肇論 1.51

1.51

又云「無是乃所以為真是，無當乃所以為至當。」亦可如來言耳。若能無心於為是，而是於無是，無心於為當，而當於無當者，則終日是，不乖於無是；終日當，不乖於無當。但恐有是於無是、有當於無當，所以為患耳。何者？若真是可是、至當可當，則名相以形，美惡是生。生生奔競，孰與止之？是以聖人空洞其懷，無識無知。然居動用之域，而止無為之境，處有名之內，而宅絕言之鄉。寂寥虛曠，莫可以形名得，若斯而已矣。乃曰真是可是、至當可當，未喻雅旨也。恐是當之生，物謂之然，彼自不然，何足以然耳。夫言迹之興，異途之所由生也。而言有所不言，迹有所不迹。是以善言言者，求言所不能言；善迹迹者，尋迹所不能迹。至理虛玄，擬心已差，況乃有言，恐所示轉遠。庶通心君子，有以相期於文外耳。

You also say: "Having no 'right' is precisely what constitutes the truly right; having no 'fitting' is precisely what constitutes the supremely fitting." This can indeed be as the incoming words state. If one has no mind to be right, and is right in having no 'right', and has no mind to be fitting, and is fitting in having no 'fitting', then being right all day does not contradict having no 'right', and being fitting all day does not contradict having no 'fitting'. One only fears having a 'right' in having no 'right', and having a 'fitting' in having no 'fitting'—this is precisely what causes trouble. Why? If the truly right could be deemed right, and the supremely fitting could be deemed fitting, then names and marks would take shape, and the fine and the foul would arise. Proliferating endlessly in rivalry, who could put an end to it? Therefore the sage empties his heart, devoid of cognition and knowledge. Yet he resides in the realm of movement and function while abiding in the sphere of asaṃskṛta; he dwells within the realm of the named while lodging in the region that cuts off speech. Quiescent, empty, and vast, he cannot be attained through form or name—it is just like this. To say that the truly right can be right and the supremely fitting can be fitting is not yet to understand this elegant purport. I fear that the arising of 'right' and 'fitting' is merely what things deem to be so; in itself it is not so, so how could it suffice to be so? The arising of words and traces is the very source from which divergent paths emerge. Yet words have that which cannot be spoken, and traces have that which cannot be traced. Therefore those who are good at speaking words seek what words cannot speak; those who are good at tracing traces seek what traces cannot trace. Ultimate principle is vacuous and profound; framing it in mind is already an error, much more so using words, which I fear will point ever further away. I hope noble persons of penetrating mind may meet each other beyond the text.