肇論 1.22

1.22

難曰：夫物無以自通，故立名以通物。物雖非名，果有可名之物當於此名矣。是以即名求物，物不能隱。而論云「聖心無知」，又云「無所不知」。意謂無知未嘗知，知未嘗無知。斯則名教之所通，立言之本意也。然論者欲一於聖心，異於文旨。尋文求實，未見其當。何者？若知得於聖心，無知無所辨；若無知得於聖心，知亦無所辨；若二都無得，無所復論哉！

The questioner asks: Things have no means to express themselves, so names are established to express things. Although things are not names, there are indeed nameable things corresponding to these names. Therefore, seeking things through names, things cannot remain hidden. Yet your treatise says 'the sage’s mind is unknowing', and also says 'there is nothing it does not know.' The meaning would seem to be that unknowing has never known, and knowing has never been without knowing. This is what the teaching of names expresses, and the fundamental intention behind establishing words. Yet the treatise wishes to make them one in the sage’s mind, diverging from the textual purport. Seeking the reality through the text, I do not see its appropriateness. Why is this? If knowing obtains in the sage’s mind, unknowing has nothing to express; if unknowing obtains in the sage’s mind, knowing likewise has nothing to express; if both obtain nothing, there is nothing further to discuss!