肇論 1.42

1.42

論序云：「般若之體，非有非無。虛不失照，照不失虛。故曰不動等覺而建立諸法。」下章云：「異乎人者神明，故不可以事相求之耳。」又云：「用即寂、寂即用。神彌靜，應逾動。」夫聖心冥寂，理極同無。不疾而疾，不徐而徐。是以知不廢寂、寂不廢知，未始不寂、未始不知。故其運物，成功化世之道。雖處有名之中，而遠與無名同。斯理之玄，固常所彌昧者矣。但今談者，所疑於高論之旨，欲求聖心之異：為謂窮靈極數妙盡冥符耶？為將心體自然靈怕獨感耶？若窮靈極數妙盡冥符，則寂照之名，故是定慧之體耳。若心體自然靈怕獨感，則群數之應，固以幾乎息矣。夫心數既玄而孤運其照，神湻化表而慧明獨存。當有深證，可試為辨之。疑者當以撫會應機覩變之知，不可謂之不有矣。而論旨云「本無惑取之知」，而未釋所以不取之理。謂宜先定聖心所以應會之道，為當唯照無相耶？為當咸覩其變耶？若覩其變，則異乎無相；若唯照無相，則無會可撫。既無會可撫，而有撫會之功。意有未悟，幸復誨之。論云「無當，則物無不當；無是，則物無不是。物無不是，故是而無是；物無不當，故當而無當。」夫無當而物無不當，乃所以為至當；無是而物無不是，乃所以為真是。豈有真是而非是、至當而非當，而云當而無當、是而無是耶？若謂至當非常當，真是非常是，此蓋悟、惑之言本異耳，固論旨所以不明也。願復重喻，以祛其惑矣。

The preface to the treatise says: 'The substance of prajñā is neither existent nor non-existent. Being empty, it does not lose its illumination; illuminating, it does not lose its emptiness. Therefore it is said: motionless in equal awakening, yet establishing all phenomena.' A subsequent section says: 'What differs from common people is the spirit-illumination; thus one cannot seek it through phenomenal marks.' It also says: 'Functioning is quiescence, quiescence is functioning. The more quiescent the spirit, the more active its response.' Now, the sage mind is darkly quiescent, and its principle reaches its peak in being identical with non-being. It is not hurried yet hurried, not slow yet slow. Therefore knowing does not abandon quiescence, and quiescence does not abandon knowing; it has never not been quiescent, and never not been knowing. Hence it sets things in motion, fulfilling the way of transforming the world. Although dwelling amidst the named, it is distantly identical with the nameless. The mystery of this principle is indeed what has always been obscure. But as for present discussants, what they doubt regarding the tenets of your lofty treatise is that they wish to investigate the distinctiveness of the sage mind: Is it that, exhausting the spiritual and reaching the limits of phenomenal categories, it subtly achieves dark conformity? Or is it that the substance of the mind is spontaneously spiritual and serene, solely responding on its own? If it exhausts the spiritual and reaches the limits of phenomenal categories, subtly achieving dark conformity, then the names 'quiescence and illumination' are simply the substance of samādhi and prajñā. If the substance of the mind is spontaneously spiritual and serene, solely responding on its own, then the responses to the many categories of phenomena would indeed have nearly ceased. When mental categories are mysterious while it singularly exercises its illumination, the spirit is pure beyond transformations while the light of wisdom alone persists. There must be a deep realization of this; perhaps you could try to discern it. Doubters will hold that the knowing that engages meetings, responds to the opportune moment, and perceives changes cannot be called non-existent. Yet the treatise states: 'Originally it lacks the knowing of confused grasping,' but does not explain the reason why it does not grasp. I maintain that one should first determine how the sage mind responds and meets [things]: Should it illuminate ānimitta alone? Or should it perceive all changes? If it perceives changes, then that differs from ānimitta; if it illuminates ānimitta alone, then there is no meeting to engage. If there is no meeting to engage, yet there is the efficacy of engaging meetings—here my mind has not yet awakened; I hope you will instruct me again. The treatise says: 'Having no fitting, there is nothing in things that does not fit; having no rightness, there is nothing in things that is not right. Since there is nothing in things that is not right, being right, it is without rightness; since there is nothing in things that does not fit, fitting, it is without fitting.' Now, having no fitting while nothing in things does not fit is precisely what constitutes the ultimate fitting; having no rightness while nothing in things is not right is precisely what constitutes the true rightness. How could true rightness not be right, or ultimate fitting not fit, such that one says 'fitting, it is without fitting; right, it is without rightness'? If you mean that the ultimate fitting is not ordinary fitting, and true rightness is not ordinary rightness, this is merely because the words of awakening and confusion are fundamentally different, which is precisely why the intent of the treatise is not clear. I request another metaphor to dispel this confusion.