肇論 1.20

1.20

難曰：夫聖人真心獨朗，物物斯照；應接無方，動與事會。物物斯照，故知無所遺；動與事會，故會不失機。會不失機，故必有會於可會；知無所遺，故必有知於可知。必有知於可知，故聖不虛知；必有會於可會；故聖不虛會。既知既會，而曰無知無會者。何耶？若夫忘知遺會者，則是聖人無私於知會，以成其私耳。斯可謂不自有其知，安得無知哉？

An objection states: The true mind of the sage shines uniquely bright, illuminating thing after thing; responding and engaging without fixed direction, its movements meet with affairs. Because it illuminates thing after thing, its knowing leaves nothing out; because its movements meet with affairs, its meetings do not miss the opportune moment. Because its meetings do not miss the opportune moment, there must be a meeting with what can be met; because its knowing leaves nothing out, there must be a knowing of what can be known. Because there must be a knowing of what can be known, the sage does not know in vain; because there must be a meeting with what can be met, the sage does not meet in vain. Since he already knows and already meets, why say 'unknowing' and 'unmeeting'? If one forgets knowing and abandons meeting, this is merely that the sage has no selfish partiality in knowing and meeting, in order to fulfill his own selflessness. This can be called not taking ownership of his knowing; how can it be deemed 'unknowing'?