宗鏡錄 84.20

84.20

Answer: There are two kinds of prajñā: first, real, eternally abiding prajñā; second, contemplative, functional prajñā. As for real prajñā, its nature pervades all places; serene yet ever illuminating, it is solely the one true citta, without division into subject and object. Thus it is not like the inert objects of the world being that which is illuminated, nor is it like the deluded citta of the biased and lesser being that which is illuminated, nor is it like provisionally established tathatā being that which is illuminated. Now, with a single substance underlying and connecting throughout, citta and citta illuminate each other, because there are no cognitive objects outside the citta, nor is there any citta outside cognitive objects, for citta is the citta of objects, and objects are the objects of citta. Blended and fused in this way, how could it not be prajñā? Therefore it is said: "Because form is boundless, prajñā is boundless." Hence we know that apart from form there is no citta, and apart from citta there is no form. As the Prajñā Sūtra says: "Furthermore, Yūrnaya, a bodhisattva-mahāsattva should practice like this: form is not an object of cognition (ālambana). Why is that? All phenomena are without an object of cognition, because not even a slight phenomenon can be grasped. If that were graspable, this would be an object of cognition. In this way, Yūrnaya, it is not by form that one practices form, up to: it is not by vijñāna that one practices vijñāna. Yūrnaya, because all phenomena do not practice, it is not seen by form, nor is it seen by vijñāna, up to: it is neither known by vijñāna, nor can it be seen. If from form up to vijñāna it is neither known nor seen, this is called prajñāpāramitā." Also, the Mañjuśrī-prajñā Sūtra says: "Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha, saying: 'World-Honoured One, when cultivating prajñāpāramitā, one does not see phenomena as that in which one should dwell or in which one should not dwell; nor does one see any characteristic of objects that can be accepted or rejected. Why is that? Because like all tathāgatas, one does not see the characteristic of objects of any phenomena, up to not seeing the realm of the Buddhas, let alone grasping the realms of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, or ordinary persons. One does not grasp the characteristic of the conceivable, nor does one grasp the characteristic of the inconceivable. One does not see phenomena as having various characteristics; one's own realization of the empty Dharma is inconceivable. Such bodhisattva-mahāsattvas have all already made offerings to immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of Buddhas and planted all roots of goodness; only then are they able to be without alarm and without fear with respect to this very deep prajñāpāramitā.' It also says: 'Furthermore, when cultivating prajñāpāramitā, one does not see the characteristics of ordinary persons, one does not see the characteristics of Buddha-dharma, and one does not see phenomena as having determinate characteristics. This is cultivating prajñāpāramitā.'"