二智義
Meaning of the Two Wisdoms
二智者。一是權智。二是實智。權是善巧之名。實是實諦為因。斯乃般若妙用。利物明術。其猶二鳥無相捨離。俱凡夫滯有。𨷂彼鑒虗。小智沉空。罔知權用。是故菩薩方便具二智也。如來以二智察緣。即知病識藥。說於二諦。即應病授藥。以智諦故如得。而說諦故如說。如說定得。得行我所說。如得而說。說我所得。故二智即能說。二諦即是所說云云。前須識有得無得二種二諦。然後方識發生二智。有得二諦。初章前節。不能發生二智。無得二諦者。初章後節。故能發生二智經云。欲令眾生深識第一義故說世諦。欲令眾生識世諦故說第一。俗是真俗。俗表不俗。真是俗真。真表不真。既悟真俗。表非真俗。即發二智。真俗之教。即轉名境。教生智能所。照境能所云云。今明蒙教門悟轉為境。離境無智。離智無境。境智因緣。豈是前後及與一時異。故因緣境智。即是非境非智。非能非所。是故論云。因緣所生法。即是寂滅相。境能生智。此是因緣生。智能照境。此是因緣照。因緣照無所照。因緣生無所生。故此生此照。即是無生無照。此境此智。即是無境無智。無境而說境。指智以為境。無智而說智。指境以為智。豈同他性境故智耶。應判二智。云何明得五時教分二智也。第一時前說有相教。照十六諦理。名為實智。照事中色心。名為權智。第二時無相教。即大品之流。照空以為實智。照有以為權智。第三時抑揚教。即淨名等。抑挫聲聞。高揚菩薩。照二諦理為實智。現反動等為權智。第四時會三歸一教。即法華之流。照三乘為權智。照一乘為實智。第五時常住教。照無常為權智。照常住為實智。今謂五時教。無有經文。故不依也。他明涅槃中云。五味相生。即是其證也。今明不爾。經云。從牛出乳出酪。酪生蘇。生蘇出熟蘇。熟蘇出醍醐。合譬云。從佛出十二部經。乃至後方等經出大涅槃。若爾從牛出乳。乳既言是義。從佛出十二部經。亦是義耶。又般若是第二時未是滿字者。此事不然。既未是滿字。亦應未是大乘。若已是大乘。應已是滿字。又難。若言淨名抑小揚大。是亦不然。彼經呵十聲聞。斥四菩薩。此乃大小俱彈。何得偏判。又淨名既毀聲聞猶如燋種。言是抑者。般若亦可噵。其猶如癡犬。豈非挫耶。若言法華會三歸一。般若等經亦得會宗之義。故總束方以為一大乘。豈非會耶。若言般若第二法華第四。此事不然。大論解畢定品云。善吉已聞法華中記聲聞作佛事。復聞此經明菩薩有退。是故今問佛為畢定為不畢定。若觀此意。即法華在前。般若在後。故不可定判也。隨緣方便。必有深致。亦可有無量時。何止為五。問今判云何。答此無定也。一往為論。照有為方便。照空為實智。二往為論。照空有應為方便。照非空非有是實也。他照真之慧。不能照俗。俗之智。不能照真。照真之慧不能照俗。故慧無方便縛。照之慧不能照真。故是無方便慧。今明以實為方便。方便為實。實方便只是實。方便既照俗。豈不能照真。以方便為實。此實只是方便。實通照真。寧不照俗。故兩慧無礙。但互舉一邊。故方便照俗。實即照真也。問方便與權實。若為其異。答通而為論。猶是眼目之異名。若就別門。方便義長。權義即短。以外國云。漚和俱舍羅。此言善巧方便故。諸佛出世所作施為。無非方便。若是權慧即短。以權是暫。於方便中。更抽權用故。或復手接大千。身入婬舍。並是權也。以方便義長故。屬在般若等教。權義既短義。即是淨名等經也。問他明三乘是方便。一乘是實。與今何異。答此是一句義耳。自有二。一俱實。二俱權。一俱實者。昔說三權昔為實。今說一權今為實。昔說三望今一。三既是權。今說一望昔非。今是權也。二慧二智通猶是一物。即不同一者。慧即解智。其義猶劣。故在因門。智名決斷。其義即勝。故在果地。故大品明。菩薩有道慧道種慧。佛有一切種智也。慧名照空。智名照有。故淨名經云。智一切相門起於慧業。智種相門起於智業也。智於總相名道慧。智於別相。名道種慧也。一切智一切種智。例此可知也。道種慧云云。氷山瑤[└*├]師解云。宗彭城憑法師解云云。今謂不得定如此。何者。菩薩發心。其知別總。即具二慧。道種慧有高下者。佛一切智一切種智。復可不也。前云三是方便。一亦是方便。在此何處明。勝鬘云一乘大方便。即其證也。
There are two types of wisdom. The first is expedient wisdom. The second is ultimate wisdom. "Expedient" refers to skillful means. "Ultimate" is based on ultimate truth. This is the wondrous function of *prajñā*—the clear method for benefiting beings. They are like two birds that never leave each other's side.
Ordinary people are stuck in existence, lacking the ability to perceive emptiness. Those of lesser wisdom sink into emptiness, unaware of expedient means. Therefore, a bodhisattva, through skillful means, possesses both wisdoms. The Tathāgata, observing conditions with these two wisdoms, knows the illness and recognizes the medicine. By teaching the two truths, he prescribes medicine according to the illness. Because of wisdom and truth, it is "as attained"; because of teaching truth, it is "as spoken." As spoken, it is certainly attained; practicing what I have said is "as attained," and speaking what I have attained is "as spoken." Thus, the two wisdoms are what can teach, and the two truths are what is taught, and so on.
First, one must understand the two truths of "attainment" and "non-attainment." Only then can one understand the arising of the two wisdoms. The two truths of "attainment" belong to the first section of the initial chapter and cannot give rise to the two wisdoms. The two truths of "non-attainment" belong to the latter section of the initial chapter and therefore can give rise to the two wisdoms. The scripture says: "In order to enable beings to deeply understand the supreme meaning, the worldly truth is taught. In order to enable beings to understand the worldly truth, the supreme meaning is taught." The conventional is the true conventional; the conventional points to what is not conventional. The ultimate is the conventional ultimate; the ultimate points to what is not ultimate. Once one awakens to the true conventional and the ultimate, which point beyond true conventional and ultimate, the two wisdoms arise. The teaching of true conventional and ultimate then transforms and is called "object." The teaching gives rise to wisdom, which has subject and object; illuminating the object has subject and object, and so on.
Now, it is explained that through the gate of teaching, awakening transforms into object. Apart from object there is no wisdom; apart from wisdom there is no object. Object and wisdom arise in dependence. How could they be sequential, simultaneous, or different? Therefore, the dependent arising of object and wisdom is precisely non-object, non-wisdom, non-subject, non-object. Thus the treatise says: "All dharmas arising from conditions are of the nature of cessation." The object can give rise to wisdom—this is dependent arising. Wisdom can illuminate the object—this is dependent illumination. Dependent illumination has nothing illuminated; dependent arising has nothing arising. Therefore, this arising and this illumination are precisely non-arising and non-illumination. This object and this wisdom are precisely non-object and non-wisdom. Without object, yet speaking of object, pointing to wisdom as object. Without wisdom, yet speaking of wisdom, pointing to object as wisdom. How could this be the same as others' view of a substantial object giving rise to wisdom?
One should discern the two wisdoms. How are they distinguished within the five periods of teaching? The first period: the earlier teachings on characteristics. Illuminating the principle of the sixteen truths is called ultimate wisdom. Illuminating the phenomena of form and mind is called expedient wisdom. The second period: teachings on non-characteristics, such as the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra*. Illuminating emptiness is ultimate wisdom; illuminating existence is expedient wisdom. The third period: teachings of restraint and exaltation, such as the *Vimalakīrti Sūtra*, which restrains the śrāvakas and exalts the bodhisattvas. Illuminating the principle of the two truths is ultimate wisdom; manifesting contrary actions, etc., is expedient wisdom. The fourth period: teachings that unite the three vehicles into one, such as the *Lotus Sūtra*. Illuminating the three vehicles is expedient wisdom; illuminating the one vehicle is ultimate wisdom. The fifth period: teachings on permanence. Illuminating impermanence is expedient wisdom; illuminating permanence is ultimate wisdom.
Now, I say the five periods of teaching are not found in the scripture texts, so I do not rely on them. Others point to the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* which speaks of the five flavors being produced from one another as proof. I explain it is not so. The scripture says: "From the cow comes milk, from milk comes curd, from curd comes fresh butter, from fresh butter comes clarified butter, from clarified butter comes the finest ghee." The analogy states: "From the Buddha come the twelve divisions of scripture... up to, from the later Vaipulya sūtras comes the Great Nirvāṇa." If that is so, "from the cow comes milk"—milk is said to be the meaning—then "from the Buddha come the twelve divisions of scripture"—is that also the meaning? Furthermore, if *Prajñāpāramitā* is the second period and not yet the "full-word" teaching, this is not correct. If it is not yet the full-word teaching, then it should also not yet be Mahāyāna. If it is already Mahāyāna, then it should already be the full-word teaching. Another objection: If it is said the *Vimalakīrti Sūtra* restrains the small and exalts the great, this is also not so. That sūtra criticizes ten śrāvakas and reprimands four bodhisattvas. This is a critique of both small and great; how can it be judged one-sidedly? Moreover, if the *Vimalakīrti Sūtra* says śrāvakas are like scorched seeds and this is called restraint, then the *Prajñāpāramitā* could also be said to compare them to foolish dogs—is that not restraint? If it is said the *Lotus Sūtra* unites the three into one, then the *Prajñāpāramitā* and other sūtras also have the meaning of uniting the teachings. Therefore, collectively gathering the teachings into one great vehicle—is that not uniting? If it is said *Prajñāpāramitā* is second and *Lotus* is fourth, this is not so. The *Great Treatise*, explaining the "Definite" chapter, says: "Subhūti had already heard in the *Lotus Sūtra* about the prediction of śrāvakas attaining buddhahood. Again hearing in this sūtra that bodhisattvas can regress, he now asks the Buddha whether it is definite or not." Considering this, the *Lotus* comes first, *Prajñāpāramitā* comes later. Therefore, one cannot definitively judge. According to conditions and expedient means, there must be a profound intent. There could also be immeasurable periods; why limit it to five?
Question: How do you judge now? Answer: There is no fixed judgment. Provisionally speaking: Illuminating existence is expedient means; illuminating emptiness is ultimate wisdom. Speaking further: Illuminating emptiness and existence as responsive is expedient means; illuminating neither emptiness nor existence is ultimate. Others say: The wisdom that illuminates the ultimate cannot illuminate the conventional; the wisdom that illuminates the conventional cannot illuminate the ultimate. The wisdom that illuminates the ultimate cannot illuminate the conventional, so that wisdom is bound without expedient means. The wisdom that illuminates the conventional cannot illuminate the ultimate, so that is wisdom without expedient means. I explain: Taking the ultimate as expedient means, expedient means as ultimate. Ultimate expedient means is just ultimate; since expedient means illuminates the conventional, how could it not illuminate the ultimate? Taking expedient means as ultimate, this ultimate is just expedient means; the ultimate universally illuminates the ultimate, how could it not illuminate the conventional? Therefore, the two wisdoms are unobstructed. But for emphasis, one side is mentioned: expedient means illuminates the conventional; the ultimate illuminates the ultimate.
Question: How do expedient means and "expedient/ultimate" differ? Answer: Generally speaking, they are different names for the same thing, like eyes. Specifically, the meaning of "expedient means" is broad, while the meaning of "expedient" (as in expedient wisdom) is narrow. In the foreign language, *upāya-kauśalya* means "skillful expedient means." All the Buddha's activities in appearing in the world are none other than expedient means. "Expedient wisdom" is narrow because "expedient" is temporary; from within expedient means, the function of "expedient" is extracted. For example, reaching out to grasp the great thousand-world system, or entering a brothel—these are "expedient." Because the meaning of "expedient means" is broad, it belongs to teachings like *Prajñāpāramitā*. Since the meaning of "expedient" is narrow, it belongs to sūtras like the *Vimalakīrti*.
Question: Others say the three vehicles are expedient means, the one vehicle is ultimate. How does this differ from your view? Answer: This is just one interpretation. There are two possibilities: 1. Both are ultimate. 2. Both are expedient. 1. Both ultimate: In the past, teaching the three was expedient for that time, but was ultimate for that time. Now, teaching the one is expedient for this time, but is ultimate for this time. The past three compared to the present one: the three were expedient. The present one compared to the past, which is not: the present is expedient. 2. Both expedient: The three vehicles are expedient means; the one vehicle is also expedient means. The two wisdoms and two insights are generally the same thing. They differ in that: "Insight" is understanding wisdom; its meaning is somewhat inferior, thus belonging to the causal stage. "Wisdom" is decisive discernment; its meaning is superior, thus belonging to the fruition stage. Therefore, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says: Bodhisattvas have the insight into the path and the insight into the varieties of the path. The Buddha has the wisdom of all modes. Insight is said to illuminate emptiness; wisdom is said to illuminate existence. Thus the *Vimalakīrti Sūtra* says: "From the gate of wisdom regarding all characteristics, the activity of insight arises. From the gate of wisdom regarding the varieties of characteristics, the activity of wisdom arises." Wisdom regarding the general characteristic is insight into the path. Wisdom regarding the specific characteristics is insight into the varieties of the path. The wisdom of all modes and the wisdom of the varieties of all modes can be understood by this example. Insight into the varieties of the path, and so on.
Master Bingshan Yaoyuan explained it. Master Zong Pengcheng, relying on Dharma Master's explanation, said... I say one cannot definitively judge like this. Why? When a bodhisattva first awakens the mind, their knowledge includes both general and specific, thus possessing both insights. If insight into the varieties of the path has higher and lower levels, then the Buddha's wisdom of all modes and wisdom of the varieties of all modes—could they not also be so? Earlier it was said the three are expedient means, the one is also expedient means. Where is this explained? The *Śrīmālā Sūtra* says: "The one vehicle is the great expedient means." This is the proof.