佛母般若波羅蜜多圓集要義釋論

Furthermore, here it is shown that the Blessed One expounded upon the true principle. As the Verse states:

In accord with principle, He speaks of the nature's purity

Likewise, it cannot be attained

Nature and non-nature are mutually opposed

The manifold natures are definitely seen.

+ Here it says: "In accord with principle, He speaks of the nature's purity," and so forth: This means discrimination according to defilement; because wisdom counteracts the various forms of distraction, it is therefore said to be "in accord with principle"—that is, the Blessed One, within the Prajñāpāramitā, expounded it correctly.

+ The Verse says: "The nature's purity": This is the radiance of the self-nature, purified in accord with principle, capable of counteracting the various distractions and that which is impure. The Verse says: "Likewise": This means the sense of accumulation. That is, the measure of accumulation now present, such as the nature being one nature and so forth, cannot be attained. To say "in accord with principle" means the sense of "in accord with measure," whose essence is the non-dual wisdom. That wisdom is able to counteract; this is determinate.

Question: Again, what kinds of measure are these that cannot be attained?

Answer: This speaks of inference (anumāna) that cannot be attained.

The self-experience now present is not a different characteristic that has grown, like pleasure and so forth within self-experience. If one speaks of the treatise's establishment, then the self-nature of the wisdom-as-it-truly-is that has been attained would be contradictory. If a different characteristic increases, then self-experience would not constitute a counteracting measure.

Here, it is not the characteristics such as blue, yellow, and so forth of the object that is cognized; the nature of one and many is different from that which has discrimination. Therefore, contemplate with determination. Self-experience accomplishes the path of compassionate conduct—that is, it is not the nature illumined and manifested by the outer gate, and is not disturbed by a different characteristic that has grown.

Why is this? Because the characteristics such as blue, yellow, and so forth now present, within the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), are all without real nature. Here there is only wisdom that cognizes clearly as-it-truly-is, and so this is without fault.

If, with regard to external matters, like self-experience, there is some establishment by such a sense, then this is the sense of "not in accord," for it has faults; yet it is not the determinate seeing of the accomplished limit. Why is this? Because experiences such as pleasure and so forth are without nature with respect to the external bases.

Nor is there anything to be examined and sought in another base. Herein, experiences such as pleasure and so forth are the experiences of self-nature, such as pleasure and so forth—not the experiences of characteristics, such as pleasure and so forth. What has been set forth here is the wisdom apart from the two characteristics of the grasping subject and the grasped object.

This is not where differentiation is now present.

Question: If now there is no consciousness of that grasping subject and grasped object, then why is there afterward the nature of that consciousness?

Answer: Here it only departs from the characteristics of the grasping subject and the grasped object. Although the characteristic of consciousness thereafter exists, it is not what language indicates. The nature of that existent dharma has indicated the truth and is harmoniously united in accord with principle; therefore, here it speaks of all that consciousness.

Like the wisdom of inference, it is not formed by union here. Why is this? Because the characteristic of non-dual wisdom is not the two characteristics of reception that have been enacted.

If there were two characteristics yet that measure were not accomplished, this would be precisely because the two characteristics had obstructed each other. Like grasping at "a rabbit's horns"—is this not a fault? Why is it that there is no characteristic of wisdom within the grasping subject called "sound"?

Because that dharma is determinately without nature. Yet because of that consciousness, with respect to external characteristics such as blue, yellow, and so forth, there is in all cases obstruction; hence the examining and seeking of those—the one and the different having nature—exerts effort to receive and grasp, and this is not the true intent, nor is it a consciousness apart from the ultimate truth that yet has a grasped object.

Those pleasures, such as the natureless and so forth, having been grasped so as to determine the essential nature of the characteristic of wisdom now present—this is the grasping subject, this is the grasped object. But here it speaks of there being no characteristic of that grasping subject. Because the essence together with the act mutually delight in grasping the determinate nature, it is therefore not the characteristic of wisdom.

Within self-experience, speaking of the grasping subject called "sound," there is likewise no characteristic of wisdom; mutually delighting in grasping the determination concerning the self-principle, according to the nature thus arisen. In this way, within the self-experience of the characteristic of wisdom, it is correctly established. What has been set forth here is for the purpose of departing from the nature of the grasping subject together with the grasped object.

Here, speaking of "non-dual," this is the characteristic of wisdom. The self-experience accomplished by direct perception (pratyakṣa) is not all that is truly manifested and harmoniously united. If one again grasps at the determination there—that the nature is without phases—then within the characteristic of non-dual wisdom there is something disturbed; the seeds arising in succession do not follow the characteristic of wisdom, and the two facing manifestations are not produced.

If one grasps at the determination concerning the characteristic of non-duality, then here this returns to becoming grasping and discrimination, not that characteristic of wisdom, accomplished within the same dharma. Therefore, with regard to all senses now present, it becomes a slander. One should know that the conventional nature together with the ultimate has thus determined the sense of being without reality.

Herein, the sense made manifest is, as the Buddha said, that wisdom is illumination (vidyā), and the conventional is non-illumination (avidyā). Whether wisdom be illumination or non-illumination, both cognize as-it-truly-is concerning the differentiation of kinds, and likewise there is no arising. Therefore that dharma, together with the characteristic as-it-truly-is, is without inversion—that is, the characteristic of illuminating wisdom enacts the counteracting; one should know this is determinate.

If within this ultimate truth there is determinately no self-nature, then like clouds in empty space, they are not the counteractant. Because the counteracting in accord with principle now present has enacted the truth and attained correspondence, like the self-nature of heat counteracting the cold thing. This sense of non-reality indicates non-illumination in the same way.

Because of speaking of the sense as-it-truly-is, therefore within the cause—the self-nature of non-dual wisdom—there are many kinds. Or if therein one determinately grasps the conventional characteristic as having nature, then that cannot be set forth. Within the object of enactment there are two characteristics, but within the true wisdom there is no duality.

Question: If, as said before, wisdom is illumination and the conventional is non-illumination, then to speak thus—is this not setting forth within it a self-contradiction, since one's own self-nature is different from the existent-nature of the conventional?

Answer: One's own non-dual characteristic is the nature of the ultimate truth. To speak thus here is the correct principle accomplished. If, with regard to the conventional, one wishes to receive it, the ancient masters and the sages had differing meanings concerning those words as well, as has been said elsewhere; here it is not cited again. As in the section on correct principle below, wherein the Verse states: "Nature and non-nature are mutually opposed."

+ Saying "together": This is the sense of gathering and combining, not only as said before. The correct principle of wisdom apart from discrimination enacts the counteracting of distraction. Here, existent-nature and non-nature are opposed to each other.

One should know that this dharma also determinately counteracts. That is, like the manifold natures now present, the self-nature of non-nature within the wisdom apart from discrimination—this is the counteracting. One should know that here, whether nature or characteristic, by the power of wisdom one can make manifest the correct sense.

How again is this? That is, within the ultimate truth there are no forms, no one-nature arising together. If again there is no reality, then this is "the manifold natures are definitely seen." To say "definitely" is the sense of determination.

That is, the one-nature is determined; by the power of illumination it is set forth thus. Why is it said thus here? The Verse states:

Saying "form," it is only a name

In truth there is no self-nature

That discrimination of self-nature

When received, this should be known.

+ This says "only a name," and so forth: That is, within this Prajñāpāramitā, the Blessed One said that form is only a name. "Only a name": This is only conception (saṃjñā). Therefore, within the ultimate truth there is something truly established.

But the characteristic of the form-aggregate is the emptiness of being without self-nature. That is, because of such a cause, there is the discrimination of self-nature with respect to that which is received. "Discrimination" means the self-nature of the realm, such as the nature of firmness; therefore, that characteristic of discrimination grows, and only then does there arise such discrimination of self-nature.

In this way, the discrimination of self-nature now present has received many kinds. These are all to be stopped—that is, to be utterly cut off. Such settings-forth are all for the purpose of cutting off the discriminating distraction concerning self-nature.

Within the Mother-text of this Prajñāpāramitā, again for the sense stated before, it removes faults.

The Verse states:

Form together with the self-nature of form

Is not as previously stated

That self-nature together with characteristic—

Discrimination, this is cut off.

+ This says: "As previously stated," and so forth: "Saying" means verbal expression. That is, the various things now present as set forth before. Therefore the first line of the verse says: "Form together with the self-nature of form."

Here it is empty; therefore it is said thus, in order to remove the discrimination concerning the characteristic of that self-nature.

+ Above it says "form": This is the two characteristics—the own and the common—of form. The own-characteristic, common-characteristic, together with the self-nature of that form, are all empty. Within the common-characteristic, such as the great elements and so forth, the characteristic of discrimination arises and grows; thus the common-characteristic of that self-nature will counteract the discrimination.

Question: Here, compared with the third cutting-off before, concerning the discrimination of the common-characteristic, what is the mode of conduct (ākāra)?

Answer: As stated before, the discriminating distraction concerning the common-characteristic: therein, form together with the self-nature of form, both exist together.

But here it is the cutting-off of the common-characteristic: that is, only the cutting-off of that own-characteristic and common-characteristic. What is the mode of conduct? It is that here, characteristics such as the nature of firmness and so forth exist through difference. This, then, is here the common-characteristic that should be cut off. Nor is it only the cutting-off of such discrimination, but the other discriminating distractions are also cut off.

Furthermore, the Verse states:

Neither arising nor ceasing

Contemplate the dharmas now present

The Buddha speaks of dispersal or transformation—

The discrimination of difference there.

+ Saying "neither arising": That is, the Blessed One, within such a Prajñāpāramitā, said: Contemplate the dharmas as neither arising nor ceasing. Therefore it is set forth thus. If there be some place of dispersal and transformation, then this is the discrimination of difference. Or if one sees the differing characteristics of arising and ceasing of form and so forth, then this is the discrimination concerning the differing self-nature of form thus; therein one should depart from it—that is, cut off the discriminating distraction concerning difference. Here, to speak thus is again for the purpose of cutting off the later distractions. Therefore the Verse states:

Names and words are all false and unreal

If those dharmas are discriminated

Sound and sense—the two do not unite

That intent is without self-nature.

+ This says "false and unreal," and so forth: That is, within the teaching in the Mother-text of the Prajñāpāramitā, the harmonious union is indicated. That is, the name is false and unreal—this speaks of conceptual discrimination. As within the teaching in the later Mother-text of the Prajñāpāramitā, the harmonious union is distinguished separately.

In this way, the sound of those discriminated dharmas is the phrase-meaning of the verbal dharmas now present, together with the discrimination concerning the common-characteristic; therefore the two things—sound and sense—are not the harmonious union of self-nature. They are not the supreme aspiration of the Blessed One, nor are they the aspiration of another. If, within the discrimination concerning ingenious fabrication, one again grasps at external meaning, then the foolish and benighted have established disturbance.

The object of conduct is thus, yet it is not that here there is the slightest meaning that can be attained, because the external meaning is grasped, and is not a verbal establishment opening the gate of disturbance for the foolish and benighted. Therein, the cutting-off is the characteristic following and turning of the object of enactment—that is, within sound and sense there is not the slightest that can be grasped and attained, because the discrimination "as-name" is thus without reality.

Or if, with regard to the matter-characteristics set forth, one discriminates "as-name," then this is not the aspiration. For that reason, here all discrimination "as-name" and "as-conception" is harmoniously joined and without reality. The matter-characteristics that have been spoken of are not the supreme aspiration of the Blessed One.

Why is this? Because if one discriminates "as-name" with respect to meaning, then with respect to name and meaning there is something expanded; within external matters, the nature of the expounding subject and the expounded object are both without reality. In this way, the discriminating distraction concerning "as-name" with respect to meaning is cut off.

Question: Discrimination concerning what?

Answer: It is discrimination concerning the name. That name, too, has nothing to be set forth. Therefore the Verse states:

Prajñāpāramitā

Buddhas and Bodhisattvas likewise—

Here, what is said is only a name

Apart from discrimination is the true meaning.

+ Saying: "Prajñāpāramitā": That is, the name apart from the meaning; in this way, the true meaning of the name is the self-nature of discrimination. The Blessed One has spoken, so here it is cut off—speaking of what? The Verse states: "Prajñāpāramitā, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas likewise."

Here, it is merely called Prajñāpāramitā; therein, where is it admitted to speak of self-nature having reality? That is, because the Tathāgata spoke thus, therefore it is said that the sound of the name is likewise without self-nature. Therein, the various things now present all separately indicate the names of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. One should know that within the non-dual wisdom, this is not cut off. And again, from what cause is this? The Verse states:

Sound and sense now present are cut off

Cutting off, there is no matter there

In this way, the other too is known

Within words, the meaning is determined.

+ Saying: "Sound and sense now present," and so forth: That is, the two things—sound and sense—now present; this speaks of cutting off.

+ The Verse states: "Cutting off, there is no matter there": That is, the non-dual wisdom does not cut off the function of the matter-characteristic there, but that wordless nature cannot be set forth.

Question: Now, speaking of the meaning, this is the correct principle; but how is it in another place? The Verse itself answers, saying: "In this way, the other too is known."

+ "In this way": That is, from the very beginning it was said to be the determined meaning thus.

+ "The other": These are the remaining kinds, set forth fittingly in the same way. "Known" means clearly cognizing the determined meaning. The intent here means that within the Prajñāpāramitā, the non-inverted meaning has been proclaimed truly as-it-is and is accomplished. To cognize truly all names and natures is precisely that which cannot be grasped and attained, because the words and meaning have been established and indicated.

Furthermore, the Verse states:

That non-attainment—correct

All names are known in truth

As the meaning, the nature is thus

It does not cut off that sound.

+ Saying: "That non-attainment," and so forth: That is, like the nature of meaning, that non-real dharma cannot be grasped and attained. Here it is said to be correct. What has been spoken of? The Verse itself shows clearly, saying: "All names."

Question: Who is able to cognize truly and really?

Answer: It is the Omniscient One (Sarvajña). "Truly" is the non-inverted meaning. "Known" is clear cognition—that is, true cognition.

+ The Verse says: "It does not cut off that sound." That is, if the two things—sound and sense—are said to be unattainable with respect to the nature of true meaning, then for that reason it does not cut off that sound. That is, because the sound that is the grasped object belonging to the wisdom of hearing cannot be cut off. In this way, one should know that the supreme aspiration is determinately compassion, so that the object of conduct is all without obstruction. In this way, the discriminating distraction concerning "as-meaning" with respect to name is cut off. Such meanings are the true aspiration that has been set forth in accord. There is a treatise-Verse that says:

All names now present that are now present

Those various dharmas have something said

But what is said there has no reality

That is, all dharmas share the same dharma-nature.

Those names now present are called the nature of emptiness

The name of the naming-power has nothing existent

Yet all dharmas are originally without name

They are set up because, by the power of name, it indicates.

All is only a name—this should be known

Within all conceptions, falsely established

Those names that are gathered, with differing nature—

One should know that those names have no reality.

As the Venerable Subhūti asked concerning the Prajñāpāramitā, wherein it was determinately decided to cut off the two things—sound and sense. Therefore the Verse explains, saying:

Subhūti—the two are departed from

The meaning of the Śrāvaka is thus

The Bodhisattva has no name

The view of self—this is what is spoken of.

+ Saying: "Subhūti," and so forth: That is, the Venerable Subhūti has clearly cognized the two things—sound and sense—departing from them in order to establish. The intent here is that sound is the sound of the one who expounds. The meaning of sound is the meaning that has been expounded. What is "the Bodhisattva has no name"? It is because the name of the Bodhisattva has no reality and cannot be seen. The Venerable Subhūti, within the Prajñāpāramitā, has set this forth. The intent here is the determining of the two natures of discrimination within the supreme aspiration, departing far from the differing nature of false and unreal sound. The determined language here is the meaning that has been indicated. Therefore the Verse states:

Prajñāpāramitā

Speaks of no determinate arising

To seek and examine—only those of wisdom

This meaning is the subtle and wondrous insight.

+ This says: "Prajñāpāramitā": "No" means without reality. That is, within the Prajñāpāramitā, that harmonious-union of speech is determinately without reality, with nothing to be set forth, without conceptual proliferation (prapañca)—one should know it thus. Within all language that is spoken, it is determinately the meaning that exists. What is the meaning that exists? It is just as the meaning stated before. Explaining that gate, the Verse says: "To seek and examine—only those of wisdom."

This meaning is the subtle and wondrous insight. "To seek and examine" is to investigate thoroughly and carefully. "This meaning": that is, the sounds within the thirty-two chapters, speaking generally of determination. "Those of wisdom": that is, those who possess wisdom-insight, able to cognize words and meaning. "The subtle and wondrous insight" is the pure, subtle, wondrous, and ultimate wisdom.

What is the mode of conduct? That is, that wisdom, within all realms, is unattached and undestroyed. But the Prajñāpāramitā, within the echoing sound, has something to be heard—this indicates that meaning. Therefore, the Verse states:

If one discriminates the separate meaning

The continuous meaning is removed

Prajñāpāramitā

Its verbal expression is like an echo.

+ This says "the continuous meaning": It is the meaning of either coming forth or manifesting, enacting continuity. "Removed": is the sense of casting away. That is, with regard to the meaning thus, grasping has been cast away. Why is this? Because the Prajñāpāramitā—whether seen or heard—whatever it sets forth is all like an echo, and again like the radiance of pure gold facing and manifesting form-characteristics. Because of that meaning, whether coming forth or manifesting, all enact succession; what is discriminated, what is grasped, should all be cast away. Because within that Prajñāpāramitā, every exposition is all like an echo—this is the general, abbreviated meaning.

Furthermore, in order to make manifest and clear that meaning, there is a Verse that says:

The teachings now present—do not weary of and abandon them

Nor again should you give rise to slander

Having seen as-it-truly-is, abide in the truth

Because of that truth, it is made manifest.

Now, within this meaning, generally and in brief it is formed into an indication. The Verse states:

Generally, in brief, the meaning thus

Prajñā is what is mutually relied upon

In this way, the meaning circulates

And again the separate meaning is relied upon.

+ Saying: "Generally, in brief, the meaning thus," and so forth: That is, the Hundred-Thousand-Verse Prajñāpāramitā now present has gathered, in brief, all such meaning, all relying upon this Prajñāpāramitā, succeeding through the thirty-two chapters, generally and in brief gathered and embraced; one should know it thus, with no further expansion afterward. The Verse says: "In this way, the meaning circulates": that is, with regard to such meaning, completely repeating, in sequence, examining carefully.

Question: Examining carefully concerning what meanings? The Verse itself answers, saying: "And again the separate meaning is relied upon."

Here, having spoken of the phrase "the separate meaning," this is the challenge concerning the separate meaning. "Question" is discrimination concerning the points of difference, while "challenge" has something it is grounded upon. That is, the dharmas of the factors of enlightenment (bodhipakṣya-dharma) and the aggregate of the Buddha's merits—within those dharmas, repeatedly recalled and examined carefully, in this way.

Or generally gathered, summarized concerning the separate meaning that is formed as set forth thus, all having something they rely upon. That is, the thirty-two chapters each have their own separate self-nature, successively gathered and embraced. Now, here, the Eight-Thousand-Verse Prajñāpāramitā, all the textual meaning has been explained throughout completely; the mass of merit that is produced is vast and ultimate, all used for dedication (pariṇāmanā).

The Verse states:

Prajñāpāramitā

Correctly comprising the eight thousand verses

The mass of merit that has been attained

All arises from Prajñā.

+ Saying: "Prajñāpāramitā, correctly comprising the eight thousand verses": That is, within this Eight-Thousand-Verse Prajñāpāramitā, the self-nature has been spoken of. "Eight thousand": this is the quantity that gathers and embraces throughout. Within such a quantity, the generally accumulated meaning has been explained. The Verse says "correctly": this is the non-inverted meaning. That is, within that correct teaching, what has been given rise to? The Verse itself answers, saying: "The mass of merit that has been attained."

+ "Attained": is the sense of gaining and attaining. The pure mass of merit thus formed all comes forth from the Prajñāpāramitā. Because it comes forth from the Prajñāpāramitā, the quantity of merit obtained is vast, deep, and far-reaching. Taking that deep and vast quantity of merit obtained, using it for dedication universally to all the world, may all attain the pure, supreme, wondrous, ultimate wisdom of the Prajñāpāramitā. Within the correct phrases of the supreme, foremost meaning, those that are not false and empty, seeking and searching truly in accord with principle, I here have composed the text of explanation; the mass of merit produced—now my intent is, may it cause all the world entirely to attain purity. The Verse says:

The bhikṣus, the Lions of Śākya

The lofty merit now present, surpassing thus—

This has been spoken of: the intent to benefit the world

Because of the supreme merit, may they abide in the truth.

THE END — FASCICLE 4