教，是故但論斷與不斷、入空出假。今般若中乃以顯露不定對說，故有境智對發不同。根本開合，準前可知。於中先明互發一十六句，次明互照一十六句。所言「發」者，發有二義：一約不思議中不別而別以論相發。發智既爾，照境亦然。又若境互發智，可論宿習。若智互照境，則有二義：若轉智互照不論發習、若逐境互照亦是發習。又若空假二智互照兩境，則通通別，義亦通於三藏菩薩；中智照二惟在別圓，義亦通於圓別接通。若立中名無中體者，亦通通教八地及三藏佛，唯不通於空假照中，照中但在別圓及接四處故也。又若從別說，二乘猶可互照真俗，三藏菩薩至菩提樹方乃照真，是故應以諸教諸位、諦智高下、觀實有無、若次不次、斷位伏位、上中下根，若單若複以立境智自在說之。義有通別，故須遍說。若得此意，例釋諸句諸義可從。總此諸文互發互照，大括文旨及以開權，秖是妙智及以妙境相照相發，成於圓教十法成乘，是故得是十法異名。般若既然，涅槃及身亦復如是，不復委明甚有深致。

Next, regarding the explanation of the thirty-six phrases of prajñā and so forth: although occasioned by nirvāṇa, it is raised as a question and answer in accordance with the treatise (*Dazhidulun*). As for the response, here it is also identical yet distinct, belonging to the virtue of prajñā. Regarding 'arising' and so forth: this is based on the 'Illumination Chapter' in the *Dapin*, where Śāriputra asked the Buddha, 'How does one correspond with the prajñāpāramitā?' The Buddha said, 'Form does not arise, prajñā arises. Up to: all-modes knowledge does not arise, prajñā arises.' Although it ranges through all phenomena, it forms only a single phrase. Now, based on this phrase, it is expanded into thirty-six phrases. The sūtra ranges from form and mind up to all-modes knowledge; to encompass the sūtra's purport, one cannot traverse them in detail, so it simply says 'all phenomena.' Since all phenomena are vast and prajñā is thoroughly profound, prajñā is explained in terms of the three wisdoms, and all phenomena are also explained in terms of the three truths. If one takes them as having different names but the same meaning: all phenomena are simply defilement, and prajñā is simply nirvāṇa; nirvāṇa derives from cessation, while prajñā derives from wisdom. Although wisdom and cessation are different, they together destroy all phenomena; hence they can be called 'different in name, identical in meaning.' Taking it provisionally from the side of the different meanings of wisdom and cessation, they are also called distinct. Furthermore, these sixteen phrases of prajñā and all phenomena each encompass the thirty-six phrases of the previous two places; this means that phrase by phrase they are explained from [the perspective of] the perfect [teaching]. If taken according to sequence, it is just like the previous explanation of the emergence and entering of defilements and nirvāṇa: first, entering emptiness and emerging into provisionality are explained in terms of the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings], with their sense also encompassing the perfect and distinctive [teachings] as subsumed within the Mahāyāna gate. According to this, then, all phenomena and all wisdoms, arising and non-arising and so on, would all pervade the four teachings; this is why in the preceding text on the thirty-six phrases, only subsequent to the distinguishing catechism were the characteristics of the distinctive and perfect [teachings] separately brought forth. Now, in [this section on] prajñā, it is immediately correlated with the three wisdoms and three objects: then all-knowledge already contains analysis and bodily awareness, and the remaining two wisdoms are simply provisionality and the middle; with the three wisdoms clearly distinct, there is no need to question them again, and for this reason there is no text of distinguishing catechism. Furthermore, previously, when discussing emergence and entering under the names of defilement and nirvāṇa, it was appropriate to explain them first in terms of the former two teachings. Now, speaking of prajñā, prajñā is inherently pervasive; therefore, it is explained directly in terms of all three wisdoms together. Furthermore, previously, defilement was consistently treated in terms of the explicit and determinate teaching; therefore, it only discussed severing and not severing, entering emptiness and emerging into provisionality. Now, in [this section on] prajñā, it is instead explained by contrasting the explicit with the indeterminate; hence there is the difference of object and wisdom mutually manifesting. The fundamental expansion and combination can be understood by following the preceding pattern. Within this, it first explains the sixteen phrases of mutual manifestation, and next explains the sixteen phrases of mutual illumination. Regarding 'manifesting': manifesting has two meanings. First, in terms of the distinct within the non-distinct in the inconceivable, mutual manifestation is discussed. Just as the manifestation of wisdom is such, the illumination of the object is also like this. Furthermore, if the object mutually manifests wisdom, past habituation may be discussed. If wisdom mutually illumines the object, there are two meanings: if shifted wisdom mutually illumines, one does not discuss manifesting habituation; if it mutually illumines following the object, that is also manifesting habituation. Furthermore, if the two wisdoms of emptiness and provisionality mutually illumine both objects, this pervades the shared and distinctive [teachings], and its meaning also extends to the bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka [teaching]; the middle wisdom illumining both is found only in the distinctive and perfect [teachings], and its meaning also extends to the perfect and distinctive [teachings] receiving the shared [teaching]. If one posits the name of the middle without the substance of the middle, it also extends to the eighth stage of the shared teaching and the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka [teaching]; it merely does not extend to emptiness and provisionality illumining the middle, because illumining the middle is only found in the four places: the distinctive, the perfect, and the two receptions [of the shared teaching]. Furthermore, if explained from [the standpoint of] the distinctive [teaching], the two vehicles can still mutually illumine the true and the conventional, while the bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka [teaching] illumine the true only upon reaching the bodhi tree; therefore, one should establish object and wisdom and explain them freely according to the various teachings and stages, the height and depth of truths and wisdoms, the presence or absence of the contemplation of reality, whether sequential or non-sequential, stages of severance or stages of suppression, superior, middling, or inferior faculties, and whether single or compound. Because the meaning has both shared and distinctive aspects, it must be explained comprehensively. If one grasps this idea, the explanations of the various phrases can be followed analogously. Summarizing all these passages on mutual manifestation and mutual illumination, the broad scope of the textual import as well as the opening of the provisional is simply that wonderful wisdom and the wonderful object mutually illumine and mutually manifest, accomplishing the ten dharmas forming the vehicle of the perfect teaching; hence they are different names for these ten dharmas. Prajñā being so, nirvāṇa and the body are also like this; they are not explained in detail again, as their implications are exceedingly profound.