淨名玄論 5.7

5.7

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.