肇論疏 1.47

1.47

第二、指物明不遷也。人以昔物去今，故名為動。我以昔物在昔，故名為靜。動而非靜以其不來、靜而非動以其不去者，餘本皆云「靜而非動以其不來，動而非靜以其不去」，句上可釋，下句難解。今勘古本，如前說也。動而非靜以其不來者，此覆人之所謂動句也；靜而非動以其不去者，此覆我之所謂靜句也。人以昔物去今而往昔，故曰動而非靜；我以昔物在昔而不去，故曰靜而非動也。然則所造未嘗異下，《廣雅》云：造，詣也。《爾雅》云：造，適也。嘗，有兩義：一者曾義，二者常義。《莊子》云：夫言非吹也。言者有言，其所言者特未定也。果有言耶？其未嘗有言耶？此是曾義。又云：仲尼語顏回曰：若必有以也，嘗以語我來。此是常義也。目所造詣未嘗有異，而心眼所見未曾有同也。逆之所謂塞順之所謂通者，逆理則塞，順理則通。逆理謂人也，順理謂已也。苟得其道復何滯哉者，苟，且也。且得其道理，則動靜不二，更無疑滯也。

Second is pointing to things to clarify non-movement. People take past things as departing into the present, and so call it movement. I take past things as residing in the past, and so call it stillness. As for "it moves and is not still because it does not come; it is still and does not move because it does not go," other editions all say: "it is still and does not move because it does not come; it moves and is not still because it does not go." The upper sentence can be explained, but the lower sentence is difficult to interpret. Checking ancient editions now, it is as stated previously. "It moves and is not still because it does not come" overturns people's notion of movement; "it is still and does not move because it does not go" overturns my notion of stillness. People take past things as departing into the present and going to the past, hence it is said to move and not be still; I take past things as residing in the past and not going, hence it is said to be still and not move. As for "This being so, what is encountered has never been different" below, the Guangya states: "Zao (造) means to go to (詣)." The Erya states: "Zao means to arrive at (適)." Chang (嘗) has two senses: first, the sense of "ever" (曾); second, the sense of "constant" (常). The Zhuangzi states: "Now words are not mere blowing of breath. Those who speak have spoken, but what they have said is especially undetermined. Is there really speech? Or has there never been speech?" This is the sense of "ever". It also says: "Zhongni said to Yan Hui: 'If you must have a purpose, regularly (嘗) tell it to me.'" This is the sense of "regular / constant". What the eye arrives at has never been different, yet what is seen by the mental eye has never been identical. As for "going against it is called obstruction, according with it is called openness," going against principle brings obstruction, while according with principle brings openness. Going against principle refers to others; according with principle refers to oneself. As for "If one truly attains its path, what hindrance could there be?", gou (苟) means "if only" (且). If one only attains its principle, then movement and stillness are non-dual, and there is no further doubt or hindrance.