Name: Mahāyāna Profound Treatise · Volume 4 (大乘玄论 · 第四)
Author: 吉藏撰

然昔在江南著法花玄論。已略明二智。但此義既為眾聖觀心法身父母。必須精究。故重論之。此義若通。則方等眾經。不待言而自顯。具存梵本。應云波若波羅蜜漚和波羅蜜。故此經云。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。智則波若。度謂波羅蜜也。但翻波若不同。或言智慧。如叡法師云。秦言智慧。或翻為遠離。出放光經。則釋道安用。或翻明度。出六度集經。或翻清淨。亦出大品。叡法師用之。但波若具含智慧明淨遠離等義。譯經之人隨取其一。以用翻之。波若以斷眾惑遠離生死名相之法故云遠離。明了無暗。故稱為明。體絕穢染名為清淨。達照解知名為智慧。雖有諸義。多用智慧。智慧單複。又名不同。或單名為智。如釋論及此經稱為智度。或但名為慧。如釋論云。波若秦言慧。或俱翻智慧。眾經多爾。今詳會此意。義各有由。通而言之。則智為慧。指慧為智。雖廣略不同。體無異也。翻為慧者。凡有四義。一欲分十度不同。二開空有義異。三明因果差別。四就凡聖為異。十度者。第六名波若。此翻為慧。第十云闍那。此名為智。問闍那為智。術闍翻為何物。答此云明。猶是智見之義耳。空有義異者。照空為慧。鑒有為智故。此經云。知一相門起於慧業。知種種相門起於智業。因果差別者。論云。因名波若。果反名薩婆若。薩婆若名一切智。則知。波若名之為慧。慧名既劣。宜在因中。智則決了故居果地。又佛照空有皆盡。加以一切。菩薩未窮但名慧也。不得云因中名智果名一切智。亦不得云因名智慧果名一切智。但應言因名為慧果名為智。則於因果優劣義彰。凡聖異者。如涅槃經云。波若者一切眾生。此名為慧。慧義既通。則凡聖並有。如十大地中定慧之數。毘婆舍那目之為見。謂一切聖人明見理也。闍那為智。通達決了也。次翻為智凡有三義。一者慧名既劣。智則為勝。今欲稱歎波若名為智。二者欲顯其名語便如云智度。若言慧度則言不便也。三者欲明智則是慧名異體同故。隨舉其一。次合稱智慧亦具三義。一明波若具鑒空有故名含智慧。慧則照空。智便鑒有。二顯波若通果及因。因中波若為慧。果地波若為智。故三德中有波若德。三者欲明六度義含於十。經中但明六度不明十者。以波若之名既含智慧。第十智度蘊在其中。問既具三名。以何翻為正。答慧為正翻。餘皆義立。所以知然從多論也。此經云慧與方便。釋論云波若道方便道。涅槃云波若一切眾生。闍那為智。則配諸菩薩故。智非波若。又第六名慧。第十為智。皆有彼此二名故知。以慧為正。又論云。波若不屬佛。亦不屬二乘。但屬菩薩。菩薩則道慧道種慧。佛具一切智一切種智。又云。波若名諸法實相慧。如是等諸文非一故。以慧為正翻矣。問若以慧為正翻。何故經中多云智慧。答經中多說六度故多云智慧。少說十度故少明慧也。又六度之名皆有複翻。如布施等不單名施。波若亦爾。雖復是慧。欲對上五。亦存複名故云智慧也。次辨無翻義。有人言。波若名含五義。不可正翻宜以慧當其名。如釋論七十一卷云。波若定實相甚深極重。智慧輕薄故。不能稱於般若。此招提用之。今謂不然。釋論乃明不可稱義。非不可翻也。問稱與翻何異。答稱則天竺已明。翻則來於震旦。反彼為此。前後不同義門各異。又論云。波若定實相故不可稱。不言多含故不可稱。故此釋為謬矣。復有人言。波若不可稱者。此明觀照智慧不能稱實相波若。實相波若性常住。觀照智慧會境始生。故實相為深重。觀照智為輕薄。北人釋也。是亦不然。經以五歎歎於波若。不歎實相。云何言實相深重耶。又言。波若定實相。則實相為所定。波若為能定。若言實相為深重者。可以實相還定實相耶。復有人言。智慧輕薄不能稱波若者。此是世間智慧二乘智慧。不能稱量菩薩大智慧耳。何者。大智慧照實相理道成眾行。餘淺智慧豈能稱耶。此南方人釋也。今謂不然。經云智慧不能稱於般若。不言淺慧不能稱深慧。又淺深俱名為慧。則俱是輕薄。並不能稱波若也。今依論釋之。論云。波若定實相故深重。智慧不能稱也。所言定者。定是契會之名。夫萬化非無宗。而宗之者無相。虛宗非無契。而契之者無心。故聖人以無心之妙慧。契彼無相之虛宗。即內外並冥緣智俱寂。智慧是知照之名。豈能稱絕觀般若。問波若云何能會實相。答由實相生波若故。波若能契會實相也。問依此釋者猶是淺智不能稱深智。答深則愚智皆絕。淺則猶有知照。非淺智不稱深智耶。問定實相既是契會之名。與舊釋冥會義何異耶。答語同而意異也。但釋冥會有二師。一云則會是冥。以符合故冥。冥契不乖故會。無優劣也。此莊嚴龍光之義。二云會是符合之名。冥是混一之義。則冥勝而會劣也。何者。因中凡有四義故未冥。一惑未盡。二體有生滅。三智未周圓。四體依方所。故但稱會。佛果離此四義。所以談冥。冥與無生為一。則境智不分。無應照之異。而無生不乖俗。冥亦不妨會。佛果舉體冥。舉體會。會故應照滿十方。冥故一切皆絕。今總問之。冥既與境混一者。智為成境為不作境耶。若不作境云何言一。若智作境者。境既無知。智亦無知。智既有知。則境亦應爾。以其一故。若言與法性同絕故言冥會猶與法性異者。則於會冥之日。猶見境智為二。何得經云菩薩與波若相應不見應與不應合與不合耶。又具四義故方成冥者。波若教佛智猶有生滅。則不得稱冥。亦無等法性義。故無定實相之義也。問云何名甚深極重。答夫論可稱則不名極重。良由極重故。故不可稱。論主欲釋經不可稱義故云重也。問但應言重。何故云甚深。答為欲簡釋重義。非如重物之重。乃是甚深故云重耳。問但言甚重。何故復云極耶。答三乘同契實相。但二乘猶如兔馬未盡其原。所以不得般若之名。不名甚深極重。今欲簡異二乘明菩薩照盡其原得名波若。故云甚深極重。問智慧何故云輕薄耶。答波若體絕緣觀。智慧名主於觀。波若體絕智愚。智慧名主知照。波若體絕名字。智慧則猶涉名言。故對波若之重。明智慧之輕。對波若之深。辨智慧之淺。淺猶薄也。問波若體絕智慧。何故立智慧名耶。答不知何以目之。強名智慧。雖立智慧之名。實不稱波若之體。問但應言波若體深重波若名輕薄。智慧體深重智慧名輕薄。云何乃言波若深重智慧輕薄。答今依梵本。則云波若體深重波若名輕薄。但用此意。則應云智慧體深重智慧名輕薄。恐此義難顯。故譯經之人借此方智慧。不能稱梵文波若也。問不可稱與不可量何異。答經有五歎。謂大事故起。不可稱事不可量事無等事不可思議事起。既別有無量等事故起。則稱非量也。不可量則取無有邊際。不可稱明甚深唯至重。例如法稱品明舍利不能稱波若經卷。今智慧名義不能稱絕觀波若也。問論云波若多智慧少故不能稱。云何為多少耶。答前約重輕釋不可稱。今就多少明不可稱。謂少不能稱多。但解多少不同。有人言。實相則無法不在故多。智慧局之於心故少。今謂不然。前就定實相故明不可稱。今約所含義明不可稱。波若體非愚智能愚能智。智慧唯主於智。故波若多智慧少。又波若定實相。實相既通。波若亦通。智慧不爾故云少也。問已知波若翻不翻義。方便復云何。答常啼品云漚和俱舍羅大師方便力。漚和為方便。俱舍羅名為勝智。波若之巧名為漚和。其用既勝名勝智也。淨名以方便為父。取其生成之能。大品以漚和為師。明有訓誨之德。善巧化物不證二乘。皆大師之力也。

In the past, while composing the *Profound Treatise on the Lotus Sūtra* south of the Yangtze River, I briefly clarified the concept of the two kinds of wisdom. However, since this principle is the mind-contemplation of all sages and the very parents of the Dharma-body, it must be meticulously investigated. Therefore, I will discuss it again. If this principle is thoroughly understood, then all the scriptures of the Vaipulya (Great Vehicle) will spontaneously become clear without need for further explanation.

If the original Sanskrit text were fully preserved, it should read *Prajñā-pāramitā* and *Upāya-pāramitā*. Hence, this scripture says: "Wisdom (Prajñā) is the mother of the Bodhisattva, and Skillful Means (Upāya) is the father." Here, "Wisdom" (Zhì) corresponds to Prajñā, and "Perfection" (Dù) corresponds to Pāramitā.

Translations of *Prajñā* vary. Some render it as "Wisdom" (Zhìhuì), as Master Rui said: "In Chinese (Qin language), it is called Wisdom." Others translate it as "Distance" or "Far-Renunciation," as found in the *Radiant Light Sūtra*, an interpretation used by Shi Dao’an. Some translate it as "Luminous Perfection" (Míngdù), as in the *Six Perfections Sūtra*. Still others translate it as "Purity," also appearing in the *Great Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra*, an interpretation used by Master Rui. Since *Prajñā* inherently contains the meanings of wisdom, clarity, purity, and renunciation, translators selected one aspect for rendering.

It is called "Renunciation" because Prajñā cuts off all afflictions and transcends the conditioned phenomena of birth and death. It is called "Luminous" because it illuminates without darkness. It is called "Purity" because its substance is free from defilement. It is called "Wisdom" because it comprehends and understands clearly. Although it has multiple meanings, "Wisdom" is most commonly used.

The term "Wisdom" (Zhìhuì) can be used singly or as a compound. Sometimes it is simply called "Knowledge" (Zhì), as in the commentaries and this scripture, which refer to it as "the Perfection of Knowledge." Sometimes it is merely called "Insight" (Huì), as the commentary says: "Prajñā in Chinese is called Insight." Sometimes it is translated as the compound "Wisdom" (Zhìhuì), as in most scriptures.

Now, examining this carefully, each usage has its reason. Generally speaking, Knowledge is Insight, and Insight is Knowledge. Although they differ in breadth or brevity, their essence is the same. There are four reasons for translating *Prajñā* as "Insight" (Huì):

1. To distinguish it from the other perfections in the list of ten. 2. To clarify the difference between insight into Emptiness and insight into Conventional Reality. 3. To highlight the distinction between cause and effect. 4. To differentiate between ordinary beings and sages.

Regarding the ten perfections: The sixth is *Prajñā*, translated as Insight. The tenth is *Jñāna*, translated as Knowledge. If asked, "What is the translation of *Vidya* (or *Veda*)?" The answer is "Clarity" (Míng), which is essentially the meaning of seeing and knowing.

Concerning the difference between Emptiness and Existence: Illuminating Emptiness is Insight; discerning Existence is Knowledge. Thus, this scripture says: "Knowing the mark of the single gate gives rise to the karma of Insight. Knowing the marks of the various gates gives rise to the karma of Knowledge."

Regarding the difference between cause and effect: The commentary says: "In the cause, it is called *Prajñā*; in the fruit, it is called *Sarvajñā*." *Sarvajñā* means "All-Knowledge." Thus, we know *Prajñā* is called Insight. Since Insight is considered inferior, it appropriately belongs in the causal stage. Knowledge, being decisive and complete, resides in the fruition stage. Furthermore, the Buddha's knowledge illuminates both Emptiness and Existence completely, hence the prefix "All-." Bodhisattvas have not yet reached completion, so theirs is simply called Insight. It is incorrect to say that the cause is called Knowledge and the fruit is called All-Knowledge, or that the cause is called Wisdom and the fruit is called All-Knowledge. Rather, we should say the cause is called Insight and the fruit is called Knowledge. This clearly reveals the superior and inferior qualities of cause and fruit.

Regarding the difference between ordinary beings and sages: As the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "*Prajñā* belongs to all sentient beings." Here it is called Insight. Since the meaning of Insight is universal, it exists in both ordinary beings and sages. This is analogous to the mental factors of concentration (Samādhi) and insight (Prajñā) common to all ten great mental factors. *Vipaśyanā* is regarded as "seeing," meaning the clear perception of truth by all sages. *Jñāna* is Knowledge, signifying thorough penetration and decisive understanding.

Next, there are three reasons for translating *Prajñā* as "Knowledge" (Zhì):

1. Since Insight (Huì) is considered inferior and Knowledge (Zhì) superior, "Knowledge" is used to praise *Prajñā*. 2. For ease of expression. For example, "Perfection of Knowledge" (Zhìdù) sounds natural, while "Perfection of Insight" (Huìdù) does not. 3. To clarify that Knowledge is essentially the same substance as Insight, with only a difference in name. Therefore, either term can be used.

Next, the compound term "Wisdom" (Zhìhuì) is used for three reasons:

1. It shows that *Prajñā* illuminates both Emptiness and Existence, hence it encompasses the functions of both Insight and Knowledge. Insight illuminates Emptiness; Knowledge discerns Existence. 2. It highlights that *Prajñā* pervades both cause and fruit. In the cause, *Prajñā* is Insight; in the fruit, *Prajñā* is Knowledge. Hence, among the three virtues, there is the virtue of Wisdom (Prajñā). 3. It demonstrates that the meaning of the six perfections encompasses the ten. The scriptures often speak of six perfections, not ten, because the term *Prajñā* itself includes both functions, and the tenth perfection of Knowledge (*Jñāna*) is already contained within it.

**Question:** Since there are these three names—Insight, Knowledge, Wisdom—which is the correct translation? **Answer:** Insight (Huì) is the correct translation. The others are established based on contextual meaning. How do we know this? Because it is the most common usage. This scripture speaks of Insight and Skillful Means. The commentary speaks of the Path of Insight (*Prajñā-mārga*) and the Path of Skillful Means (*Upāya-mārga*). The *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says *Prajñā* belongs to all sentient beings, while *Jñāna* (Knowledge) is assigned to Bodhisattvas. Therefore, Knowledge is not *Prajñā*. Furthermore, the sixth perfection is Insight, and the tenth is Knowledge. Since both terms exist, we know Insight is the correct rendering. Also, the commentary states: "*Prajñā* does not belong exclusively to the Buddhas, nor to the Śrāvakas or Pratyekabuddhas; it belongs to the Bodhisattvas." Bodhisattvas possess the Insight of the Path (*Mārga-jñāna*) and the Insight into the varieties of the Path (*Mārga-ākāra-jñāna*). Buddhas possess All-Knowledge (*Sarvajñā*) and All-Variety Knowledge (*Sarvākāra-jñāna*). It also says: "*Prajñā* is the wisdom that realizes the true nature of all phenomena." Since there are many such passages, we take Insight as the correct translation.

**Question:** If Insight is the correct translation, why do the scriptures often use the compound "Wisdom"? **Answer:** The scriptures mostly discuss the six perfections, hence they often use "Wisdom." They rarely discuss the ten perfections, so "Insight" appears less frequently. Furthermore, the names of the six perfections often have compound forms. For example, "Generosity" (*Dāna*) is not simply called "Giving" (*Shī*). *Prajñā* is similar. Although it is Insight, to parallel the other five perfections, it also takes the compound form "Wisdom."

**Next, discuss the idea that *Prajñā* is untranslatable.** Some people say that *Prajñā* contains five meanings and cannot be translated directly, and that "Insight" only approximates it. For instance, the seventy-first scroll of the commentary says: "*Prajñā* firmly realizes ultimate reality, is extremely profound and weighty. 'Insight' (Zhìhuì) is shallow and light, therefore it cannot match *Prajñā*." This interpretation is used by Master Zhāotí.

I say this is not correct. The commentary is clarifying the meaning of "incommensurability" or "unweighability," not "untranslatability."

**Question:** What is the difference between "unweighable" and "untranslatable"? **Answer:** "Unweighable" refers to something already understood in India. "Untranslatable" refers to rendering the term in China (China). Translating from one language to another differs contextually. Furthermore, the commentary says: "*Prajñā* is incommensurable because it firmly realizes ultimate reality." It does not say it is untranslatable because it has multiple meanings. Therefore, this interpretation is incorrect.

Another person says: "*Prajñā* being incommensurable means that the ordinary illuminating wisdom cannot weigh or measure the *Prajñā* of ultimate reality. The *Prajñā* of ultimate reality has an eternal nature. The illuminating wisdom arises only when it encounters an object. Hence, ultimate reality is profound and heavy, while illuminating wisdom is shallow and light." This is the interpretation of northern scholars. This is also incorrect. The scripture praises *Prajñā* with five kinds of praise, not ultimate reality. How can it be said that ultimate reality is profound and heavy? Also, it says "*Prajñā* firmly realizes ultimate reality." This makes ultimate reality the object realized and *Prajñā* the agent of realization. If ultimate reality itself were profound and heavy, could ultimate reality realize itself?

Another person says: "'Wisdom being shallow and light, unable to weigh *Prajñā*,' refers to worldly wisdom and the wisdom of the Two Vehicles (*Śrāvakas* and *Pratyekabuddhas*) being unable to measure the great wisdom of Bodhisattvas. The great wisdom illuminates the principle of ultimate reality and accomplishes all practices. How could lesser wisdom measure it?" This is the interpretation of southern scholars.

I say this is also incorrect. The scripture says "Wisdom cannot weigh *Prajñā*," not "Shallow wisdom cannot weigh deep wisdom." Furthermore, both shallow and deep are called "Wisdom," hence both are shallow and light in this context and cannot measure *Prajñā*.

Now, I will explain according to the commentary: "Because *Prajñā* firmly realizes ultimate reality, it is profound and heavy; wisdom cannot weigh it." What does "firmly realizes" mean? It means "to unite with" or "to tally with." Although the myriad transformations are not without a foundation, what makes them exist is \xu emptiness. Though the empty foundation is not without something that unites with it, that which unites is mindless (*acitta*). Therefore, the sage, with the mindless wondrous insight, unites with that formless empty foundation. Internally and externally, both subject and object are extinguished; conditions and wisdom are both stilled. Since "wisdom" refers to knowing and illumination, how can it weigh the supreme objectless *Prajñā*?

**Question:** How then can *Prajñā* unite with ultimate reality? **Answer:** Because *Prajñā* arises from ultimate reality, *Prajñā* can unite with ultimate reality.

**Question:** According to this explanation, it still seems like shallow wisdom cannot measure deep wisdom. **Answer:** The profound nature means both ignorance and wisdom are transcended. The shallow retains the function of knowing. It is not that shallow wisdom doesn't measure deep wisdom.

**Question:** Since "firmly realizes ultimate reality" is the meaning of union, how does it differ from the old explanation of "subtle union" (Mínghuì)? **Answer:** The words are similar, but the meaning is different.

Regarding "subtle union," there are two interpretations: 1. Some say "union" (*Huì*) is itself "subtle" (*Míng*). Because of accord, it is subtle; because subtle accord is without discrepancy, it is union. There is no superiority or inferiority. This is the view of the Zhuāngyán and Lóngguāng schools. 2. Others say "union" (*Huì*) means "to tally with" or "to accord," while "subtle" (*Míng*) means "to merge into oneness." Hence, "subtle" is superior and "union" inferior. Why? In the causal stage, there are four aspects that prevent merging: (1) afflictions are not fully eliminated; (2) the substance has arising and ceasing; (3) wisdom is not yet perfect and complete; (4) the substance depends on location. Hence, it is only called "union." The Buddha-fruit is free from these four aspects, so it is called "subtle." Merging is to become one with the Unborn. Then the object and wisdom are undifferentiated. There is no distinction between responding and illuminating. Yet the Unborn does not contradict the conventional truth, and "merging" does not hinder "union." The Buddha-fruit is entirely merged and entirely united. Because it is united, his responses and illuminations fill the ten directions. Because it is merged, everything is transcended.

Now I ask broadly: If "merged" means the mind has merged into oneness with the object, does this mean the wisdom mind has become the object, or has it not become the object? If it has not become the object, how can it be called one? If wisdom has become the object, then since the object is unconscious, wisdom should also be unconscious. But since wisdom is conscious, the object should be so as well, because they are one.

If one says it is called merging because it becomes identical to the Dharma-nature's transcendence, but still remains distinct from the Dharma-nature, then at the time of merging and uniting, one still perceives subject and object as two. How can the scripture say that the Bodhisattva, when united with *Prajñā*, does not perceive union or non-union, harmony or disharmony?

Furthermore, if the four aspects mentioned are required for merging, then even the Buddha's wisdom, which contains arising and ceasing in the teachings, cannot be said to be truly merged. Nor would it possess the quality of equaling the Dharma-nature. Therefore, it would have no real ultimate nature.

**Question:** What is meant by "extremely profound and weighty"? **Answer:** If something can be weighed, it is not called "extremely weighty." It is precisely because it is extremely weighty that it cannot be weighed. The commentator, wanting to explain the scriptural meaning of "unweighable," says it is "weighty."

**Question:** Why also say "extremely profound"? **Answer:** To distinguish the meaning of "weighty." It is not like the weight of a heavy object; it is "weighty" because it is "extremely profound."

**Question:** Why add "extremely"? **Answer:** The Three Vehicles all realize ultimate reality. However, the Two Vehicles, like rabbits or horses crossing a river, do not reach the very bottom; hence they do not attain the name *Prajñā*, nor are they called "extremely profound and weighty." The Bodhisattva's wisdom, like an elephant crossing the river, reaches the very bottom and is named *Prajñā*; hence it is called "extremely profound and weighty."

**Question:** Why is "wisdom" called "shallow and light"? **Answer:** The substance of *Prajñā* transcends causation and contemplation. "Wisdom" as a name is the master of contemplation. The substance of *Prajñā* transcends wisdom and ignorance. "Wisdom" as a name is the master of knowing and illuminating. The substance of *Prajñā* transcends names and words. "Wisdom" still involves verbal designation. Therefore, relative to the weight of *Prajñā*, it shows the lightness of wisdom. Relative to the profundity of *Prajñā*, it shows the shallowness of wisdom. "Shallow" also means "light."

**Question:** Since the substance of *Prajñā* transcends wisdom, why establish the name "Wisdom"? **Answer:** There is no other way to designate it, so we forcibly call it "Wisdom." Though we establish the name "Wisdom," it truly does not weigh or describe the substance of *Prajñā*.

**Question:** It should only be said that the substance of *Prajñā* is profound and weighty, and the name *Prajñā* is shallow and light. Or the substance of Wisdom is profound and weighty, and the name Wisdom is shallow and light. Why say "*Prajñā* is profound and weighty; Wisdom is shallow and light"? **Answer:** According to the Sanskrit original, "The substance of *Prajñā* is profound and weighty; the name *Prajñā* is shallow and light." To make this meaning clear, the translators used this region's word "Wisdom" to show it cannot match the Sanskrit word *Prajñā*.

**Question:** What is the difference between "unweighable" and "immeasurable"? **Answer:** The scripture uses five kinds of praise: it arises for a great matter, an unweighable matter, an immeasurable matter, an unequaled matter, an inconceivable matter. Since "immeasurable" is a separate category, "unweighable" is not the same as "measurable." "Immeasurable" refers to being without boundaries. "Unweighable" refers to being extremely profound and supremely weighty. For example, the *Chapter on the Weight of the Dharma* says Śāriputra cannot weigh the *Prajñā* scrolls. Similarly, the name and meaning of "wisdom" cannot match the supreme, objectless *Prajñā*.

**Question:** The commentary says: "*Prajñā* is many; wisdom is few. Therefore, wisdom cannot weigh it." What is meant by "many" and "few"? **Answer:** Previously, we used the meaning of heavy and light to explain "unweighable." Now, we use the meaning of many and few to explain "unweighable." This means that the few cannot weigh the many. But there are different interpretations of "many" and "few."

Some say ultimate reality includes all things, so it is many. Wisdom is limited to the mind, so it is few. I say this is incorrect. Previously, we explained "unweighable" based on "firm realization of ultimate reality." Now, we are explaining "unwe

釋名第二。復有二門。一釋權實。二解大義。通而言之。二智皆如實而照。並名為實。皆有善巧悉稱方便。就別言之。即波若名實。漚和稱方便。略有八義。一者波若照實相境。從所照為名。故稱為實。二者波若從實相生。從能生受名故稱為實。三者如實而照故。當體名實。論云波若波羅蜜實法不顛倒。體離虛妄非顛倒慧。故名為實。四者對凡夫顛倒不實之慧故。嘆波若為實。五者對二乘未實謂實故。明波若為實。六者對方便之用。以波若為體。故名實。七者對虛明實。未是好實。非虛非實乃名妙實。八者虛實為二。非虛實為不二。二與不二皆名不實。非二不二。乃名為實。是故論云念想觀已除言語法亦滅也。方便者是善巧之名。此義多門。今略論十對。一者直照空有名為波若。行空不證。涉有無著。故名方便。此之照巧更無二體。雖巧而照。故名為實。雖照而巧。故名方便。問照空有並名實者。空有二境應俱得稱真。答能照之智皆名實智。所照之境同稱實境。實智之中。有空智有智。實境之中。有真境俗境。此為別也。問既有真俗。云何皆名實境。答是如實智境故名實境。從智受名。又實是真俗。非妄稱之。當體名實。二者照空為實。涉有為方便。如釋論云波若將入畢竟空。方便將出畢竟空。以空是實相故名為實。波若照空故名為實。雖復照空。即能涉有。此用既巧名為方便。問若爾雖復照有即能鑒空。此用亦巧應是方便。答此照雖巧。但實智為體故。隱其巧名與其實稱也。三者以內靜鑒為實。外反動為權。問此義與前何異。答此明若照若巧靜鑒之義皆名為實。以外反動故名為權。四者波若為實。五度為方便。所以然者。波若為空解。空解故名實。五度為有行。有行故名權。問此與上照空為實涉有為權何異。答前照空照有。皆是智慧。故以二解分權實。今約解行以開二門。空解為實有行為權。與上異也。問有行何故為權。答雖復照空即能起行。此義既巧。故為權。又空是實相有非實相。故空解為實有行為權。五者照空為實。知空亦空即能不證空。故名為權。所以然者。二乘不知空。亦復以空為妙極。故名空但空。所以證空。菩薩知空亦空名不可得空。故不證空即能涉有。故名為權。此明直知空義為實。實義即劣。知空亦空即能涉有。此用既勝。故名為權。然此二慧更無兩體。初觀心未妙。故但能照空。既轉精巧。即知空亦空。既知空亦空。而不壞假名。即能涉有。始終論之。猶是一慧。約巧未巧故分權實。六者知苦無常故名為實。而不取滅名為方便。以生死身實是苦空無常過患之法。如實照之故為實。二乘知此。即欲滅之故無方便。菩薩雖知。而安身處疾。自行化人。故名方便。七者直知身病非故非新故名為實。而不厭離稱為方便。此但就有門分權實。八者淨名託跡毘耶。不疾之身為實。現疾之迹為權。此據虛實之義以明權實也。九者以上照空有二為方便。照非空有不二為實。非空非有即是一實諦。照一實諦故名為實。雖非空非有。而空有宛然。不動不二。善巧能二。故名方便。十者空有為二。非空有為不二。照二與不二皆名方便。照非二非不二名實。淨名杜言。釋迦掩室。乃名為實。權實多門。略開此之十對。即一途次第。並有經論。可隨文用之。論大義。問何故波若名摩訶漚和不名摩訶。答通皆得稱大。如上云漚和俱舍羅大師方便力也。別而言之。波若稱大。略明十義。一者實相曠而無邊。深而無底。無有一法出法性外。波若照於實相故名大慧。漚和雖巧。不照實相故不名大。問二乘亦照實相。何不名大。答二乘未盡其邊。菩薩照窮原底。故名為大。二者三乘實智皆從波若中生。所以然者。所照實相既一。即能照波若無二。但根性不堪故。於一波若開為三乘智慧。三乘智慧攝入波若觀中。故名為大。問云何於波若出生三乘慧。答由實相故生波若。由波若故有菩薩。由菩薩故有佛。由佛故有三乘。即波若為本故出生三乘。所以名大。問三乘同觀實相。乃以實相為本。云何以波若為本。答要由諸佛菩薩體悟波若。然後說三乘教。始得同觀實相故波若為本。問波若本出生三乘。應是三乘通教。答勝鬘攝受正法出生五乘。猶如大地出四寶藏。涅槃云。即是聲聞藏出生聲聞。即因緣藏出生緣覺。即大乘藏出生菩薩。可是三乘通教耶。又如法花明。長者宅內非但具七珍。亦有瓫器等物。而名長者大宅。不名通宅。波若亦爾。雖具有三乘之慧。而名菩薩法不名三乘通教。問若非三乘通教。何故勸三乘同觀。答勸三乘人同觀實相波若。不勸三乘人同學摩訶波若。問摩訶波若何故非三乘通學。答論云。波若不屬二乘。所以然者。既稱摩訶般若。即是大乘。簡非二乘。故知。波若獨菩薩法。又此波若名波羅蜜。波羅蜜者。到佛道彼岸。二乘不到佛道彼岸非波羅蜜故。摩訶波若波羅蜜。獨菩薩法不屬二乘。問經但云欲得聲聞等當學波若。云何乃言。當學實相波若。答釋論作此判。之尋文自當見也。又以理推之。必非二乘人學勸摩訶波若。摩訶波若既是菩薩觀智。豈令二乘學耶。如涅槃云。下智觀故得聲聞菩提。上智觀故得菩薩菩提。此乃明三乘同觀中道。豈令下智學上智耶。問摩訶波若乃是獨菩薩法。而波若教中說三乘人同觀實相。即是三乘通教。答若爾涅槃經中。說三乘人同觀中道。應是三乘通教耶。問若非三乘通教。何故令二乘人說耶。答長者付財凡有二意。一欲顯教菩薩。二密教二乘。此乃欲息於三乘同成菩薩。云何乃言三乘通教耶。三者由實相生波若。實相既無所依。則波若亦無著。以波若無著。能道成眾行。亦無所著故不住三界。不中息二乘。直趣佛道。以有引導之能故。名為大。問五度本非度。波若引導故名為度。亦應五度本非眼波若引導故得有眼。答通義亦類。別即不齊。如五盲雖隨有眼趣道入城而得度名而盲體性終自無眼。五度雖隨波若趣八正路至佛道城。而五度體性終非波若故。開福慧二嚴意顯於斯。問金剛波若云菩薩不住相布施如日光明照見種種色。何得波若導五度不成眼耶。答本以般若為眼。五度非眼。但波若導之令成無所得。不住三界。不墮二乘。趣佛道故名為眼。非是成波若之眼也。問若眾行中以無所得為眼。亦應以無所得為慧。云何得開福慧二嚴。答無所得即通。福慧即別。若以無所得為慧。亦有此義。但非波若之慧。所以然者。波若有無所得。復有鑒照。五度但有無所得。無有鑒照。故不名慧也。四者五十二種大賢聖位在波若觀中。故名為大。所以然者。今即唯一波若。但明昧不同故。開成五十二位。五者三大阿僧祇劫。修此大慧故名為大。六者能斷大惑。所謂無明。是故經云。無明住地其力最大。二乘雖傾四住。未能斷之。菩薩照窮實相。方除此大惑。故名為大。七者拔三界內外一切大苦故名為大。八者諸大菩薩之所行法故名為大。九者於眾行中最勝無過故名為大。十者信之而得大福。毀之而招大罪。故名為大。此之十義。自有偏約波若。自有具通二慧。可隨義配之。問波若待小名大。不待小名大。答具有二義。一者待二乘小慧故名為大。問二乘為小慧菩薩為大慧。二乘小波若菩薩大般若。何故言波若不屬二乘。二乘心中名道品耶。答講者不體其旨。憙滯此言。論云波若不屬二乘。此是摩訶波若。菩薩大慧故。不屬二乘。非二乘之人無有空慧也。不得小名大者。波若體性是大故言不待。不如二乘智慧形凡則大望菩薩即小。問菩薩形二乘即大。望佛即波若為小。故在佛心中變名薩波若。寧言體性大耶。答波若是因中之極功在十地。故名為大。不望佛也。又波若通因果。果地波若即最上無過。故體性為大。如什公云。薩波若即為老波若也。又言絕待大者。得小名大。雖復絕小。猶未絕大。為名言所及。故非好大。大小雙絕。方是好大。問何文證之。答題云摩訶波若。波若深重而智慧不稱。亦摩訶深重。大不能稱。即其證也。又照明品云。不作大小名為摩訶。復是良證。問雙絕大小。今非大非小。歎美為大。還復待小。何名絕待。答此大絕小絕大。故名絕待。問絕大絕小名之為大。即待大待小皆名為小。還是大小相待。何有絕待大耶。答望前即絕。觀後便待。義不相違。問波若之大與涅槃大何異。答通而為言。即無有異。是故論云。若如法觀佛波若及涅槃。是三即一相。涅槃之照即是波若。波若滅之則是涅槃。涅槃無累不盡名解脫。無境不照名波若。真極可軌稱法身。故具於三德名為涅槃。波若即是涅槃。故亦具三德。波若但是智慧。既名為別。涅槃亦但是果。果亦別也。問波若是涅槃三德中一德。亦應涅槃是波若三德中一德耶。答亦得為例。以波若之別即成涅槃。亦取涅槃之別成波若。波若之別即是智慧。涅槃之別名為滅度。故果德涅槃佛地波若。皆具總別也。問經說三德成涅槃。何故不言三德成波若。答隨舉一德皆攝。何故無耶。但教起各自有由。涅槃教所興。正為斥小乘灰斷不具三德。嘆大涅槃具於三。波若教起。正明因行斥二乘無二慧。辨菩薩具權實也。問涅槃何故據果波若何故約因。答涅槃名滅度。滅度者大患永滅超度四流。此名必是究竟。故就果門。波若名為慧。慧猶未決了。宜約因也。

釋道門第三。問釋論云。菩薩有二道。一波若道。二方便道。云何為二道耶。答有人言。波若道即實相波若。方便道謂方便波若。是事不然。大判二道以為三例。一全依梵本應言波若道漚和道。二具開此言應云慧道方便道。三彼此合目如論所明。波若依彼之稱。方便存此之名。今若言實相波若方便波若。皆稱波若。即二道不分。又實相波若是境。方便波若是智。豈可以境智為二道耶。若言實相波若是實慧方便波若是方便慧以為二道。是亦不然。論云波若方便以為二道。何得皆稱波若。若爾二道俱應名方便。又立三波若。皆就波若道中論之。一實相波若。二觀照波若。三文字波若。實相能生波若。故名波若。文字能詮波若。以所詮為稱。亦名波若。三觀照當體名為波若。問何故但立此三不多不少。答凡有三義。實相為能生之境。觀照為所生之智。文字為能詮之文。要具此三不得增減。又合此三以為三雙。實相為境。觀照為智。謂境智一雙。境智為所詮。文字為能顯。能所一雙。境智則自行。為眾生說。故有文字。自行化他一雙。二者實相即無為。波若。觀照即有為波若。所以然者。論云諸法實相者心行言語斷。無生亦無滅寂滅如涅槃。實相既無生滅。故是無為波若。實相能生觀智。觀智始生故名有為波若。一切唯有此二。詮此有為無為。名文字波若。文字從所詮為名。通為無為。當體明之。有為所攝。三者實相是無為波若。文字是有為波若。觀照亦有為亦無為。菩薩累猶未盡。即未勉生滅故名有為。佛即無惑不淨。無復生滅。故是無為波若。問何故有煩惱即有生滅耶。答以有煩惱。不得了悟本自無生滅故有生滅。若無煩惱。即悟觀心本自無生即是無為。不言轉有為波若故成無為也。此三門總攝境智為無為理教因果故。但立三也。問亦得實相為實慧觀照為方便以不。答若以佛性為實相。本自有之。名為實慧。觀照修習始生名為方便。此非照有為方便照空名為實。若權若實。始有之義皆名方便。本有佛性覺照之義名為實也。地論人。真修波若即本自有之。緣修波若即修習始起。性淨涅槃方便涅槃亦爾。此猶是舊本始之義。問與今何異。答本性清淨名為本有。約緣始悟本淨故名始有耳。然正道未曾本始。亦非垢淨。又舊宗為無為決定是二。今明。未得菩提。即無為成有為。若得菩提。即有為成無為。豈離有為別有無為。如前釋也。為無為例然。諸法本性清淨故名無為。未悟本無生滅名有為。然波若未曾為無為也。問波若道既開三。方便道亦有三不。答通亦有。謂境智文字。但實慧從境立名。故必須辨境。方便從巧受稱。故不須辨境。而文字即通二道也。然方便雖不從境立名。實照世諦之境即亦具三也。觀照既有為無為。方便亦爾。如來二智。即是無為。菩薩二道。猶是有為。問實相波若唯是境亦得是智。答有人言。實相波若但是境名也。釋論四十三卷問曰。前說智慧名波若。今何故說空為波若。答果中說因如云食布。此義應是因中說果。而言果中說因者。逆討明義。智慧正是波若。實相能生智慧。智慧是實相之果。而於智慧說實相為波若。故言果中說因。南北同此釋也。有人言。佛有三種。一者法身二者報身三者化身佛。實相即法身佛。實相可軌。名之為法。此法有體。故名為身。而實相非佛。能生佛故。所以名佛。二者報身。即修行會實相理。實相既常。報佛亦常。以法常故。諸佛亦常。三化佛即應物之用。此北土論師釋也。有人言。修空無相。會理圓通。心意識滅煩惱清淨。此無為波若。即是實相。若有行境。未勉生滅。即菩薩六度。得十地差別。名有為波若。此南方尚禪師義也。復有人言。實相即真諦理。會此理煩惱盡故。離生滅同真如等法性。無為而無不為。即實相是境也。此亦南方成實師義。今辨釋論意。可得有五句文。一者因中說果。如名實相為波若。二果中說因。如說波若為實相。三當因說因。實相非波若。四當果說果。波若非實相。五非因非果。故論釋實相。文云。因是一邊果是一邊。離此二邊名為中道。緣是一邊觀是一邊。離此二邊名為中道。故知。實相未曾因果。亦非境智。而隨緣逐義。有上四句不同。眾師不應汎引隻文以通圓旨也。問舊云實慧方便慧普皆稱慧。何故二道不得俱名波若。答外國名波若。此方翻為慧。梵本名漚和。此土云方便。譯經之人。欲定彼此方言故分於二道。若並云波若。即兩名相監故。叡公述羅什譯經之體云。故音失者。正之以天竺。秦言謬者。定之以字義。不可變者即而書之。故知。二道不得俱稱波若。問若爾舊何得云實慧方便慧。答欲明實法方便俱有鑒照之功故。悉稱慧耳。此是義釋。非立二道之名。立二道之名。但云慧與方便。問何故波若名慧方便不名慧耶。答通而言之。波若既照得名為慧。方便亦照亦得稱慧。方便既巧。波若亦巧。但立此二名。欲相開避。隱顯互說。波若顯其照名隱其巧稱。方便顯其巧稱隱其照名。所以然者。波若從實相境立名。又當其體故。顯照隱巧。方便不從照俗境立名。但取巧用故顯巧沒照。又慧名照空。波若既是空慧。所以名慧。方便涉有不得名慧。問波若照空名慧。方便涉有應稱為智。答如前釋之。方便非不照有。正以取巧能故不云智也。問何以知波若為體方便為用。答釋論第百卷云。問上已付囑竟。今何故復囑累。答上說波若體竟。今說方便用。故波若為體。方便為用。論又云。波若與方便本體是一。而隨義有異。譬如金為種種物。此明權實一體約義分二。金喻波若。波若為體。金上之巧。譬於方便。方便為用。問波若何故為體。方便何故為用。答實相為本。波若照實相故。波若亦為本。所以為體。諸法為末。方便照諸法故。方便為用。問何以知。實相為本。答論初卷云。三悉檀可破。第一義悉檀不可破。滅一切言語。過一切戲論。第一義悉檀即實相。論又云。除實相以外一切皆名為魔。故實相為本。又迷實相故有六道。悟實相即有三乘。故實相為迷悟之原。所以稱本也。此是對虛妄名之為實。若無虛妄即亦無實。如前云。非境非智非果非因。不同舊宗有天然實相境也。問若波若為本。即波若勝方便劣。何故六地名波若七地稱方便。答金雖是體。未作巧物。則金為劣也。制金為巧。即巧勝於金。六地雖得波若之體。未得妙用故波若則劣。至七地時。波若妙用。故稱為方便勝也。是以論云波若清淨反名方便。此言反者。照空之慧。未能涉有。故空慧未巧但名波若。照空之慧。即能涉有。故轉名方便。問曰。既反名方便。應失波若之名便無二慧。所以然者。得波若時。未有方便。得方便即無復波若。答二慧更無別。體巧之空慧。即名方便波若。空慧之巧。稱波若方便。譬如金巧巧金。巧不失金。金未有巧也。問空慧有二巧。一照空不著。二即能涉有無滯。二巧之中。以何為方便。答波若略有四力。一者照實相。二者無所著。三者斷諸惑。四者能導方便。此四用即是次第。由不見一切相。而見實相。實相既無所依。即波若亦無所著。以無所著。眾累寂然。以無累故。能導方便。令涉有無染。若然者照空及於空無著。是波若之力。故囑空慧。即空慧而能涉有。此囑方便。故兩巧不同。問方便涉有具幾力耶。答一有照境之功。二有不證空力。三起行之用。問涉有無著。是方便之功。波若力耶。答涉有即屬方便之力。無著由波若之力。以波若無著。於波若觀中。即有巧方便用。故此方便即能無著。問方便云何能不證空。答波若照諸法實相。方便能照實相諸法。故不沈空觀。名為不證。如釋論云。波若將入畢竟空無諸戲論。方便將出畢竟空嚴土化人。此即證上諸力義。將入畢竟空。即是照實相。無諸戲論。謂無所著及斷惑之功也。方便將出畢竟空。即是為波若所導。又是方便不證照境起行之力。問波若照諸法實相。云何方便即能照實相諸法。答名為諸法實相實相諸法。諸法宛然而實相。實相宛然而諸法。諸法與實相。不二而二。二常不二。由境既爾故。二慧得然。故波若照諸法實相。而方便即能照實相諸法也。問雖復實相而宛然諸法。漚和照此名巧者。亦雖復諸法。而宛然實相。波若照之。何故不巧。答通即例爾。如上隱顯釋之。又波若照實相。而能不著。二乘亦有其分。則巧義不彰。故不名方便。即空而能照有。此用既妙。故聲聞絕分。菩薩獨有故。與方便之名。問若即空而照有。既稱妙者。亦即有而照空。亦是妙也。答既能即有而照空。便能即空而照有。此是慧有方便解。方便有慧解。如此二慧。無有優劣。但對二乘照空不能涉有。故明即空而起有用為妙稱為方便。又對六地但得波若空觀未能即空涉有。故今明即空涉有是方便也。問於有不著於空不證。俱是善巧。何故不著之巧名波若。波若即劣在於六地。不證之巧名方便。方便即勝在七地耶。答如上釋之。又有是俗諦離有即易。故波若巧劣。空是真諦勉無即難。故方便即勝。又入實相觀不著於有。即勉凡夫地。即實相觀而照諸法故不滯空。離二乘地。勉凡即易。故波若劣。超聖即難。故方便勝。所以有六七優劣義也。問若爾六地二慧未等。何得上云初地已竝。答初地望地前即竝。形七地即未竝。所以然者。初地已來。即得無生動寂無礙。但寂義小強動用微弱。故云未並。至於七地。動寂無礙。二慧双遊。故稱並耳。問何以知然。答若六地已來未並。入空不見有。出有不見空。二乘亦爾。與菩薩何異。故知。初地已來。便能已並。但微有強弱。故說未均耳。問於空無著於空不證有何異耶。答二乘入空不存四句。但是不著而不能不證。菩薩入空既無可存。又即能涉有故名不證。問二乘菩薩入空同無所依。何故聲聞住空菩薩不證。答二乘以空為妙極。依此無依。是故住空。菩薩不以空為妙極。知空亦空名不可得空。不依此無依故能不證。如大品云。行亦不受。不行亦不受。行不行非行非不行乃至不受亦不受。是名菩薩無受三昧廣大之用。不與聲聞辟支佛共。是故能不證空。又二乘無願行資空。故入空便證。菩薩大願大行。資空故入空不證。問論云。因名般若至佛即反名薩波若。何得又云六地名波若至七地波若清淨反名方便。答如前釋之。六地之時。波若體強方便用弱。以體強故妙。於靜觀故。觀空不著。以用弱故。未能即空涉有於有無滯。至於七地。即體用俱等。既能觀空不染。即能涉有無著。故名等定慧地。等定慧地。即波若用巧。故云反。即從八地已上二慧俱巧。若至佛地。即兩慧同反。實慧即反名薩波若。謂一切智。方便慧反名一切種智也。問若至果反名二智。即因中同名二慧。何故前云波若稱慧方便不名慧耶。答因果立名各有其義。果門照一切空境名一切智。照一切有境名一切種智。俱從境立名。故宜並稱智。因門實慧從境方便約用。故不得並名慧也。問若爾何故菩薩道慧道種慧皆名慧耶。答因中之慧自有多門。立名各異。道慧道種慧。亦是從境立名。故宜並稱慧也。問若爾但應言道慧道種慧至果反名一切智一切種智。云何言波若方便反名二智。答論云。因中名波若。既反名薩波若。因中方便理數反名一切種智。二慧反為二智。故不待言。問論云。波若反為薩波若。何處云方便反名一切種智。答波若名慧。是照境之名。果地一切智。亦從照境為稱。二名相主故。云因名波若果名一切智。方便就用為目。一切種智。從境立名。兩義不同。故經論不云方便反為一切種智。然方便雖不從境立名。而體實照有。故反為種智。雖復無文。理數應爾。又因中名權實二慧。果名權實兩智。亦得即是其文。

論境智門第四。夫智不孤生。必由境發。故境為智本。境非獨立。因智受名。故智為境本。是以非境無以發智。非智無以照境。非境無以發智故。境為能發。智為所發。非智無以照境故。智為能照境為所照。境為能發為智所照。即境能為智所。智為能照為境所發。則智能為境所。境之所照能發於智故。境所為智能。智之所發能照於境故。智所為境能。不得言境前智後。亦非智前境後。亦非一時。唯得名為因緣境智也。問以何為境而能發智。答如來常依二諦說法故。二諦名教。能生二智故。二諦名境。關中曇影法師。注中論親承什公音旨。什公云。傳吾業者。寄在道融曇影僧叡乎。影公序二諦云。真諦故無有。以俗諦故無無。真故無有。雖無而有。俗故無無。雖有而無。雖無而有。不滯於無。雖有而無。不累於有。不滯於無故。斷無見滅。不累於有故。常著氷消。寂此諸邊故名為中。詳此意者。真故無有。雖無而有。即是不動真際。而建立諸法。俗故無無。雖有而無。即是不壞假名而說實相以不壞假名而說實相。雖曰假名。宛然實相。不動真際。建立諸法。雖曰真際。宛然諸法。以真際宛然諸法故。不滯於無。諸法宛然實相。即不累於有。不累於有故不常。不滯於無故非斷。即中道也。由斯二諦發生二智。以了諸法實相故。生漚和波若。以悟實相諸法故。生波若漚和。漚和波若而宛然漚和。波若漚和而宛然波若。以漚和宛然波若故。不著於有。波若宛然漚和故不滯於無。不累於有故常著氷消。不滯於無故斷無見滅。寂此諸邊故名中觀。是以二諦中道。還發生二智中觀。二智中觀。還照二諦中道。故境稱於智。智稱於境。境名智境。智名境智也。二境既正明。二智義明。故須約境以辨於智。二乘不得二智者。良由不見此二諦。不得正觀者。亦由不見二諦即是中道故也。問波若照諸法實相漚和照實相諸法。即波若不照諸法漚和不照實相。將非限局聖心失無礙妙用。答波若為漚和之體。漚和是波若之用。體鑒實相。用照諸法。故開此二門。即智無不圓。照無不盡。若同照實相。並鑒諸法。即二境不分。兩慧相監。問舊說亦然與今何異。答波若體非不能照諸法。但用既照不煩波若照耳。若用既照諸法。而體復照者。即一境二照。亦應二境一智生。是故二慧不並照也。舊義波若不能照諸法。漚和不能照實相。雖復並觀。智用恒別。即是格局聖心。封執二見。問前云波若不著有方便不證空。後何故復云漚和涉有不著波若鑒空無滯。答不著空者。凡有二義。一者波若照實相。實相既無所依。即波若亦無所著。此是般若之力。二不證空名為不著。此方便之力。不著有者亦具二義。一者波若入空故不著有。二者方便為波若所導。故能涉有不著。亦是波若之力也。是故經中又言。波若不著空。方便不著有。或言。波若不著有。方便不證空。各舉一門義無違背。問若波若照空漚和鑒有即二智皆照。何言波若無知。答波若雖知。而無所知。雖無所知。而無所不知。問波若知實相故言無知。亦即知波若故言無知。答既約二境分於二智。即波若知實相故言無知。不得云知波若故無知。若知波若即是方便。問波若契實相即內外並冥緣觀俱寂。方便照俗。何能知此波若。答波若無知而知為方便所知。知而無知。即方便不知。問波若無知而知。知而無知。方便亦得爾不。答指實為權。指權為實。權實不二亦得爾也。不二而二。則無知而知。名為方便。知而無知。稱為波若。問波若照空具知與無知。方便鑒有何不然耶。答二而不二皆具二也。不二而二。波若所知之境。是空能知之智為有。故具知與無知。而方便能知所知境智皆有。故波若有知有無知。而方便但有知也。問云何波若具知無知。答波若知實相即緣觀俱寂。是故無知。而境智宛然。故不失知。此無知而知。知則無知。問若爾與開善至忘彌存何異。答彼彌存之義。終非至忘。至忘之義。終不彌存。今以彌存為至忘。至忘為彌存故為異也。問舊義亦然。與今何異。答彼至忘時智終不作境。境終不成智。則是境智二見。若智即是境。境既無知。智亦應爾。若境則是智。在智既照。境亦應然。今對此一門。略敘大乘樞要觀行淵府。經云。貪欲則是道。恚癡亦復然。如是三法中。無量諸佛道。貪欲則是道者。然貪欲本來寂滅自性清淨。即是實相。如斯了悟便名波若。豈有實相之境異波若觀耶。故境智不二。照貪欲雖本寂滅而於眾生宛然有貪。便名方便。傷其無貪謂貪。而欲拔之故。此方便即名大悲。欲令悟貪無貪。與無貪樂。即此大悲復名慈也。故一句觀行。具境智二門慈悲兩觀。初信此法便名十信。次解此法稱為十解。乃至證悟究竟了達名為佛心。豈非一貪觀中具諸佛道。次論二經。問大品明實相不生不滅能生波若。涅槃云十二因緣不生不滅發於觀智。二經同釋境智。有何異耶。答略明四句。一開因果開境智。二合因果合境智。三開因果合境智。四開境智合因果。開因果開境智者。則波若所明。因有道慧道種慧。果則一切智一切種智。謂開因果也。實相能生波若。則實智之境。世諦能生方便。為權智之境。謂開境智也。次合因果合境智者。如涅槃五性之義。一因性。二因因性。三果性。四果果性。五非因非果性。此之五性。更無二體。十二因緣能生之義。則名為境。所發之義。便名觀智。觀智明了故稱菩提。菩提無累即是果果。然十二因緣。本性清淨。未曾因果。亦非境智故名非因非果。然此五性既無二體。則轉境為智。反因為果。如斯因果。未曾因果。故名合因果合境智也。三合因果開境智者。亦如大品以波若為因薩婆若為果。因果更無二體。轉波若之因為薩婆若果故。什公云。薩婆若則是老波若。此名合因果也。開境智者。實相雖能生波若。而不轉實相之境為波若。亦不轉世諦之境。為方便之智。故名開境智。次開因果合境智者。亦如涅槃轉境為智故。名合境智。而有因與因因果與果果故。云開因果也。問既轉境為智亦轉因為果。即應同境智俱合。答經開因與因因果與果果故。言開因果。而取境智。並作因因之名。沒境智之稱故。言合境智。問二經何故開合不同。答涅槃就十二因緣辨境智義。欲明眾生皆有佛性。眾生即是十二因緣。因緣能生即境。所生即智。更無二體故明合境智也。大品辨實相生波若。能生即是無為波若。所生即是有為觀智。故不轉無為波若。成有為波若故。開境智也。此皆不二而二。故二經不同。若二而不二。更無異也。

同異門第五。問凡有五時二智。一照事中之法為權。鑒四諦之理為實。謂三藏教二智也。二照真空為實。鑒俗有為權。此大品教二智也。三知病識藥為權。應病授藥為實。淨名經二智也。四照一乘為實。鑒二乘為權。法花二智也。五照常住為實。鑒無常為權。涅槃二智也。如上所明者。乃是釋大品教意。云何以噵淨名經宗。答五時之說四宗之論。乖文傷義。古已詳之。今當略說。尋一經之內。具有五文。不待始終。方備諸智。如大品云。廣說三乘之教。菩薩遍學諸道。即識照四諦之理為實。鑒事中之法為權。故大品教中有三藏二智也。波若鑒空。漚和涉有。九十章經盛談此法。即空有二智。論釋畢定品。引法花經。謂三一二智也。法尚品云。諸佛色身有去來。法身無去來。則常無常二智也。知病識藥。眾經皆具。不待言之。故大品一經。備五二智。淨名經中。具諸智者。問疾品明三空自調為實慧。嚴土化人為方便。即空有二智。弟子品云。佛身無為。不墮諸數。亦出現生死五濁。則常無常二智。不二法門品。明聲聞心菩薩心不二。謂一乘實智。照大小差別名三乘權智。問不二法門云何即一乘耶。答不二之理。則是乘本故名為乘。由體不二之理故。生不二之觀。由不二之觀。能導眾行到薩婆若。故十二門論明大分深義。所謂空也。以通達是義。即通達大乘。具六波羅蜜。無所障礙。問不二之理通為三乘之本。豈但一乘本耶。答理既無二。乘豈三哉。但唱此言則知歸一。又無二之理。即是一乘異名也。又尚明常住。豈不顯一乘。故知。淨名亦具五二智。法花經具諸智者。方便品云。我雖說涅槃。是亦非真滅。諸法從本來常自寂滅相。昔涅槃非真滅。今涅槃為真滅。則昔涅槃非真常。今涅槃是真常。又天親論釋壽量品。具辨三身。化身則有始有終。報身則有始無終。法身則無始無終。故知。具常無常義。又若一乘之果猶是無常。即因異聲聞。果同灰斷。是事不然。聲聞果則是一乘因也。安樂行品明。知一切法空如實相。則是實智。知因緣生。謂方便智。亦具空有二智也。序品列眾。猶依小乘嘆聲聞德。故知。亦具三藏二智。涅槃備五不復待言。問若一經之內具諸智者。眾經何別。答諸大乘經。通為顯道。道既無二。教豈異哉。但入有多門故。諸部差別。雖一經之內具含五種。而明義傍正不同。三藏一教。唯明事理權實。未辨餘門二智。大品以空有為正。餘義為傍。法花三一為端。餘皆汎辨。涅槃以常無常為正。餘悉兼明。問眾經何故有此傍正。答有二種菩薩。一直往佛道。二迴小入大。波若為直往菩薩。說方便實慧不墮三界。不住二乘。有兩健人。各扶一腋。直至佛道。故法花云。有佛子。心淨柔濡亦利根。我記如是人來世得作佛。此則指波若時事。不須明三乘為方便一乘為真實。又迴小入大之人。於波若時通根未成。故不正明三一之義。而畢定品引法花經。明退不退。蓋是波若後分傍及之耳。三修比丘無常之執。至大品時。其根未傾故。不廣明常住。波若漚和既是因行。復須識果德。是故大品後分略明法身常迹有去來。又常啼本求波若故。以二慧為正。中道疑佛去來故。傍明本迹。問大品明有為波若無為波若。豈不正辨常無常耶。答無為波若有二種。一者以實相境名無為波若。所生觀智名有為波若。二者以佛果法身名無為波若。菩薩因慧名有為波若。大品經。正明境智為無為義。傍明因果為無為也。是以論云。欲得有為波若。當學無為波若。此明欲得觀智當學實相境。若言欲得於因當學果者。於義不便也。又云。實相能生波若。正是以境生智。若言以果生因。義亦不便也。若以實相則是法身以如為佛者。則此境智便是因果。上五句中。以詳此意。問大品何故以境智為無為是正。涅槃以因果為無為是正耶。答大品明說菩薩行。實相能生波若。波若故有漚和。故以境智為正。涅槃盛明果德故。因位以來皆是無常。如來法身始是常住。故以因果為無為是正宗。問大品明境智為無為。云何傍正。答實相境雖是波若本。而釋論開波若為二慧。二慧則所生。是有為波若。故以有為是正。無為境傍。故不得以境為宗。問大品不住法住波若具足六度等萬行。為是有為為是無為。答不住法者。不住一切有所得法。以不住一切法故。則住波若。此則是實相無為波若。次下具足六波羅蜜中。第六波若則是有為波若。此凡明三法次第。一者能生。謂實相無為波若。二所生觀智有為波若。三導成因果之行。問何以知不住法住波若是實相波若耶。答第六度中既是有為則知。初是無為也。又論辨六家解波若。第六則是實相。仍引不住法住波若。故知。第六則是實相。法花經。正為迴小入大之人故。明三乘為方便。令其捨小。示一乘為真實。勸其取大故。正明三一二慧也。既捨小求大。則發菩提心。修菩薩行。須學空有權實。不著三界。不墮二乘。直至佛道。但大品既以廣明故。法花但略說也。三根聲聞。於法花之座。不執無常故。未明常樂。但既說一乘之因。須辨一乘之果。是故後分略明於常。又說常住成前一乘。若是無常。還同灰斷。既異昔三。則知常住。是故略辨常無常也。涅槃教起。正為無常之執。故開常住。三一空有前教已明。但略說之。問波若為直往菩薩。法花為迴小入大之人即攝緣已周。涅槃教興復何所為。答設教多意。不可一途。大品為十九因緣。涅槃所為非一。依法花釋此意者。諸子有二。一者失心。即鈍根之人。二不失心。謂利根人。雖有直往之與迴小聞波若法花並順悟。謂不失心子利根人也。餘失心鈍根。猶未服藥。双林唱滅為說涅槃。方乃取信。若然者。始蓮花藏終跋提河。但有利鈍二緣。爾前為利根人。涅槃之教為鈍根人。又波若法花之座。皆已得道。今聞涅槃。更復進悟。故云。為人中象王迦葉菩薩。說是經也。又有二緣。一歷教已得悟道。二但聞涅槃則便取信。故波若法花。雖為兩人。更說涅槃二智。別論二經。問大品淨名二智何異。答凡有三說。五時者云。大品照空有分二智。淨名知病識藥。應緣授教。如上釋之。四時義云。大品淨名同是第二時攝。照空為實。鑒有為權。但大品通說淺深。淨名偏明八地之法。北土人云。淨名是圓頓之教。非染非淨染淨双遊。今謂。並不然。智度菩薩母。方便以為父。一切眾導師。無不由是生。此則空有二慧。斯乃遍貫方等。豈局大品耶。又波若鑒空漚和涉有。此總攝諸智。知病識藥應病授藥。縕在其中。豈得彼波若二智不攝淨名權實。故釋為非。龍樹烈十大經。謂法花等。而波若最勝。豈言大品通說淺深淨名獨明妙道。若言淨名是八地已上之人故法妙者。如來為究竟果德說於波若。即應最深。又身子善吉小人。說之便非大法。若云淨名辨不思議巨細容入故為深者。大品明指障風力毛舉大千。豈不明耶。又波若漚和不思議之本也。借座請飯不思議之迹也。如大品盛明二慧。則辨不思議本。淨名現通。乃顯不思議迹。何得本通淺深迹獨為妙。若云三乘通學波若故通淺深者。淨名亦辨二乘之人皆以無得為得。豈不通耶。若言此經是圓頓教者。是亦不然。大品等辨菩薩權道方便適化不同。寧獨以此經為圓頓耶。今所明者。大品淨名所明二智。有同有異。智度菩薩母。方便以為父二經同辨斯法。但大品前明實慧。後辨方便。故九十章經開為二道。六十六品明波若。後二十四品明方便道。所以前明實慧。後辨方便者。實相為本。諸法為末。波若照實相故。波若為本。方便照諸法故。方便為末。此示二本二末。從本至末從體起用。故前明實慧。後辨方便。二者一切諸見凡有二種。一者有見二者無見。波若斥其有見。方便破其無見。即顯中道。遠離二邊故。前明實慧。後辨方便。謂破見次第也。三者菩薩退有二事。一貪三界二取小乘。方便實慧故。不著三界。實慧方便故。不墮二乘。即入菩薩位。得至佛道。要前離三界。後離二乘。故前辨實慧。後明方便。此如法花經五百由旬嶮難惡道。三界為三百。二乘為二百。先離三百。後離二百。故先明實慧。後辨權慧。故大品中。以二乘合為一百。但明四百。雖開合為異。與法花大同。如彼廣說。又叡公釋論序云。正覺知邪思之自起故。阿含為之作。鑒滯有之由惑故。波若為之照。若然者。波若即破小乘之有故。前明實慧。雖破著有。復恐證空故。方便破空。此約教之前後為次第也。五就位明次第者。前明波若道。謂六地已還。次約方便道。則七地已上無生法忍。此皆大判為言。龍樹云。波若中非無方便。方便中非無波若。但前多明波若。後多明方便。次淨名經辨二慧者。前明方便。後辨於實。所以然者。此教所興正起於疾。故云。其以方便現身有疾。以有疾故便有方丈二會菴薗兩集。故前明方便。後辨實也。又成就眾生淨佛國土。此是菩薩方便用故。佛國一品。明淨佛土。方便已去。辨成就眾生。是以此經多明方便。又大品多明實相。少現神通。淨名多現神通。少明實相。又大品多明實慧方便。淨名經多辨權實二慧。問權與方便有何異耶。答通即無別。皆是善巧之義。別而為言。方便則長。權語則短。今總明三句。一照實相為實慧。鑒萬法為權。二靜鑒萬法為實。外反動為權。三就動用。以不疾之身為實。託疾方丈為權。初照實相名為實慧。自餘三門。皆屬方便故。權義短者。但取外示反動名之為權。故權是方便中之別用。所以言短。問權與方便既有短長。兩實亦得爾不。答方便之實則長。權實則短。所以然者。方便既無所不為。實慧照無所不為而實無所為。是故長也。權智但是有中反動。實智是有中之靜鑒。故權實則短。問外示反動為權。則照動無所動為實。但立此二成權實不。答外示反動為權。此是應病授藥。必須內靜鑒根藥為實。方成二慧。空慧不知根藥故。不成二慧也。

論開合門第八。二智具有開合四句。一者開於二慧。如前所明。照諸法實相故名波若。照實相諸法稱為漚和。如來內照此二故有二慧。佛從此二生故。有父有母。外為眾生還說此二。如釋論云。初說波若道。次明方便道。初明佛母經。次明佛父經。所以波若為十方三世諸佛父母尊經。信之而得大福。毀之而招大罪。問既以二慧為父母。何者為祖父母耶。答約境智分之。即實相及諸法二境。能發生二智。即祖父母。是故爾炎名為智母。若據眾行為論。由大悲故方有波若。即大悲為波若母。亦由大悲故有方便。是方便之母。即是父義。但合說之耳。此即是開二慧也。問若以波若為母方便為父。何故論云波若為母般舟三昧為父。又云波若母五度為父。答般舟翻為現前。現前者。現前見佛。此是有行。故屬方便名之為父。五度有行。亦屬方便也。次第二合二慧者。明波若與漚和皆是波若。所以然者。波若為體漚和為用。體即波若之體。用是波若之用。故皆名波若。如來雖說大品九十章開。於二道皆稱摩訶波若經。不以後為方便。故知。二慧皆名波若又如論云。以金為種種物。而即是金更無別體。又如六度中合方便與實慧皆名波若。問何以知然。答餘五度。但明五種有行。不辨照知空有。今照空義屬波若。知有義亦屬波若。故知。二慧皆名波若。即是合權實皆名實義也。第三合權實皆名權者。照有功用既名為方便。照空之巧。亦是方便故。二照同巧。即兩皆方便。又如七地中名方便波羅蜜者。釋論云。是時波若清淨反名方便。以至於六地波若用猶未妙故。不名方便。至七地即波若用妙故名方便。如七地文從方便慧起十妙行。雖知三界空而莊嚴三界等。故知。二慧皆名方便。對此義。亦得六地有方便與波若皆名波若。又如勝鬘云一乘大方便。一乘之中。若照空照有。說空說有。皆名方便。以悉是諸佛大善巧故。亦是合二慧為方便也。四者不開不合。即泯上三句明諸法。正觀未曾有實。亦未曾是權。亦未曾開。亦未曾合。故云是法不可示言辭相寂滅。佛不能行佛不能到。而今有開合實權者。皆是無名相中。為出處眾生故。明開合不同耳。

斷伏門第九。先依中論疏。先立異家義。然後辨。問二智云何斷煩惱耶。答此經云。佛為增上慢人說斷煩惱。實不斷也。問曰。大小經論皆明斷惑。云何不斷。答若言斷者。今請問之。為有惑可斷耶。如其實有即不可斷。又經云。若法先有後無。諸佛菩薩即有過罪。云何言斷。如其無惑。竟何所斷。又有惑即是有見。無惑名為無見。亦有亦無非有非無。並是煩惱。云何煩惱斷煩惱耶。又縱有煩惱者為所斷慧為能斷。為見惑故斷不見斷耶。如其見者即明闇並。云何斷耶。若不相見。復何所斷。若言解惑相違而懸斷者。即天竺燃燈破震旦闇。一品之解。除一切惑。又慧獨能斷。假伴共除。若獨能斷者。菩薩何故修八聖道。獨慧不斷。雖復假伴。亦不能斷。如一盲不見眾盲亦然。又一念斷為相續耶。若一念者惑亦一念。即與俱謝。何能斷耶。若相續斷者。為滅故續不滅續耶。滅即復無所續。不滅無復能續。云何續耶。以是推之。即無所斷。是以不應言智斷惑。問若爾應無有斷。何故經云。一念相應慧斷煩惱習耶。答如上推之。即畢竟無斷。如是了悟即是斷也。所以然者。於一切處求解惑無從。即心無所依。心無所依。即眾累清淨。故名為斷也。斷與不斷不相違。問以無所依名為斷者。為波若斷為方便斷耶。答舊云。波若是空慧故斷。方便照有即不斷也。今明。有所得空有二慧俱不能斷。無所得空有俱能斷也。但不二而二。開二慧不同。方便實慧。即不斷而斷。實慧方便。斷而不斷。問何故爾耶。答有所依著。是諸煩惱根。諸法實相。是無著之本。由實相無所依故生波若。波若即無所著故眾惑清淨。故名斷也。問若會境生智。然後斷惑與他何異。答不言惑外別有實相故會實相斷。但了煩惱本自不生今亦不滅。即是實相。故名會實相斷。問為但波若斷薩波若亦斷。答此義舊有二師。或言金剛心斷。是波若斷。或言佛智所斷。即薩波若斷。今明。大品云。菩薩無礙道中行。佛在解脫道中行。無一切暗。詳此文意。無礙解脫俱有斷不斷義。若一念正觀惑不現前。即無礙正斷。解脫出居累外。故解脫不斷。故云。佛在解脫道中行。無一切暗也。若言解脫續於無礙鎮前無惑之處遮未來惑不得續生。即有遮斷。故亦名斷。無礙正斷故。得言金剛惑盡。未有解脫遮未來惑。得云不盡故。盡與不盡二既不違。問波若為無礙薩婆若為解脫者。得言地前為無礙初地為解脫不。答有人云。亦得如此。小乘即苦忍之前習行未久。但伏非斷。大乘地前修行積時。是故能斷也。今謂不然。大小乘義。乃優劣懸殊。如來制立大格相似。小乘即七方便伏苦忍斷之。大乘三十心伏初地斷也。初地中自開無礙解脫。無礙正斷解脫遮斷。如上釋也。問為轉無礙為解脫。為無礙謝解脫生耶。答毘曇即謝。成論即轉。斥此二說。餘處已明。今略陳之。金剛若謝別有佛果。云何波若反名薩云若。轉金剛而成佛者。云何轉無常之法而作常耶。今明者。具有轉謝及不轉不謝。若了悟金剛本不生滅。即金剛是佛。故不轉不謝。是故經云。一切眾生本來寂滅。不復更滅也。於妄謂之心。息生滅之見。故名為謝。約了悟之者。前謂生滅。今悟無生滅。是故名轉。二文一會義無所違。問若地前伏初地斷者。何得釋論云初地時未捨結七地方斷耶。答眾師不同。生公用大頓悟義。唯佛斷惑。爾前未斷。故佛名為覺。爾前未覺。瑤師用小頓悟義。七地方斷。引向文證之。今明。皆無所妨。大經云。唯佛名眼見佛性。十地已還皆稱聞見。即唯佛斷惑。爾前不斷也。初地已來。但斷麁累未除細惑。故云不斷。七地除細故言斷耳。故各有其義。不應偏執。問為中伏假斷為假伏中斷。答適緣取悟無有定也。自有中伏假斷。如求性有無不可得故名非有非無。目之為中。此但伏性有無猶未斷也。次明假有假無。即性有無始斷。所以然者。識假有假無。即知畢竟無有定性有無。故名假斷也。次明假伏中斷者。對性有無。說假有無。以伏性有無故云假伏。次明悟假有不有假無不無非有非無名中道。前性有無始得永斷故。名假伏中斷也。問亦得假伏假斷中伏中斷以不。答亦有此義。如識假有無即性有無永斷。名為假斷也。自有識假有無。但伏性有無。猶未斷也。自有悟非有非無。但伏於性。自有悟非有無。性惑永斷不須說假也。問云何名假名惑實法惑耶。答成論師云。緣假迷假稱假名惑。則迷假人法等。緣實迷實名實法惑。如迷五塵等。今明。此是三藏一部之義耳。大乘假實惑者。即向所明之。即前之假名為假惑。即前之實名為實惑。所以然者。諸法未曾假實。今有此假實。良非惑耶。問大乘亦有假名實法義不。答二是假名。不二為中道。中道即是實相。故名實法。迷因緣假名二諦稱為假惑。迷不二實相目實惑也。問云何迷耶。答不二二名為二諦。二不二為中道。二定二故名迷假。不二定不二稱為迷實。又二不二皆名為假。非二不二方為實。迷此假實名假實惑也。

攝智門第十。問權實二智攝智盡不。答攝智皆盡。經有一智二智三智四智五智乃至七十七智。皆二智攝。攝一智者。即如實智。如實智即是佛眼。佛眼無法不見。而無所見。無法不見。名權智。而無所見名為實智。問如實智但是照實相智。唯應是實智。云何有權智耶。答此明如實而知名如實智。故具二智也。次攝二智者。則一切智一切種智。但此二智凡有六門。一空有分二。一切智為空智。一切種智為有智。此則權實攝也。次以總別分二。總相知為一切智。別相知為一切種智。但總別三門。一以苦無常為總相。陰入界為別相。二以無生滅為總相。諸法差別為別相。三以略為總相。廣為別相。如苦諦為總相。廣分別苦有無量相為別相。三別中取初義。第二義猶是空有。第三義屬後廣略也。三者略說為一切智。廣說為一切種智。如上釋也。四者因為一切智。果為一切種智也。問二智俱是果門。云何分因果耶。答例如菩提涅槃為果及以果果。涅槃既是果果。即菩提亦得為因。此義論因果。今亦然矣。五者小乘名一切智。大乘名一切種智。此明小乘總相知十二入苦空無常。為一切智。大乘遍知一切法為一切種智。六者一切種智為空智。一切智為有智。以種名性。性即實相理為諸法根本。故名為種。一切智知一切法為有智也。次攝三智門者。三智多門。涅槃云。一者波若一切眾生之慧。所謂下智也。二毘婆舍那謂二乘智即是中智也。三闍那佛菩薩智謂上智也。又云。波若別相。智別知諸法。毘婆舍那總相。智總知諸法。闍那為破相。破相者。波若知有。毘婆舍那照空。闍那捨於空有。即中道智也。又如波若三慧品說。二乘為一切智。菩薩道種智。佛一切種智。二乘名為一切智者。十二入攝一切法。二乘知十二苦空無常名一切智。論云。此但有一切智名。而無一切智用。猶如晝燈但有燈名而無燈用。問云何無用。答佛具知一切法別相。然後能知一切總相。故名一切智。二乘但總相。知一切不能一一別相而知。如涅槃云。二乘但知於苦。不能分別是苦有無量相。我於彼經。竟不說之。即二乘不能別知。故但有一切智名。而無一切智用也。道種慧者。菩薩知四種道。人天謂福樂道及三乘道。知佛道自度度他。餘三道但度他也。佛名一切種智者。此一切種智。實異前一切種智。前一切種智。但知有法。今合知空有名一切種智。經云。知一相故名一切種智。又云。知一切法行類相貌。名一切種智也。此三智中。一一皆具照空有。皆有權實二智也。次地持論有三智。一清淨智。斷五住惑盡故云清淨。即照第一義空智也。二一切智。即照有智也。三無礙智。無功用智。照一切法。無復功用故。云無礙。初是實智。後二為權。次攝大乘論有三智。一加行智。即進求上地心。二正體智。證如之智。謂實智也。三後得智。即寂而動。謂權智也。此三智即為次第。前有進求之智。次正得實觀。後從實起用。地地中皆具此三智也。又四智攝入二智者。攝大乘論云。一切智一切種智無礙智無功用智。前二知空有。次一不從師。後一無有功用。即法花經云。佛智一切智自然智無師智也。前二別照空有。後二通空有也。次四無礙智。此有多門。今略舉一義。知世諦為知法。知第一義為知義。此即二智。樂說及辭皆世諦智也。次明四智義。我生已盡梵行已立所作已辦不受後有。釋此不同。婆沙云。我生已盡。是斷集智。集因能生未來苦果。名之為生。無學斷竟名我生已盡。梵行已立。是修道智。梵名為淨。無漏聖道。能除垢染。離障清淨。名為梵行。無學聖人道行成滿。名為已立。所作已辦。是證滅智。斷惑證滅名為所作。無學證果功成。名為已辦。不受後有。是知苦智。後世苦報。名為後有。無學聖人。於此有不復更受。名不受後有。問經說四諦。先明苦集後明滅道。今何故前斷集修道後證滅知苦。答四諦示欣厭門。先苦集後滅道。於欣厭門。逆觀次第故。先果後因。四智是順觀門故。先因後果。故前集道。後明滅苦。又要除障。然後善成。故先斷集後修道。後果中。先滅現在過患。後不受未來苦報。故前滅後苦。勝鬘涅槃釋四智又異。今不述之。四智皆入大乘權智。是小乘之實智。次五智攝入二智者。一法住智。二泥洹智。三無諍智。四願智。五邊際智。依小乘。法住智者。知苦集相生諸法存立名法住智。知道及滅名泥洹智。又云。知苦集道名法住智。知於滅諦名泥洹智。令物不起諍為無諍智。願知未來一切事。即便得知名為願智。邊際智者。報身最後名為邊際。聖人修得自在智故。於報身延促自在名邊際智。小乘前二智通利鈍羅漢皆有。後三但利根羅漢有之。又前二通一切定皆能起。後三但第四禪起。前二通漏無漏。後三但有漏。前二三界身得起。後三但欲界三天下身起。前二以三界法為所緣境。無諍智者。但以欲界瞋心為境。大乘五智。一切處一切身五十二位皆得起。通漏無漏也。小乘五智。皆為大乘權智攝。大乘論五智。泥洹即是實相正法屬實智。餘四屬權智。十一智攝入二智者。十智照四諦。是差別智。屬權智攝。如實智照一實諦。即是實相。謂無差別智。故屬實智也。又論云。十智在四眼。如實智為佛眼。若爾四眼中具二智。佛眼中亦具二智也。問菩提與薩婆若十智何智攝。答論云。菩提是十智。即是有智。即一切種智。薩波若為如實智。謂空智。亦是一切智。四十四智者。約十二因緣作之。如云老死苦老死集老死滅道。一一皆具四諦觀也。七十七智者。生緣老生。不離生緣老死。初是正觀智。次是審法智。又正觀智簡無因。審法智簡異邪因。三世各二為六。此六是法住智。次一是泥洹智。法住為明生死因果增長故多。泥洹滅之智。三世合一。此皆小乘之義。皆屬大乘權智攝之。若大乘泥洹智是實智。如上也。如此皆是無分別中善功分別。雖分別不動無分別。不同數論有所得釋。既是名教。不得不知。問四十四及七十七同從老死起。有何異耶。答四十四觀果由因。其觀易成故。為鈍根人也。觀果由因者。初觀老死是果。次明老死集者。觀果由因也。七十七即觀因生果。如云生緣老死。生是因。為老死之緣。不離生緣老死亦爾。觀因生果。其事既難。故為利根人。四十四成論文云。在七方便中。七十七文不判位。眾師云。在四現忍中也。問何故不從無明起耶。答尋末至本。此觀易成。又四十四但得從果起。以具四諦故。若從無明起無復因。云何得具四諦耶。七十七不從無明起。但從老死起。其觀易成也。問菩薩觀十二因緣屬何智耶。答菩薩無方。不可定判。釋論云。菩薩為眾生故。從果觀十二因緣。

常無常門第十一。略明四句。一境智俱常。唯大乘有之。小乘無也。以小乘凡聖之智皆無常故。但大乘境智俱常。凡有三義。一常智照實相境。如果德觀照波若照實相波若。二常智照虛空常境。如大經云。一切常中虛空第一。今常智照此常境也。若以實相即是虛空。如釋論中說。虛空非有非無言語道斷心行處滅。即是實相。今且據事。以虛空為常。此二句示境智二義也。三者常智還自照智。即是反照智義也。次常照無常凡有二義。一照眾生無常。二照應迹無常也。次無常照常凡為三句。一照虛空之常。二照實相境常。三照法身佛性常。但是照境非照智常。以因中未有常智故也。次無常照無常有二句。一照無常境。二者無常自照無常智。問無常智還照無常智。與常智知常智何異。答常智知常唯有一義。無常智知無常有二義。一者後念智。知前念智。二者一念智。即自能知。得並觀者。具有二義。未能並者。但有前後相知也。常知於常。但有一念自知無前後知也。問北土論師云。初地已上即有常住法身。亦即有常智。是事云何。答須詳此說意。為以證真之智為法身耶。取所證真如佛性為法身耶。若以能證之智為法身常者。是事不然。釋論云。在菩薩心名為波若。在佛心反名薩波若。若是常者。則無明昧。不應有改反也。又涅槃經云。此常法稱。要是如來。長壽品凡簡三法常義。一者外道。二者小乘。三者菩薩。並無常住故。以佛性常為法身者。此猶是江南舊宗。非北方異說也。問有講攝大乘師云。初地見真與佛地不異。是事云何。答若爾論何得云在菩薩心名波若在佛心反名薩婆若。既其改反。即知。有明昧不同。又論云。波若清淨反名方便。則知。六地波若未淨。又本以見真故斷惑。初地見真與佛不異。則一切惑斷。若不以見真斷惑者。便應是有智斷惑故。此說不然。如此皆是無分別中善巧分別。不爾者。淺學失於眉眼為無巧方便。今既欲釋二智。即廣解方便方便者。無差別差別智。故須善巧分別法門。然後無方無礙之用。後當廣敘得失。未可驚同舊宗也。今據此門可有四句。一者語同意異。語同上來所辨。乃有常無常。問何故語同耶。答語出經論。經論共用。何得不同。而意異者。中論云。言語雖同。其心則異。今明。此是無分別中善巧分別。不二二義。故開常無常境智二義耳。既云不二二。即雖二不二。如大經云。我無我無有二相。常無常亦爾。經云。愚人謂二。智者了達。知其無二。復有愚者但謂不二。智人了知不二而二。何者愚人。不識常無常。不知境智。故是無明。無明故為愚。智人了知常無常。名為智者。是故名為語同意異也。二者語異意異。有所得人。不善分別。無所得大乘能善分別。故名語異。一者是無所得心善分別。二者有所得心不善分別。故名意異。三者語同意同者。語與諸佛菩薩方等經論同。意與諸佛菩薩無依正觀亦同。故名語同意同。又語與有所得人語同。有所得人。復有少分得處。今意亦與彼同。故云語同意同。四語異意同。語雖異經論。而意符合道。亦得用之。又語異舊宗。而意同會佛旨。亦得用之。宜以斯四句總貫諸門。不應一向偏有去取。問何故明此四句。答有二種人。一始學大乘。謂必須一向與舊宗為異。則成謗法。所以然者。語出經論。宜共用之。但得與無得其心各別。不應以意異故令語亦異。二者學小乘人。玄與大乘異。強謂義同。是亦謗法。所以然者。小乘語意與大乘語意實不同。而強謂同。如學成實論者。謂無相滅諦與方等理均。故亦名謗法也。為此大小學人。宜開同異四句。