肇論 1.23

1.23

答曰：經云：「般若義者，無名無說，非有非無，非實非虛。」虛不失照，照不失虛，斯則無名之法，故非言所能言也。言雖不能言，然非言無以傳，是以聖人終日言而未嘗言也。今試為子狂言辨之。夫聖心者，微妙無相，不可為有；用之彌勤，不可為無。不可為無，故聖智存焉；不可為有，故名教絕焉。是以言知不為知，欲以通其鑒；不知非不知，欲以辨其相。辨相，不為無；通鑒，不為有。非有，故知而無知；非無；故無知而知。是以知即無知，無知即知。無以言異而異於聖心也。

I reply: The sūtra says: 'The meaning of prajñā is nameless and inexpressible, neither existent nor non-existent, neither real nor unreal.' Emptiness does not lose illumination, and illumination does not lose emptiness; this is the nameless Dharma, and therefore it is not something that words can express. Although words cannot express it, without words there would be no means to transmit it; therefore the sage speaks all day yet has never spoken. Now I shall attempt to distinguish it for you in wild words. The sage’s mind is subtle and ānimitta, and cannot be deemed existent; its functioning is ever more diligent, and cannot be deemed non-existent. Because it cannot be deemed non-existent, the sage's wisdom resides therein; because it cannot be deemed existent, the teaching of names terminates there. Therefore, speaking of knowing is not regarding it as knowing, but wishing to express its discernment; speaking of not knowing is not regarding it as not knowing, but wishing to distinguish its character. Distinguishing its character is not making it non-existent; expressing its discernment is not making it existent. Because it is not existent, it knows and yet is unknowing; because it is not non-existent, it is unknowing and yet knows. Thus knowing is unknowing, and unknowing is knowing. Do not let differences in words make a difference in the sage’s mind.