釋禪波羅蜜次第法門 1.66

1.66

第二、通釋三翻，並得同對事理俱隨緣化物，故立異名。所以者何？若言無相之慧能度生死，故為理行者，今言理中，有佛無佛，性相常然，豈論無相之慧能度生死？終是就事作此說也。事究竟亦是從理立名者，若緣理而起事行，當知說事究竟亦是約理名波羅蜜度無極，亦未必一向就事理無極名波羅蜜。所以者何？諸佛隨緣利物，出沒不定，無極或時對事，或時對理，豈有定準？當知三名理事互通，未必偏有所屬，餘例可知。釋波羅蜜義，至下第十、結會歸趣中，自當廣明。

Second, common explanation of the three translations: All may equally correspond to matters and principle, and all establish different names in accordance with conditions to transform beings. Why is this? If one says that signless wisdom can cross over samsāra, and therefore it is practice of the principle, now within the principle, whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics are ever so—how could it be discussed as signless wisdom being able to cross over samsāra? In the end, this statement is made with respect to matters. As for 'perfection of matters' also establishing its name based on principle: if one initiates practical activity in reliance on the principle, one should know that speaking of 'perfection of matters' is also naming pāramitā in terms of the principle. 'Crossing over without limit' is also not necessarily exclusively naming pāramitā in terms of the limitless of matters and principle. Why is this? The Buddhas benefit beings in accordance with conditions, appearing and disappearing without fixed form; 'without limit' sometimes corresponds to matters and sometimes to principle, so how could there be a fixed standard? One should know that the three names mutually interpenetrate matters and principle and do not necessarily belong exclusively to one or the other. The remaining cases can be understood by analogy. The meaning of pāramitā will naturally be clarified in detail below in the tenth section on concluding and returning to the ultimate intent.