淨名玄論 5.7

5.7

問：若般若照空、漚和鑒有，則二智俱照，云何言般若無知，答：般若雖知而無所知、雖無所知而無所不知。問：般若知實相故言無知，亦則知般若故言無知？答：既約二境分於二智，般若但知實相，故言無知。不得云知般若故無知，若知般若則是方便知。問：般若契實相，則內外並𱷒、緣觀俱寂。方便照俗，何能知此般若？答：般若無知而知，為方便所知；知而無知，則方便不知。問：般若無知而知、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。二而不二，則知而無知，名為般若。問；般若照空，具知無知。方便鑒有，何故不具知無知耶？答：二而不二，皆具二也。不二而二，般若所知之境是空、能知之慧為有，故具知無知。而亦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：云何般若具知無知？答般若知實相，是故名知。既契實相，則內外並𱷒、緣觀俱寂，故名無知。雖緣觀俱寂，而境智宛然，故知無所知、無知而知。

Question: If prajñā illuminates emptiness and upāya discerns existence, then both cognitions illuminate together; how can it be said that prajñā is without knowing? Answer: Although prajñā knows, it has nothing known; although it has nothing known, there is nothing it does not know. Question: Is it said to be without knowing because prajñā knows dharmatā, or is it said to be without knowing because one knows prajñā? Answer: Since the two cognitions are distinguished in terms of the two objects, prajñā only knows dharmatā, and therefore is said to be without knowing. One cannot say that it is without knowing because one knows prajñā; if one knows prajñā, that is the knowing of upāya. Question: When prajñā accords with dharmatā, inside and outside both vanish, conditions and contemplation are both stilled. How can upāya, which illuminates the conventional, know this prajñā? Answer: Prajñā knows without knowing, and is known by upāya; knowing without knowing, it is not known by upāya. Question: Prajñā knows without knowing and without knowing knows; can upāya also be like this? Answer: Pointing to the real as the provisional and pointing to the provisional as the real, the provisional and the real are nondual, so it can also be like this. Being nondual yet dual, knowing without knowing is called upāya. Being dual yet nondual, without knowing knowing is called prajñā. Question: Prajñā illuminates emptiness, possessing both knowing and non-knowing. Why does upāya, when discerning existence, not possess both knowing and non-knowing? Answer: In being dual yet nondual, both possess the two. In being nondual yet dual, the object known by prajñā is empty, while the wisdom that can know is existent; therefore it possesses both knowing and non-knowing. Moreover, upāya can know that both the object and cognition known are existent; therefore prajñā has knowing and has non-knowing, whereas upāya has only knowing. Question: How does prajñā possess both knowing and non-knowing? Answer: Prajñā knows dharmatā; therefore it is called knowing. Once it accords with dharmatā, then inside and outside both vanish, and conditions and contemplation are both stilled; therefore it is called non-knowing. Although conditions and contemplation are both stilled, object and cognition remain distinct; therefore it knows what is without knowing, and without knowing it knows.