肇論 1.25

1.25

答曰：以緣求智，智非知也。何者？放光云：「不緣色生識，是名不見色。」又云：「五陰清淨故，般若清淨。」般若即能知也，五陰即所知也。所知，即緣也。夫知與所知，相與而有、相與而無。相與而無，故物莫之有；相與而有，故物莫之無。物莫之無，故為緣之所起；物莫之有，故則緣所不能生。緣所不能生，故照緣而非知；為緣之所起，故知、緣相因而生。是以知與無知，生於所知矣。何者？夫智以知所知，取相故名知。真諦自無相，真智何由知？所以然者，夫所知非所知，所知生於知；所知既生知，知亦生所知。所、知既相生，相生即緣法，緣法故非真。非真，故非真諦也。故《中觀》云：「物從因緣有，故不真。不從因緣有，故即真。」今真諦曰真，真則非緣。真非緣，故無物從緣而生也。故經云：「不見有法無緣而生。」是以真智觀真諦，未嘗取所知。智不取所知，此智何由知？然智非無知，但真諦非所知，故真智亦非知。而子欲以緣求智，故以智為知。緣自非緣，於何而求知？

I reply: Seeking wisdom through conditions, wisdom is not knowing. Why is this? The Fangguang jing says: 'Not giving rise to consciousness conditioned on rūpa is called not seeing rūpa.' It also says: 'Because the pañca-skandhas are pure, prajñā is pure.' Prajñā is the apprehending subject, and the pañca-skandhas are the apprehended objects. The apprehended object is the condition. Knowing and the known exist in mutual relation and are non-existent in mutual relation. Being non-existent in mutual relation, no thing exists; existing in mutual relation, no thing is non-existent. Because no thing is non-existent, they arise through conditions; because no thing exists, conditions cannot produce them. Because conditions cannot produce them, illuminating conditions is not knowing; because they arise through conditions, knowing and conditions arise dependent on one another. Therefore, knowing and unknowing arise from the known object. Why is this? Wisdom knows the known object, and because it grasps marks it is called knowing. Paramārtha-satya is inherently without marks; how could true wisdom know it? The reason for this is that the known object is not inherently a known object; the known object arises from knowing. Since the known object gives rise to knowing, knowing also gives rise to the known object. Since the known and the knowing give rise to each other, mutual arising is conditioned dharmas; conditioned dharmas are therefore not real. Being not real, they are not paramārtha-satya. Hence Madhyamaka says: 'Things exist through causes and conditions, and therefore are not real. Not existing through causes and conditions, they are real.' Now, paramārtha-satya is called 'real', and what is real is not conditioned. What is real is not conditioned, so no thing arises from conditions. Hence the sūtra says: 'I do not see any dharma arising without conditions.' Therefore, when true wisdom contemplates paramārtha-satya, it never grasps a known object. Since wisdom does not grasp a known object, how could this wisdom be knowing? However, wisdom is not non-knowing; it is simply that paramārtha-satya is not a known object, so true wisdom is also not knowing. Yet you wish to seek wisdom through conditions, and therefore regard wisdom as knowing. If conditions themselves are not conditions, where can you seek knowing?