肇論 1.49

1.49

Your letter says: "Disputants hold that exhausting the spiritual and consummating the numerical is a wondrous ultimate that darkly tallies [with reality], and that distinguishing the designations of quiescence and illumination is precisely the substance of samādhi and prajñā. If the mental substance is spontaneously numinous and serene, singularly responding, then responses to the manifold [orders of] things are indeed almost halted." This implies that what wondrously culminates and darkly tallies cannot be designated as samādhi and prajñā, and that what is numinous, serene, and singularly responsive cannot be said to halt [its responses to] the manifold [orders of] things. Although these two expressions differ, their wondrous function is ever one. Traced back to ourselves, they diverge; in the sage, they do not differ. Why is this? The sage's profound mind silently illuminates, its principle culminating in sameness with non-being. Since it is called same, this sameness with non-being is unreservedly ultimate. How could there be the culmination of sameness with non-being while names like samādhi and prajñā still exist? The names 'samādhi' and 'prajñā' are not appellations outside of this sameness. If the appellation arises from within the sameness, having an appellation means it is not same; if the appellation arises from outside the sameness, the appellation is not oneself. Moreover, the sage's mind is vacuous and subtle, marvelously transcending ordinary realms. It never fails to respond to any resonance; it never fails to penetrate any encounter. Its dark mechanism operates secretly; its functioning is never strained. Why should its responses to the manifold [orders of] things ever be halted? Furthermore, the mind's having [things] is because it regards existence as existent. Existence does not exist of itself, hence the sage's mind does not regard existence as existent. Not regarding existence as existent, it has no existence. Having no existence, it also lacks non-existence. Lacking non-existence, the sage is neither existent nor non-existent. Being neither existent nor non-existent, his spirit is thereby vacuous. Why is this? Existence and non-existence are reflections and echoes of the mind. Words and forms are what reflections and echoes grasp onto. When existence and non-existence are discarded, the mind has neither reflection nor echo. Once reflections and echoes sink into oblivion, words and forms cannot fathom it. When words and forms cannot fathom it, the Way transcends all directions. Because the Way transcends all directions, it can exhaust the spiritual and consummate the numerical. Exhausting the spiritual and consummating the numerical is called the wondrous ultimate. The Way of the wondrous ultimate is rooted in having no reliance. Having no reliance lies in dark quiescence; being darkly cut off, it penetrates via vacuity. The wondrous ultimate resides in consummating the numerical; consummating the numerical, it responds according to number. Responding according to number, its movement meets with affairs; penetrating via vacuity, the Way transcends beyond names. Because the Way transcends beyond names, it is provisionally called 'non-being'; because its movement meets with affairs, it is provisionally called 'existence'. That which is provisionally called 'existence' corresponds to true existence, merely forced to be called so. How could it be thus of itself? Therefore the scripture says: 'The sage's wisdom is unknowing yet knows everything; it is non-acting yet does everything.' This is the Way of quiescence and cessation, without words and without marks. How could it be said that existence is existence and non-existence is non-existence? That motion departs from rest and rest abandons function? Yet contemporary disputants mostly rely on words to determine the meaning, exploring the great square while searching for corners, harboring preconceptions to mark the profound, and maintaining that what they grasp must be right. Thus, hearing that the sage has knowledge, they say he possesses a mind; hearing that the sage is without knowledge, they say he is equal to the Great Void. The realms of existence and non-existence are where extreme views reside; how could this be the non-dual Way dwelling in the middle? Why is this? Although the myriad things are diverse, their nature is fundamentally ever one; things cannot be made into [absolute] things, yet they are not non-things. If you treat a thing as an [inherent] thing, names and marks will be arrayed in difference; if you do not treat a thing as an [inherent] thing, then things are identical to the real. Thus the sage does not treat things as things, nor does he treat non-things as things. Not treating things as things, things are not existent; not treating non-things as things, things are not non-existent. Because they are not existent, he does not grasp; because they are not non-existent, he does not abandon. Because he does not abandon, [their] wondrous existence is identical to the real; because he does not grasp, names and marks have no basis. When names and marks have no basis, it is not having knowledge; when wondrous existence is identical to the real, it is not unknowing. Therefore the scripture says: 'Prajñā neither grasps nor abandons, neither knows nor is ignorant of any dharma.' This lies outside mental grasping, in the realm where the mind is cut off. To seek to question it with existence and non-existence—is this not far off the mark? Let me question those who assert existence and non-existence: When cognition arises, it reaches its limit within marks. Dharmas are fundamentally without marks—what could the sage's wisdom know? When worldly people speak of 'unknowing', they mean things like wood and stone, the Great Void, and insentient entities. But the spiritual mirror darkly illuminates, manifest before any omen appears; the Way has no hidden workings—how could it be called unknowing? Moreover, unknowing arises from unknowing; there is neither unknowing nor having knowledge. Lacking knowledge is called 'non-existence'; lacking unknowing is called 'not non-existence'. Therefore vacuity does not lose illumination, and illumination does not lose vacuity; serene and forever quiescent, it is neither grasped nor bound. Who could stir it to make it exist, or quiet it to make it non-existent? Therefore the scripture says: 'True prajñā is neither existent nor non-existent, without arising and without ceasing, and cannot be explained or shown to people.' Why is this? Saying it is not existent means it is not [inherent] existence, not that it is non-existence; saying it is not non-existent means it is not [inherent] non-existence, not that it is non-non-existence. It is neither existent nor non-existent; neither non-existent nor non-non-existent. Thus Subhūti spoke of prajñā all day, yet said he had spoken nothing. How can this Way that cuts off speech be transmitted? One can only hope that noble persons who engage in the mystery may intuit it!