肇論疏 2.57

2.57

第二，別答前三問，即為三章。今答第一智體有知無知問也。文中有四：第一、正答問；第二、辨聖心；第三、斥謂情；第四、詰謬計。雖有四章，通是答問。今初，牒其前言也。意謂妙盡冥符不可以定慧為名者，妙盡冥符，此是般若之心，一相不二，何得言其中有定慧二名耶？靈泊獨感不可稱群數以息者，此是般若之心，無不鑒照，何得言不應群數耶？兩言雖殊妙用常一者，妙盡冥符為一言，靈泊獨感為一言，一是動也、一是靜也。於我見迹則動靜有異，於聖本心則動靜不二也。

Second, specifically answering the earlier three questions, which forms three sections. Here he answers the first question concerning whether the essence of wisdom possesses knowledge or lacks knowledge. In this text there are four parts: first, directly answering the question; second, discerning the sage's mind; third, rebuking conceptual clinging; and fourth, interrogating erroneous views. Although there are four sections, all together they constitute the answer to the question. Here, the first part quotes his earlier words. The meaning of "marvelously reaching the end and darkly tallying cannot be named in terms of samādhi and prajñā": "marvelously reaching the end and darkly tallying" is the mind of prajñā, of one characteristic and non-dual; how could one say that within it there are the two designations "samādhi" and "prajñā"? Regarding "spiritually tranquil, responding singularly, it cannot be said to cease in correspondence to the multiplicity of things": this is the mind of prajñā, which leaves nothing unilluminated; how could one say it does not respond to the multiplicity of things? Regarding "although the two statements differ, their marvelous function is ever one": "marvelously reaching the end and darkly tallying" is one statement, and "spiritually tranquil, responding singularly" is another statement; one is movement, and one is stillness. From the perspective of our seeing its traces, movement and stillness differ; but in terms of the sage's fundamental mind, movement and stillness are non-dual.