[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [肇論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859) › 2.39 # 肇論疏 2.39 肇論疏 2.39 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.2.39) 第二番也。般若無知，此是聖智之無；惑智性空，此是惑智之無也。般若無知亦無生滅，惑智性空亦無生滅，兩無何異耶？答曰聖智之無者無知下，聖智無有知，惑智知體，皆無別也。所以無者，是義也。雖同言無，其義各異也。何者夫聖心虛靜下，謂聖心無執著也。無有執著之知，而言其空也。可曰無知下，可名此為無知，不得名為知空也。惑智有知下，謂惑智有執著也。有此執著之知，而言其空也。可曰知無下，可名此為知空，不得名為無知也。無知即般若之無下，般若無取相故曰無知，惑智體性空故曰知無，知無即是真諦之實相耳。言用即同而異下，論用則本同成異，論寂則本異成同也。同故無心於彼此下，言同邊則彼此無差別，言異邊則彼此各有殊。謂般若有照境之力，真諦有發智之功也。亦可言異，則般若有鑒照之功，真諦無也。是以辨同者下，言同者，謂異法為同也；言異者，謂同法為異也。斯則不可得而異下，究竟言之，不可得定異、不可得定同也。何者內有獨鑒之明下，釋前寂同而用異也。內有獨鑒之明，即般若用也；外有萬法之異，即真諦用也。萬法雖異下，雖有實理，要以般若照之方得顯也。內外相與以成其照功者，由內見外、由外發內，故曰相與也。此聖所不能同用也者，此即用異，聖人不能令同也。內雖照而無智下，照而無知，即是智寂；實而無相，即是境寂，兩法體性同皆是無也。內外寂然相與俱無者，兩法皆寂，俱是空也。此聖所不能異寂者，此即寂同，聖人不能令異耳。豈曰續鳧截鶴下，此語出《莊子》。《莊子外篇．駢拇章》云：長者不為有餘，短者不為不足。故鳧脛雖短，續之則憂；鶴脛雖長，斷之即悲。故性長，長非所斷；性短，短非所續。今借此語，以明境智雖異而同，不待同而後同也。夷，平也。盈，滿也。岳，山也。壑，溪也。誠以不異於異者，即以不異者為異也。故雖異而不異者，既以不異為異，異不可為異也。於無異法中而說諸法異者，諸不異為異也。亦不一相下，不一不異，即非同非異也。難曰論云言用則異下，第三番，即就用寂為難也。未詳般若之內即有用寂之異者，有本云「即有用寂之異不也」，有本無「不」字，今不用「不」字也，直問般若之內何得復有用寂之異乎。若有「不」字，則是兩端為有為無也。答曰用即寂下，更泯用寂也。寂用體一下，寂用既是體一，同從理出，而有異名也。更無無用之寂主於用者，非謂離用之外別有一寂為用之主也。是以智彌昧下，彌，益也。逾，越也。聖智彌昧，其用越明；聖神益靜，其應越動也。豈曰明昧動靜之異者，雖云明昧動靜，又復泯之為一也。故《成具》云不為而過為者，不為過於為也。無心無識下，無心無識，深復知覺也。是則窮神盡智下，謂此二經，窮盡神妙智慧，極言象外之談論也。即之明文下，通謂此般若無知論也。以此論之明文，則聖心無知可於見也。亦可即指此上二經為即之明文也。 > This is the second round. Prajñā is non-knowing—this is the non-being of noble wisdom; deluded cognition's nature is empty—this is the non-being of deluded cognition. Prajñā's non-knowing also has no arising and ceasing, and deluded cognition's nature being empty also has no arising and ceasing; how do the two kinds of non-being differ? The answer says: "The non-being of noble wisdom is non-knowing," and so forth: noble wisdom has no knowing, whereas deluded cognition has the essence of knowing, yet both have no distinction \[as non-being\]. What makes them "non-being" is the meaning. Although both are called "non-being," their meanings each differ. "Why? The noble mind is vacant and tranquil," and so forth: this means that the noble mind has no grasping or attachment. Having no knowing of grasping or attachment, its emptiness is spoken of. "It can be called non-knowing," and so forth: one may name this "non-knowing," but it cannot be named "knowing emptiness." "Deluded cognition has knowing," and so forth: this means that deluded cognition has grasping and attachment. Having this knowing of grasping and attachment, its emptiness is spoken of. "It can be called knowing non-being," and so forth: one may name this "knowing non-being," but it cannot be named "non-knowing." "Non-knowing is the non-being of prajñā," and so forth: because prajñā does not grasp characteristics, it is called "non-knowing"; because the essence and nature of deluded cognition is empty, it is called "knowing non-being"; knowing non-being is simply the dharmatā of paramārtha-satya. "Speaking of function, they are identical yet different," and so forth: discussing function, what is fundamentally identical becomes different; discussing quiescence, what is fundamentally different becomes identical. "Being identical, it has no mind toward this or that," and so forth: speaking in terms of identity, between this and that there is no distinction; speaking in terms of difference, this and that each have their distinctness. This means that prajñā has the power to illuminate the object, and paramārtha-satya has the efficacy of producing wisdom. It can also be said that regarding difference, prajñā has the efficacy of mirror-like illumination, whereas paramārtha-satya does not. "Therefore, one who discerns identity," and so forth: speaking of identity means taking different dharmas as identical; speaking of difference means taking identical dharmas as different. "Thus they cannot be grasped as different," and so forth: speaking definitively, they can neither be grasped as definitely different nor grasped as definitely identical. "Why? Internally there is the clarity of solitary reflection," and so forth: this explains the previous "identity in quiescence yet difference in function." "Internally there is the clarity of solitary reflection" is the function of prajñā; "externally there is the difference of the myriad dharmas" is the function of paramārtha-satya. "Although the myriad dharmas are different," and so forth: although there is ultimate reality, it requires prajñā's illumination for it to become manifest. "The internal and external interact with each other to accomplish its illuminating efficacy": because the external is seen by means of the internal, and the internal is prompted by means of the external, they are said to "interact with each other." "This is something that the sage cannot unify in function": this is the difference in function, which the sage cannot make identical. "Internally, though illuminating, there is no knowing," and so forth: illuminating without knowing is the quiescence of wisdom; real without characteristics is the quiescence of the object; the essence and nature of both dharmas are identical in that both are non-being. "The internal and external are quiescent and mutually together are non-being": both dharmas are quiescent and both are empty. "This is something whose quiescence the sage cannot make different": this is the identity in quiescence, which the sage cannot make different. "How could it be said that one grafts onto a duck \[legs\] or cuts a crane \[legs\]?" and so forth: this saying comes from the Zhuangzi. The chapter "Webbed Toes" in the Outer Chapters of the Zhuangzi says: "What is long is not considered surplus, and what is short is not considered deficient. Therefore, although the duck's legs are short, if one lengthens them, it brings distress; although the crane's legs are long, if one cuts them, it brings sorrow. Therefore, where the nature is long, length is not something to be cut off; where the nature is short, shortness is not something to be lengthened." Here these words are borrowed to clarify that although the object and wisdom are different, they are identical, not having to wait for unification before being identical. "Yi" means level. "Ying" means full. "Yue" means mountain. "Huo" means ravine. "Indeed, by taking non-difference within difference": this means taking what is non-different as different. "Therefore, although different, they are not different": since what is non-different is taken as different, the difference cannot be considered a real difference. In dharmas that are non-different, explaining the dharmas as different is taking all that is non-different as different. "Nor are they of a single characteristic," and so forth: neither one nor different means being neither identical nor different. The objection says: "The treatise says: 'Speaking of function, they are different,'" and so forth: the third round raises an objection specifically on function and quiescence. "It is not yet understood whether within prajñā there is a difference between function and quiescence": some texts read "whether within prajñā there is a difference between function and quiescence or not (fou)?" Some texts do not have the word "not (fou)"; here the word "not" is not used, simply asking how within prajñā there could also be a difference between function and quiescence. If it had the word "not," it would be the two extremes of being and non-being. The answer says: "Function is quiescence," and so forth: this further dissolves function and quiescence. "Quiescence and function are one in essence," and so forth: since quiescence and function are one in essence, both arising from principle, they nevertheless have different names. "There is no quiescence devoid of function that acts as the master over function": this does not mean that apart from function there is separately a quiescence that acts as the master over function. "Therefore, the dimmer the wisdom," and so forth: "mi" means all the more. "Yu" means exceeds. The dimmer the noble wisdom, the clearer its function; the quieter the noble spirit, the more active its response. "How could it be said that there is a difference between brightness and dimness, movement and stillness?" Although it speaks of brightness and dimness, movement and stillness, these are again dissolved into one. Therefore the Chengju \[guangming dingyi jing\] says: "To not act surpasses acting": non-action surpasses action. "Without mind and without consciousness," and so forth: without mind and without consciousness, it is profoundly aware and perceptive again. "This, then, exhausts spirit and fathoms wisdom," and so forth: this means that these two sūtras exhaust the spirit-like marvel and wisdom, reaching the limit in expressing discourse that lies beyond words and signs. "Approaching its clear text," and so forth: this generally refers to this Bore wuzhi lun. Through the clear text of this treatise, the noble mind's non-knowing can be seen in it. Alternatively, it can directly refer to the above two sūtras as "approaching its clear text." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.2.38) - [Next: 2.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.2.40) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859~en-mt.2.39) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [肇論新疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2.227) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.2.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.2.39) · Pramāṇa