肇論 1.50

1.50

又云「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？」談者似謂無相與變，其旨不一，覩變則異乎無相，照無相則失於撫會。然則即真之義，或有滯也。經云：「色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。」若如來旨，觀色空時，應一心見色、一心見空。若一心見色，則唯色非空；若一心見空，則唯空非色。然則空色兩陳，莫定其本也。是以經云「非色」者，誠以非色於色，不非色於非色。若非色於非色，太虛則非色，非色何所明？若以非色於色，即非色不異色。非色不異色，色即為非色。故知變即無相，無相即變。群情不同，故教迹有異耳。考之玄籍，本之聖意，豈復真偽殊心、空有異照耶！是以照無相，不失撫會之功；覩變動，不乖無相之旨。造有，不異無；造無，不異有。未嘗不有，未嘗不無，故曰「不動等覺而建立諸法」。以此而推，寂用何妨！如之何謂覩變之知，異無相之照乎，恐談者脫謂空有兩心，靜躁殊用，故言覩變之知，不可謂之不有耳。若能捨已心於封內，尋玄機於事外，齊萬有於一虛，曉至虛之非無者，當言至人終日應會，與物推移，乘運撫化，未始為有也。聖心若此，何有可取而曰「未釋不取之理」。

You also say: "We should first determine the Way by which the sage's mind responds and encounters: ought it solely illuminate the signless, or ought it view all changes?" The disputant seems to think that the signless and changes are not identical in principle; that viewing changes differs from the signless, and illuminating the signless misses out on responding to encounters. If so, the meaning of 'identical to the real' may have suffered an obstruction. The scripture says: 'Rūpa is not different from śūnyatā; śūnyatā is not different from rūpa. Rūpa is identical to śūnyatā; śūnyatā is identical to rūpa.' If it were as you say, when observing rūpa and śūnyatā, one should see rūpa with one mind and see śūnyatā with another mind. If one sees rūpa with one mind, it is solely rūpa and not śūnyatā; if one sees śūnyatā with one mind, it is solely śūnyatā and not rūpa. Thus, with śūnyatā and rūpa arrayed as two, their basis cannot be established. Therefore when the scripture says 'not rūpa', it is truly by negating rūpa in rūpa, not by negating rūpa in what is not rūpa. If one negates rūpa in what is not rūpa, the Great Void is not rūpa, so what would 'not rūpa' clarify? If one negates rūpa in rūpa, then not-rūpa is not different from rūpa. When not-rūpa is not different from rūpa, rūpa is precisely not-rūpa. Thus we know change is precisely the signless, and the signless is precisely change. Because the dispositions of beings are not the same, the traces of teaching show differences. Investigating the profound scriptures and tracing them back to the sage's intent, how could there be different minds for the real and the provisional, or divergent illuminations for emptiness and existence? Therefore, illuminating the signless does not lose the efficacy of responding to encounters; observing changes and movements does not contradict the purport of the signless. Reaching existence is not different from non-existence; reaching non-existence is not different from existence. Never has it not been existent, never has it not been non-existent; hence it is said: 'Motionless in equal awakening, yet establishing all dharmas.' Deducing from this, how could quiescence and function hinder each other? How could one say that the knowledge viewing change differs from the illumination of the signless? I fear the disputant mistakenly believes there are two minds for emptiness and existence, and divergent functions for rest and activity, hence claiming that the knowledge viewing change cannot be said not to exist. If one can relinquish one's mind from its enclosures, seek the profound mechanism beyond worldly affairs, equalize the myriad existences in one vacuity, and understand that ultimate vacuity is not non-existence, one should say that the ultimate man responds and encounters all day, shifting along with things, riding upon fortunes and soothing transformations, without ever having begun to exist. When the sage's mind is like this, what is there to grasp, such that you say 'the principle of non-grasping has not yet been explained'?