肇論疏 2.13

2.13

第二、正標無知論之宗旨，以為論體也。文有五段：第一、標宗；第二、辨相；第三、融會；第四、明體；第五、總結。今初。文中有三：初，正標宗；次，解釋；後，引證。今初，引兩經標立無知宗旨也。此辨智照之用而曰無相無知者，此亦是釋，但未正釋也。此句如問。既云般若，正明智用，應是有知；乃云無相無知，何故然耶？果有無相之知不知之照明矣者，此句如答也。果者，決定也。定有無相之知，則無取相之知。以無取相之知以無取相之知，明是無知也。

Section two properly sets forth the central thesis of the *Treatise on the Non-knowing of Prajñā* as the substance of the treatise. The text has five parts: first, stating the central thesis; second, discerning its characteristics; third, harmonizing them; fourth, clarifying its essence; fifth, a concluding summary. This is the first part.
Within this part there are three sections: first, properly stating the central thesis; next, explaining it; and last, citing proofs. Here in the first section, two sūtras are cited to establish the thesis of non-knowing.
Regarding "This distinguishes the function of wisdom's illumination and yet says it is without characteristics and without knowing": This is also an explanation, but not yet the main explanation. This sentence acts like a question: Since it is called prajñā, which directly clarifies the function of wisdom, it ought to be knowing; why then does it say "without characteristics and without knowing"? What is the reason for this?
"Truly, there is the illumination of knowing without characteristics and knowing without knowing, as is evident": This sentence functions as the answer. "Truly" means definitely. There is definitely a knowing without characteristics, which means there is no knowing that grasps at characteristics. Because there is no knowing that grasps at characteristics, it is clear that it is non-knowing.