肇論 1.19

1.19

《放光》云：「般若無所有相，無生滅相。」《道行》云：「般若無所知、無所見。」此辨智照之用，而曰無相、無知者，何耶？果有無相之知、不知之照，明矣。何者？夫有所知，則有所不知。以聖心無知，故無所不知。不知之知，乃曰一切知。故經云：「聖心無所知，無所不知。」信矣！是以聖人虛其心而實其照，終日知而未嘗知也。故能默耀韜光虛心玄鑒，閉智塞聰而獨覺冥冥者矣。然則智有窮幽之鑒而無知焉，神有應會之用而無慮焉。神無慮，故能獨王於世表；智無知，故能玄照於事外。智雖事外，未始無事；神雖世表，終日域中。所以俯仰順化應接無窮，無幽不察而無照功。斯則無知之所知，聖神之所會也。然其為物也，實而不有、虛而不無。存而不可論者，其唯聖智乎。何者？欲言其有，無狀無名；欲言其無，聖以之靈。聖以之靈，故虛不失照；無狀無名，故照不失虛。照不失虛，故混而不渝；虛不失照，故動以接麁。是以聖智之用，未始暫廢；求之形相，未暫可得。故《寶積》曰：「以無心意而現行。」《放光》云：「不動等覺而建立諸法。」所以聖迹萬端，其致一而已矣。是以般若可虛而照，真諦可亡而知，萬動可即而靜，聖應可無而為。斯則不知而自知，不為而自為矣！復何知哉？復何為哉？

The *Fangguang jing* says: 'Prajñā has no characteristic of existing, and no characteristic of arising and ceasing.' The *Daoxing jing* says: 'Prajñā is unknowing and unseeing.' This explains the function of the illumination of wisdom, yet why does it say 'without characteristics' and 'unknowing'? It is clear that there indeed exists knowing without characteristics and illumination without knowing. Why so? One who has something known also has something unknown. Because the holy mind is unknowing, there is nothing it does not know. The knowing of non-knowing is called all-knowing (sarvajñā). Therefore a sutra says: 'The holy mind knows nothing, yet there is nothing it does not know.' How true this is! Hence the sage empties his mind while making his illumination real, knowing all day long yet never having known. Therefore he is able to dim his radiance, conceal his light, empty his mind for profound reflection, and close his intellect and stop his hearing so as to be uniquely awakened in the profound darkness. Thus, wisdom has the reflection that fathoms the profound yet is unknowing; spirit has the functioning of responding and meeting yet is without deliberate thought. Because spirit is without deliberate thought, it can reign supreme beyond the world; because wisdom is unknowing, it can profoundly illuminate beyond affairs. Though wisdom is beyond affairs, it is never without affairs; though spirit is beyond the world, it is always within the realm. Therefore, bowing down and looking up, it accords with transformations and responds boundlessly; there is no obscurity it does not discern, yet it has no achievement of illumination. This is that which is known by unknowing, the confluence of the sage and the spiritual. Yet as a thing, it is real without being existent, empty without being non-existent. That which persists yet cannot be discussed—is it not solely the holy wisdom? Why so? If one wishes to say it is existent, it has no form and no name; if one wishes to say it is non-existent, the sage is numinous by means of it. Because the sage is numinous by means of it, emptiness does not forfeit illumination; because it has no form and no name, illumination does not forfeit emptiness. Because illumination does not forfeit emptiness, it blends without altering; because emptiness does not forfeit illumination, it moves to engage the coarse. Therefore, the function of holy wisdom has never ceased for a moment, yet when sought in shapes and characteristics, it can never be found for a moment. Therefore the *Ratnakūṭa* says: 'Acting and functioning with no mind or intention.' The *Fangguang jing* says: 'Without moving from equal awakening, he establishes all dharmas.' Thus, though the sage's traces are of ten thousand varieties, their import is just one. Therefore, prajñā can be empty yet illuminate; paramārtha-satya can be forgotten yet known; the myriad movements can be approached yet remain still; holy responses can be non-existent yet act. This is knowing of itself without knowing, and acting of itself without acting! What else is there to know? What else is there to act?