肇論疏 2.5

2.5

此論文有三章：第一、正是本論；第二、劉公致問；第三、肇師釋答。今初。本論之中，文有三章：第一、先序般若之因由；第二、正標無知之宗旨；第三、問答料簡。今初序中，文有四段：第一、標宗旨；第二、序什師；第三、歎秦王；第四、明論意。今初也。般若之法，無相故虛、幽隱故玄。玄，黑也，幽深難測，義如玄黑。河上注《老子》云：玄，天也。此亦以天遠難明，義同幽黑也。蓋是三乘之宗極誠真一無差者，蓋者不定之辭也，謂是而未敢為是，故云蓋是也。三乘皆有般若、皆因般若而得成道、皆以般若為宗本、皆以般若為至極，然有深淺不同，故有大小之異。以此義故，信般若是真是一無差之法也。然異端之論紛然久矣者，般若之法理性無差，比者學人釋有差異，以其不能明般若之性，故異說不同。即如《遠法師集》云：聞壹公以等智為般若，情實不甘。即其事也。何者？等智者是共有之智，上下是同。如《涅槃經》云：一切眾生皆有三種等智，所謂婬欲、恐怖、飲食。小乘依此故立等智，此是麁近，未為深妙，豈以此智而為般若乎？道一師不解，故云：以此為般若耳。今肇法師亦彈此義，故云爾也。亦可常人或謂般若有知、或謂無知，不能分別，今詺此為異端耳。

This treatise has three sections: first is the primary treatise itself; second is Duke Liu presenting questions; third is Master Sengzhao explaining in response. Now this is the first. Within the primary treatise, the text has three sections: first, it introduces the origins and causes of prajñā; second, it explicitly sets forth the fundamental thesis of non-knowing; third, question and answer analysis. Now, in the first introductory section, the text has four parts: first, setting forth the fundamental thesis; second, introducing Master Kumārajīva; third, praising the King of Qin; fourth, clarifying the treatise's purpose. Now this is the first. The Dharma of prajñā is empty because it is markless, and profound because it is subtle and hidden. 'Profound' (玄) means black; deep, obscure, and difficult to fathom, its meaning is like deep black. Heshang's commentary on the Laozi states: 'The profound is heaven.' This is also because heaven is distant and difficult to comprehend, its meaning being identical to dark and obscure. 'It is indeed the ultimate of the Three Vehicles, truly singular and without difference': 'indeed' (蓋) is a word of uncertainty, denoting that one considers it to be so but has not yet dared to affirm it conclusively; hence he says 'is indeed'. The Three Vehicles all have prajñā, all achieve the Way through prajñā, all take prajñā as their root foundation, and all take prajñā as their culmination; yet there are differences of depth and shallowness, hence there are distinctions of great and small. By virtue of this meaning, one truly believes that prajñā is a real, singular, and undifferentiated Dharma. Under 'Yet diverse and heterodox theories have long been in contention': the principle and nature of the Dharma of prajñā is without difference, but recently scholars in their explanations have had discrepancies; because they are unable to clarify the nature of prajñā, divergent explanations are not identical. This is just like what is stated in Master Huiyuan's Collection: 'Hearing that Master Dao'yi takes equalized knowledge (samata-jñāna) to be prajñā, my mind is truly dissatisfied.' This is precisely that matter. Why? Equalized knowledge is knowledge held in common, identical above and below. As the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'All sentient beings have three kinds of equalized knowledge, namely lust, fear, and food and drink.' The Hīnayāna, relying on this, establishes equalized knowledge; this is coarse and mundane, not yet deep and wondrous—how could this knowledge be taken as prajñā? Master Daoyi did not understand, hence he said that this is prajñā. Now Master Sengzhao also refutes this view, hence he speaks thus. It may also be that ordinary people either say prajñā possesses knowing or say it lacks knowing, unable to discern the truth; now this is called heterodox.