般若義
The Meaning of Prajna
問云何為般若。答依釋論。凡有八解。今略解述六家。第一解云。般若但是真無漏慧。位在何處。答大乘為論。初地以上。即是真無漏慧。三十心名相似。小乘為論。從苦忍以上。名真無漏。自爾之前。名為有漏。第二般若但是有漏慧。以菩薩除煩惱得般若。故知是有漏也。第三云。有漏無漏二種智慧。皆是般若。所以是有。菩薩從發心至坐道場。皆是般若。故智通也。第四云。般若非有漏非無漏。非有為非無為。不可言說。離諸戲論。龍樹菩薩出世。評兩解云。有人言。前之四說。皆有道理。皆出佛口。隨眾生故。作種種說。有人言最後解者是。以過語言道。離諸戲論。依無所得。是真般若也。問六解中今用何解耶。答若隨緣方便。並皆有此義。如其為執。悉非般若。秦言智慧。故可翻。實相宗重。智慧輕薄。故不可以智慧秤量。般若不可翻。大論云。般若有二種。一者有為般若。有生有滅。故是無常二者無為般若。無有生滅。是故有常。實相般若者。道超四句。理絕百非。大論云。般若般若波羅蜜。實行不顛倒。念慧想觀已除。言語法亦滅。此方便般若者。有生有滅。有智有愚。般若無智無行不知。以般若無智即是愚方便。此無所不知即是智方便。文字般若者。即佛說波若。說名字及小經卷也。實相般若既非愚智。所以為體。方便般若者有愚智。即是用也。實相般若為當體受名。為從境受秤。具有此義。自有智實境。故名為實相。亦當般若體即是實相也。般若未曾因果。一往為論。宜名為因。釋論云。般若不屬般若二乘。但屬菩薩。故智慧因也。若至果即反名薩般若。薩般若悉為一切智。亦得為果。如涅槃三德中般若。涅槃既是果三德。般若豈非果耶。問涅槃經云。般若者。一切眾生毗婆舍那。一切聖心闍那者。諸佛菩薩。是事云何。答此無淺深中作淺深。般若宜翻為慧。其義劣。毗婆舍那翻之為智。其義小勝故。是一切聖闍那。此翻為見。其義最勝。故在諸佛菩薩。般若波羅蜜者。道安法師翻為度無強。大智論云。彼堓到也。然常有二說。般若從有相此堓。至無相彼堓。若是涅槃。從生死此堓。至涅槃彼堓。今說如此釋度非究竟也。若然彼此乖勉。方是究竟度義。
**Question:** What is Prajñā (Wisdom)?
**Answer:** According to the *Treatise*, there are generally eight explanations. Here, I will briefly present six of them.
**First Explanation:** Prajñā is solely the true, uncontaminated wisdom. At what stage does it reside? * **From a Mahāyāna perspective:** From the First Ground (Bhūmi) and above, it is true, uncontaminated wisdom. The thirty minds (prior stages) are called 'similar' or 'approximate'. * **From a Hīnayāna perspective:** From the 'Patience with Suffering' (苦忍) stage and above, it is called true, uncontaminated. Everything before that is called contaminated.
**Second Explanation:** Prajñā is solely contaminated wisdom. Since Bodhisattvas abandon afflictions to attain Prajñā, it is understood to be contaminated.
**Third Explanation:** Both contaminated and uncontaminated types of wisdom are Prajñā. The reason it exists is because a Bodhisattva's path, from the initial aspiration for enlightenment to sitting at the seat of awakening, is entirely Prajñā. Therefore, wisdom is all-pervasive.
**Fourth Explanation:** Prajñā is neither contaminated nor uncontaminated; it is neither conditioned nor unconditioned. It is inexpressible and transcends all conceptual elaborations.
When the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna appeared in the world, he evaluated these explanations. Some said: "The first four explanations all have their reasoning. All come from the Buddha's mouth, spoken according to the capacities of sentient beings." Others said: "The final explanation is correct, as it transcends the path of language, is free from all conceptual elaborations, and is based on non-attainment. This is the true Prajñā."
**Question:** Among these six explanations, which one is used now?
**Answer:** If one follows expedient means according to circumstances, all have their validity. However, if one becomes attached to any of them, then none of them are Prajñā.
In Chinese, it is translated as 'wisdom' (智慧), so it *can* be translated. However, the principle of 'true reality' (實相) is weighty, while 'wisdom' is comparatively light. Therefore, it cannot be measured by the scale of 'wisdom' alone. Thus, Prajñā is 'untranslatable'.
The *Great Treatise* says Prajñā is of two kinds: 1. **Conditioned Prajñā:** Has arising and ceasing, therefore it is impermanent. 2. **Unconditioned Prajñā:** Has no arising or ceasing, therefore it is permanent.
**Prajñā of True Reality (實相般若):** The path transcends the four propositions (四句), and the principle cuts off the hundred negations (百非). The *Great Treatise* says: "Prajñā, Prajñāpāramitā, true practice without inversion. Thought, wisdom, ideation, and contemplation are already removed; the dharmas of speech are also extinguished."
**Expedient Prajñā (方便般若):** Has arising and ceasing; has wisdom and ignorance. Prajñā itself is without wisdom and without activity, without knowing. Because Prajñā is without wisdom, that is the 'expedient of ignorance'. Because it is all-knowing, that is the 'expedient of wisdom'.
**Prajñā of Letters/Words (文字般若):** This is the Buddha's teaching of Prajñā, the names, and the sūtra texts themselves.
Since the Prajñā of True Reality is neither ignorance nor wisdom, it serves as the **essence** (體). Since Expedient Prajñā involves ignorance and wisdom, it serves as the **function** (用).
Does the Prajñā of True Reality receive its name from its own essence, or from its object? It has both meanings. By its nature, wisdom is the true object/realm, hence it is called 'true reality'. Also, the essence of Prajñā itself *is* true reality.
Prajñā is not inherently defined as cause or effect. Generally speaking, it is appropriate to call it the **cause**. The *Treatise* says: "Prajñā does not belong to the Śrāvakas or Pratyekabuddhas, but belongs to the Bodhisattvas." Therefore, it is the wisdom-cause. When it reaches the fruition, it is conversely called *Sarvajñā* (薩般若, all-knowing wisdom), which is 'omniscience'. It can also be considered the **effect**, as in the three virtues of Nirvāṇa (涅槃三德), where Prajñā is one. Since Nirvāṇa is the fruition with three virtues, how could Prajñā within it not be the fruition?
**Question:** The *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "Prajñā is the *vipaśyanā* (observation/insight) of all sentient beings. *Jñāna* (deep knowing) is that of all saints. *Darśana* (seeing) is that of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas." How should this be understood?
**Answer:** This takes what has no shallow or deep levels and establishes shallow and deep distinctions for expediency. 'Prajñā' is suitably translated as 'wisdom' (慧), its meaning being lesser. '*Vipaśyanā*' is translated as 'insight' (智), its meaning being slightly superior; hence it belongs to all saints. '*Jñāna*' is translated as 'seeing' (見), its meaning being the most superior; hence it belongs to Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.
**Prajñāpāramitā:** Dharma Master Dao'an translated it as 'crossing over to the unconditioned' (度無強). The *Great Treatise on Wisdom* says: "*Pāra* is 'the other shore', *ita* is 'to reach'." However, there are commonly two interpretations: 1. Prajñā: From the shore of characteristics (this shore) to the shore of no-characteristics (the other shore). 2. Nirvāṇa: From the shore of saṃsāra (this shore) to the shore of Nirvāṇa (the other shore).
Now, it is said that such an explanation of 'crossing over' is not ultimate. If so, then it is only when 'this' and 'the other' are both transcended and abandoned that the meaning of ultimate crossing over is fulfilled.