釋禪波羅蜜次第法門 1.66

1.66

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.