What It Means for Wisdom Not to Apprehend Its Object
The Buddha has just said that noble wisdom "does not apprehend" the very objects it engages with. Mahāmati presses him with five possible explanations in turn — is it because own mark and shared mark are unrecognized, because they are obscured, because of a physical barrier, because of distance, or because the faculties are simply impaired? — arguing that on every one of these readings, "wisdom" that fails to apprehend its object should really just be called ignorance. The Buddha corrects the premise itself. The page then turns to a second, unprompted teaching on the mastery of one's own realization and the mastery of teaching — this time explicitly reserved for a buddha alone, beyond the reach of every outsider and even the two lesser vehicles.
What It Means for Wisdom Not to Apprehend Its Object
爾時，大慧菩薩白佛言：「世尊！如世尊說，如攀緣事智慧不得，是施設量，建立施設。所攝受非性，攝受亦非性。以無攝故，智則不生，唯施設名耳。云何，世尊！為不覺性自相共相，異不異故，智不得耶？為自相共相，種種性自性相隱蔽故，智不得耶？為山巖石壁，地水火風障故，智不得耶？為極遠極近故，智不得耶？為老小盲冥，諸根不具故，智不得耶？世尊！若不覺自共相異不異，智不得者；不應說智，應說無智，以有事不可得故。若復種種自共相性自性相隱蔽故，智不得者；彼亦無智，非是智。世尊！有爾炎故智生，非無性會爾炎，故名為智。若山巖石壁，地水火風，極遠極近，老小盲冥，諸根不具，智不得者；此亦非智，應是無智，以有事不可得故。」
佛告大慧：「不如是，無智應是智，非非智。我不如是隱覆，說攀緣事，智慧不得，是施設量建立。覺自心現量，有無有、外性非性，智而事不得。不得故，智於爾炎不生。順三解脫，智亦不得。非妄想者，無始性非性，虛偽習智，作如是知。是知彼不知。故於外事處所，相性作無性，妄想不斷。自心現量建立，說我我所相，攝受計著。不覺自心現量，於智爾炎而起妄想。妄想故，外性非性，觀察不得，依於斷見。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「有諸攀緣事， 智慧不觀察，
此無智非智， 是妄想者說。
於不異相性， 智慧不觀察，
障礙及遠近， 是名為邪智。
老小諸根冥， 而智慧不生，
而實有爾炎， 是亦說邪智。
Then Mahāmati Bodhisattva said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, as the World-Honored One has taught, [that] wisdom does not apprehend the very matter it engages with — this is the establishing of a mere provisional measure. What is grasped has no [fixed] nature; the grasping itself has no fixed nature either. Because there is, in this sense, nothing genuinely grasped, wisdom itself does not [truly] arise — it is only a provisional name that is thereby established. How is this so, World-Honored One? Is it because own mark and shared mark, whether identical or different, are simply not recognized, that wisdom fails to apprehend its object? Or is it because own mark and shared mark, and every kind of [fixed] nature and own-nature mark, are obscured, that wisdom fails to apprehend its object? Or is it because mountains, cliffs, stone walls, earth, water, fire, and wind stand as a barrier, that wisdom fails to apprehend its object? Or is it because the object is too far away or too close, that wisdom fails to apprehend it? Or is it because one is aged, or young, or blind, or in darkness, or lacking some faculty, that wisdom fails to apprehend it? World-Honored One, if wisdom fails to apprehend its object because own mark and shared mark, whether identical or different, are simply not recognized, then one should not call this 'wisdom' at all — one should call it the absence of wisdom, since there is, in this case, a real matter that simply cannot be apprehended. If, again, wisdom fails to apprehend its object because every kind of own mark and shared mark and own-nature mark is obscured, this, too, is not wisdom at all. World-Honored One, it is precisely because there is a knowable object that wisdom arises — not that wisdom is named 'wisdom' by somehow meeting a knowable object that has no [fixed] nature whatsoever. If wisdom fails to apprehend its object because of mountains, cliffs, stone walls, earth, water, fire, and wind, or because of distance, or because one is aged, young, blind, in darkness, or lacking some faculty, this, too, is not wisdom — it should be called the absence of wisdom, since there is, in this case too, a real matter that simply cannot be apprehended."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "It is not as you say. The absence of [this kind of] wisdom is itself precisely [true] wisdom — it is not the absence of wisdom in the ordinary sense. I do not, in speaking of wisdom failing to apprehend the very matter it engages with, mean anything so concealed as you suppose — this too is the establishing of a mere provisional measure. Becoming aware that this is the very measure of one's own mind's manifestation, whether framed as existence or non-existence, and that what is external has no fixed nature at all, wisdom itself fails to apprehend any [such] matter. It is precisely because it fails to apprehend it that wisdom does not arise with respect to the knowable at all. Entering, in accordance with this, the three gates of liberation, wisdom likewise fails to apprehend anything there either. This is not the false thought [you describe], but rather [the opposite]: the beginningless habituated wisdom that falsely takes [things] to have a fixed nature or lack one comes to know in just this way — and this very 'knowing' is itself what fails to truly know. Hence, with respect to the place and location of what is external, mark and nature are treated as though having no fixed nature, and yet false thought is not thereby cut off — [because] one still establishes the very measure of one's own mind's manifestation, speaking of the mark of 'I' and of 'mine,' grasping at it through attachment, failing to perceive that this is the very measure of one's own mind's manifestation, and giving rise to false thought with respect to wisdom and the knowable. Because of this false thought, what is external, having no fixed nature, cannot be apprehended through observation at all — and one falls, on that basis, into the view of annihilation."
Then the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse: "Where there are matters to be engaged with at all, and wisdom fails to observe them —
this absence of wisdom is not [true] wisdom either; this is what one caught in false thought would say.
With respect to a mark and nature not truly different [from what knows them], wisdom fails to observe this —
obstruction, and distance, both near and far — this alone is what should be called false wisdom.
Age, youth, and every faculty in darkness, so that wisdom itself fails to arise —
and yet a knowable object genuinely remains — this, too, is what should be called false wisdom."
The commentators are precise about the trap Mahāmati's five-part question sets, and about how the Buddha's answer steps outside it rather than choosing among the five options offered: "有境可緣者，是凡夫之智。了境唯心者，是正智之智。正智則無緣而緣，是為無智。以此無智為非智者，是凡夫妄想之說" — "having an object-realm available to engage with belongs to an ordinary person's own wisdom; understanding that object-realm as mind alone belongs to the wisdom of correct wisdom itself. Correct wisdom engages without [truly] engaging — and this is what is meant by 'the absence of wisdom.' To take this 'absence of wisdom' for the plain absence of wisdom is precisely the ignorant person's own false-thought account of the matter." Mahāmati's five explanations all assume "wisdom fails to apprehend its object" must describe some deficiency — poor recognition, obscuration, a physical barrier, distance, or impaired faculties — when the Buddha's own point was never about deficiency at all: correct wisdom "fails to apprehend" its object precisely because it sees straight through to that object having no fixed nature to grasp in the first place, which is an achievement, not a failure.
On the closing distinction between wisdom and the false thought that merely imitates it, the commentators single out the phrase "是知彼不知" ("this very 'knowing' is itself what fails to truly know") as the passage's own diagnosis of exactly where an ordinary person's confusion sets in: such a person's habituated "wisdom" does arrive at treating externals as having no fixed nature, superficially resembling correct wisdom's own conclusion — and yet, not knowing this to be the very measure of his own mind's manifestation, he continues to grasp at "I" and "mine" underneath that surface conclusion, so that the very knowing which looks like wisdom is, underneath, still a form of not-knowing. The resemblance between correct wisdom and its false-thought imitation is close enough to fool the imitator himself, which is precisely why the passage insists on locating the difference not in what conclusion is reached, but in whether "the very measure of one's own mind's manifestation" has actually been recognized beneath it.
Mastery of Teaching and of One's Own Realization, Again
「復次，大慧！愚癡凡夫，無始虛偽惡邪妄想之所迴轉，迴轉時，自宗通及說通，不善了知。著自心現外性相故，著方便說，於自宗四句清淨通相，不善分別。」
大慧白佛言：「誠如尊教。唯願，世尊！為我分別說通及宗通。我及餘菩薩摩訶薩，善於二通，來世凡夫聲聞緣覺不得其短。」
佛告大慧：「善哉，善哉！諦聽，諦聽！善思念之，當為汝說。」
大慧白佛言：「唯然受教。」
佛告大慧：「三世如來，有二種法通，謂：說通及自宗通。說通者，謂：隨眾生心之所應，為說種種眾具契經。是名說通。自宗通者，謂：修行者，離自心現種種妄想。謂：不墮一異、俱不俱品，超度一切心、意、意識。自覺聖境界，離因成見相，一切外道、聲聞、緣覺墮二邊者，所不能知。我說是名自宗通法。大慧！是名自宗通及說通相。汝及餘菩薩摩訶薩，應當修學。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「謂我二種通， 宗通及言說，
說者授童蒙， 宗為修行者。」
"Furthermore, Mahāmati, ordinary and ignorant people, turned about by the beginningless, false, evil, and wrong-headed false thought that carries them along, fail, when so turned about, to properly understand mastery of their own realization and mastery of teaching. Attached to the mark of what is external as manifested by their own mind, and attached to the merely skillful speech [used to describe it], they fail to properly discriminate the pure, universal mark of the four extremes within their own realization."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "Truly as the Honored One has taught. I beg you, World-Honored One, to discriminate for me the mastery of teaching and the mastery of one's own realization, so that I and the other bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, skilled in both kinds of mastery, will not be found wanting by ordinary people, śrāvakas, or pratyekabuddhas in ages to come."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Excellent, excellent! Listen well! Listen well! Consider this carefully — I shall now explain it to you."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "I gladly receive your teaching."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Every tathāgata, past, present, and future, has two kinds of mastery of the Dharma: mastery of teaching, and mastery of one's own realization. Mastery of teaching is this: according with whatever a sentient being's mind is suited to, teaching the manifold, richly furnished sūtras — this is called mastery of teaching. Mastery of one's own realization is this: a practitioner, apart from every kind of false thought manifested by his own mind, not falling into the class of identity and difference, both together and neither, passing beyond mind, will, and consciousness altogether, [abiding within] the domain of self-realized noble wisdom, apart from the mark of any view constructed through cause — this is not something any outsider, śrāvaka, or pratyekabuddha, fallen into either of the two extremes, is able to know. I call this the dharma of mastery of one's own realization. Mahāmati, these are called the marks of mastery of one's own realization and mastery of teaching. You, and the other bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, should diligently train in both."
Then the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse: "I speak of two kinds of mastery: mastery of one's own realization, and of speech itself —
teaching is given to guide the beginner; realization belongs to the one who genuinely practices."
The commentators note this is a deliberate second pass at the very same pairing introduced earlier in this fascicle, and explain exactly why the Buddha returns to it unprompted: "宗說通相前既說已，此又說者何也？前通三乘，此唯在佛。又前為眾請，此佛自述" — "the mastery of realization and mastery of teaching were already explained earlier — why explain them again here? Because the earlier account applied across all three vehicles, while this one belongs to the Buddha alone; and the earlier account was given in response to a request, while this one the Buddha offers on his own initiative." The two treatments are not redundant: the first pass described a general capacity any of the three vehicles might develop in some measure, while this second pass names the same pairing at its full, uncompromised extent — reserved, as the text itself says, for what "no outsider, śrāvaka, or pratyekabuddha... is able to know" at all.
On why the Buddha describes ordinary people as failing to master both realization and teaching specifically because they are "turned about" (迴轉) by false thought, the commentators unpack the image as a two-directional confusion rather than a single error: "迴轉者，謂迷自己故迴內迴外，惟著自心現外相等境界，亦著方便言教" — "'turned about' means that, deluded about their own selves, they turn both inward and outward: attached to the external marks manifested by their own mind on one side, and attached to the merely skillful speech used to describe them on the other." The failure runs in both directions at once — mistaking mind's own manifestation for something genuinely external, and simultaneously mistaking the provisional speech used to point at that mistake for a fixed truth in its own right — which is exactly why mastery requires both realization and teaching working together, since either alone leaves one turned about in the direction the other was meant to correct.
Part 30 Complete
This closes Part 30: Mahāmati's five-part challenge to what it means for wisdom to "not apprehend" its object, resolved by showing that correct wisdom's non-apprehension is an achievement — seeing straight through to no fixed nature — rather than any of the deficiencies his five options assumed; and a second, sharper account of mastery of teaching and mastery of realization, this time reserved for the Buddha alone. Part 31 turns to one of this sūtra's most vivid episodes: a Brahmin steeped in worldly disputation who challenges the Buddha directly, and the Buddha's own account of why such disputation should be avoided — illustrated by a talking nāga who once humiliated the king of the gods himself in open debate.
Continue to Part 31 — The Brahmin of Worldly Disputation →