楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 3.170

3.170

答中言不如是者，是拂彼難。言無智等者，即非智之智，而智體亦不可得，故云非非智。若準《大論》，謂無智者空也，應是智者假也，非非智者中道智也，如是三智一心中得，得而無得，是為智慧不得。言我不如是隱覆說者，佛言我如是說是顯非隱，雖亦常有隱覆之說，如後文云云，但宜隱則隱、宜顯則顯，此則非隱也。覺自心現量下，正顯真智，謂了境有無，唯自心量。言外性非性者，諸法本空也。如是而知、知而不知，是為事不得也。事即境也，境既不得，智亦不生爾焰智障也，入三脫門智體亦亡也。非妄想者，揀妄知也，謂非如一切妄想凡夫無始以來有無虛妄熏習之智，不知諸法唯心，知彼事物而不知自性，則喪智於物，故云「是知彼不知」也。

In the reply, the words "it is not so" dismiss his objections. When it says "non-wisdom [should be wisdom]," this refers to the wisdom of non-wisdom, yet the substance of wisdom is also unapprehendable; hence it says "not non-wisdom." If judged according to the *Dàzhìdù lùn*, "non-wisdom" is emptiness; "should be wisdom" is the provisional; "not non-wisdom" is the wisdom of the Middle Way. In this manner the three wisdoms are attained in a single mind, attained and yet without attainment; this is wisdom apprehending nothing. When it says "I do not speak with hidden, veiled meaning," the Buddha is saying: 'My speaking thus is explicit, not concealed.' Although he also often uses concealed speech, as will be explained later, yet where concealment is suitable he conceals, and where revelation is suitable he reveals; here it is not concealed. From "When one awakens to cittadṛśyamātra" onward, it directly reveals true wisdom, meaning that understanding whether realms exist or not is merely the measure of one's own mind. The words "external natures and non-natures" mean that all dharmas are fundamentally empty. Knowing in this manner, knowing and yet not knowing—this is the unapprehendability of objects. Objects are realms; since realms are unapprehended, wisdom also does not arise with respect to the cognitive object (jñeya) as a cognitive hindrance, and upon entering the gates of the three liberations, the substance of wisdom also perishes. "Those who are not falsely discriminating" distinguishes false knowing, meaning that it is not like all ordinary persons of false discrimination whose wisdom is perfumed by beginningless existence and nonexistence, who do not know that all dharmas are mind-only, who know external things yet do not know their own nature, thereby forfeiting wisdom to external things; hence it is said: "to know that [object] while not knowing [the mind]."