肇論 1.35

1.35

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.