[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [肇論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858) › 1.35 # 肇論 1.35 肇論 1.35 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.35) 答曰：聖智之無者，無知；惑智之無者，知無。其無雖同，所以無者，異也。何者？夫聖心虛靜，無知可無，可曰無知，非謂知無。惑智有知，故有知可無，可謂知無，非曰無知也。無知，即般若之無也；知無，即真諦之無也。是以般若之與真諦，言用，即同而異；言寂，即異而同。同，故無心於彼此；異，故不失於照功。是以辨同者同於異，辨異者異於同，斯則不可得而異、不可得而同也。何者？內有獨鑒之明，外有萬法之實。萬法雖實，然非照不得。內外相與以成其照功，此則聖所不能同；用也。內雖照而無知，外雖實而無相。內外寂然，相與俱無，此則聖所不能異；寂也。是以經云「諸法不異」者，豈曰續鳧截鶴、夷嶽盈壑，然後無異哉？誠以不異於異，故雖異而不異也。故經云：「甚奇，世尊！於無異法中而說諸法異。」又云：「般若與諸法，亦不一相，亦不異相。」信矣。 > I reply: The non-being of the sage’s wisdom is unknowing; the non-being of deluded wisdom is knowing non-being. Although their non-being is the same, that by which they are non-being is different. Why is this? The sage’s mind is empty and quiescent; having no knowing that could be negated, it can be called unknowing, but not knowing non-being. Deluded wisdom possesses knowing, so it has knowing that can be negated; it can be called knowing non-being, but not unknowing. Unknowing is the non-being of prajñā; knowing non-being is the non-being of paramārtha-satya. Therefore, regarding prajñā and paramārtha-satya: spoken of in terms of function, they are identical yet different; spoken of in terms of quiescence, they are different yet identical. Being identical, they have no mind toward each other; being different, they do not lose the efficacy of illumination. Therefore, that which discerns identity is identical in difference, and that which discerns difference is different in identity; thus they can neither be made different nor be made identical. Why is this? Internally there is the brightness of solitary discernment; externally there is the reality of the myriad dharmas. Although the myriad dharmas are real, without illumination they cannot be apprehended. Inner and outer mutually coordinate to accomplish the efficacy of illumination—this the sage cannot make identical: it is function. Although internally illuminating, it is unknowing; although externally real, it is ānimitta. Inner and outer are quiescent, mutually and together non-existent—this the sage cannot make different: it is quiescence. Therefore, when the sūtra says 'all dharmas are not different', does it mean that one must lengthen the duck's legs and shorten the crane's, or level the peaks and fill the valleys, before they are without difference? Truly, because difference is not different, though different they are not different. Hence the sūtra says: 'Extraordinary, World-Honoured One! Amidst dharmas that are not different, you expound the differences among dharmas.' It also says: 'Prajñā and all dharmas are neither of one mark nor of different marks.' This is indeed trustworthy. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.34) - [Next: 1.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.36) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858~en-mt.1.35) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.36.60) — Classical Chinese - [肇論新疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2.213) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.35) · Pramāṇa