肇論 1.21

1.21

答曰：夫聖人功高二儀而不仁，明逾日月而彌昏，豈曰木石瞽其懷？其於無知而已哉。誠以異於人者神明，故不可以事相求之耳。子意欲令聖人不自有其知，而聖人未嘗不有知，無乃乖於聖心、失於文旨者乎！何者？經云：「真般若者，清淨如虛空，無知無見，無作無緣。」斯則知自無知矣，豈待返照然後無知哉？若有知性空而稱淨者，則不辨於惑智，三毒四倒亦皆清淨，有何獨尊於般若？若以所知美般若，所知非般若，所知自常淨，故般若未嘗淨，亦無緣致淨歎於般若。然經云「般若清淨」者，將無以般若體性真淨，本無惑取之知。本無惑取之知，不可以知名哉。豈唯無知名無知，知自無知矣！是以聖人以無知之般若，照彼無相之真諦。真諦無兔馬之遺，般若無不窮之鑒，所以會而不差、當而無是。寂怕、無知，而無不知者矣。

I reply: The sage’s achievements surpass heaven and earth, yet he is not benevolent; his illumination exceeds the sun and moon, yet he is ever more obscure. Could it be said that trees and stones blind his bosom? In him, it is simply unknowing. Truly, because that which distinguishes him from ordinary people is spiritual brightness, one cannot seek it through phenomenal marks. You intend to have it that the sage does not regard his knowing as his own, while in fact he has never not had knowing—is this not contrary to the sage's mind and a departure from the scriptural purport? Why is this? The sūtra says: 'True prajñā is pure like space, without knowing and without seeing, without activity and without conditions.' Thus knowing itself is unknowing; how could it wait upon turning back its illumination to become unknowing? If one says it is pure because knowing is of an empty nature, then this fails to distinguish between delusion and wisdom: the three poisons and four inversions would all likewise be pure, so why esteem prajñā alone? If one praises prajñā on account of the known object, the known object is not prajñā; and since the known object is inherently and constantly pure, prajñā would never have been pure, nor would there be any basis to direct praise of purity to prajñā. Yet when the sūtra says 'prajñā is pure', is it not because the fundamental nature of prajñā is truly pure, intrinsically lacking the knowing of deluded grasping? Since it intrinsically lacks the knowing of deluded grasping, it cannot be called knowing. How could unknowing merely mean being named unknowing? Knowing is inherently unknowing! Therefore the sage, with prajñā of unknowing, illuminates that paramārtha-satya devoid of marks. Paramārtha-satya leaves out neither the hare nor the horse; prajñā lacks no exhaustive discernment. Hence they converge without discrepancy, fitting without being affirmed. Quiescent and unknowing, yet there is nothing it does not know.