肇論疏 2.61

2.61

第二、合辨聖心合釋兩意也。而其心之有者，凡論心之所以為有者，以其謂法而有，故名心有耳。有自不有故聖心不有有者，有法當體，自非是有，故聖心不以有為有耳。不有有故有無有者，不以有法為有，故知有非是有也。無有故則無無者，法既非有，亦非是無也。無無故聖心不有不無者，前言無有，此言無無。法體既其無有無無，所以聖心不有不無耳。不有不無其神乃虛者，聖心不有不無，乃為虛妙。何者夫有也無也心之影響也下，覆疏釋前聖心不有不無也。聖心非有，妄謂為有；聖心非無，妄謂為無。有無之於聖心，如影響之於形聲，非真本也。言也像也影響之所攀緣者，攀緣影響之有無，故有言象，非謂影響之有無於言象。文語到說，故云爾也。何者？緣心謂有故言有，謂無故言無。緣此有有無之心，故有有無之言彖耳。言象，謂《易》云：文言象詞。以喻說有說無之言，象有象無也。喻如說有，是塊然之有；說無，是豁爾之無。塊然是物塊，豁爾是虛空，此皆象也。即此象上有有無之言耳。有無既廢下，聖心非有非無，故云既廢。不得妄謂為有為無，故云心無影響也。影響既淪則言像莫測者，聖心既非有非無，則不可言有言無、象有象無，言象所不能測得聖心也。言像莫測則道絕群方者，《易》言：方以類聚，物以群分。今謂聖心不可言有言無，則與群方諸類永絕也。道絕群方故能窮盡極數者，以與群方永絕，故窮盡靈智、究極心數也。窮靈極數乃曰妙盡者，以窮極故，能無所不知、無所不鑒，故云妙盡也。妙盡之道本乎無寄者，既云妙盡，即是般若。既云般若，何有寄著耶？無寄在乎冥寂者，既云無寄，所以冥然寂然也。冥寂故虛以謂之者，既云冥寂，則無有名字。而云般若者，虛假為名也。妙盡在乎極數者，既云妙盡，必窮心數也。極數故數以應之者，雖云極數，能以數應，如經中說變化云為無所不作也。數以應之故動與事會者，以心數應物，有感必臨，無不契會也。虛以謂之故道超名外者，假立名字，所以超名字之外也。道超名外因謂之無者，以聖心超名字之外，莫知何名，故名無心耳。動與事會因謂之有者，以聖心應物，故名有心耳。謂之有者應夫謂有下，謂聖心謂為有者，應彼謂有之人強謂為有，聖心不然也。故經曰聖智無知下，引經為證。此是《大品經》之大意，無的文也。又是《思益經》意。彼經云：我得涅槃時，唯得諸法畢竟空性。以無所得故得，以無所知故知也。此言無相寂滅之道者，此經云無相之道也。又釋此無知無為之言，言無相之道也。有本云：此無言無相寂滅之道。謂此無知無為，是無言無相之道耳。豈曰有而為有下，豈曰者，言不如此也。言有未必為有，言無未為無，動靜亦然耳。

Second, jointly discerning the sage's mind and jointly explaining the two meanings. Regarding "as for the mind's having [an object]": generally speaking, when discussing why a mind is said to "have," it is because it takes a phenomenon to exist; thus it is named "the mind having [an object]." Regarding "being is inherently not being; hence the sage's mind does not take being as being": the intrinsic essence of existing phenomena is inherently not being; hence the sage's mind does not take being as being. Regarding "because it does not take being as being, there is the absence of being": because it does not take existing phenomena as being, it knows that being is not being. Regarding "because there is the absence of being, there is no non-being": since phenomena are not being, neither are they non-being. Regarding "because there is no non-being, the sage's mind neither is being nor is non-being": earlier it said "the absence of being," and here it says "no non-being." Since the essence of phenomena is without being and without non-being, the sage's mind neither is being nor is non-being. Regarding "neither being nor non-being, its spirit is then empty": the sage's mind being neither being nor non-being is indeed empty and subtle. Regarding "why is this? For being and non-being are shadows and echoes of the mind...": this reiterates and comments on the earlier statement that the sage's mind is neither being nor non-being. The sage's mind is not being, yet people delusionally take it as being; the sage's mind is not non-being, yet people delusionally take it as non-being. Being and non-being are to the sage's mind as shadows and echoes are to form and sound—they are not the true origin. Regarding "words and images are what shadows and echoes cling to": clinging to the being and non-being of shadows and echoes, words and images arise; it does not mean that the being and non-being of shadows and echoes cling to words and images. The phrasing is an inverted expression, hence it is put this way. Why? Relying on the mind, one assumes being, and therefore speaks of being; one assumes non-being, and therefore speaks of non-being. Relying on this mind of being and non-being, words and hexagram symbols of being and non-being arise. "Words and images" refers to the Yijing, which says: "The text's words and the images' phrases." This is used as an analogy: words that speak of being and speak of non-being take images of being and take images of non-being. For example, speaking of being is like an aggregated mass of being; speaking of non-being is like a vast emptiness of non-being. An aggregated mass is a material lump; vast emptiness is open space—these are all images. Upon these very images, words of being and non-being are applied. Regarding "when being and non-being are abandoned...": the sage's mind is neither being nor non-being, hence it is said to be "abandoned." One cannot delusionally take it as being or as non-being; hence it says "the mind has no shadows or echoes." Regarding "when shadows and echoes sink away, words and images cannot fathom it": since the sage's mind is neither being nor non-being, it cannot be spoken of as being or non-being, nor can it take images of being or non-being; words and images cannot fathom the sage's mind. Regarding "when words and images cannot fathom it, the Way transcends all directions": the Yijing says: "Directions assemble by kind, and things divide into groups." Here it means that the sage's mind cannot be spoken of as being or non-being, and thus it eternally transcends all classes and groups. Regarding "because the Way transcends all directions, it can plumb the spiritual and exhaust all numbers": because it eternally transcends all groups, it fully plumbs spiritual wisdom and completely investigates the mind's numbers. Regarding "plumbing the spiritual and exhausting all numbers is called 'marvelously reaching the end'": because it plumbs and exhausts, it leaves nothing unknown and nothing unilluminated; hence it is called "marvelously reaching the end." Regarding "the Way of marvelously reaching the end is rooted in having no reliance": since it is called "marvelously reaching the end," it is prajñā. Since it is prajñā, how could there be any reliance or clinging? Regarding "having no reliance lies in profound tranquility": since it is called "having no reliance," it is profoundly and silently tranquil. Regarding "because it is profoundly tranquil, it is provisionally referred to": since it is profoundly tranquil, it has no names. Calling it "prajñā" is only a provisional designation. Regarding "marvelously reaching the end lies in exhausting all numbers": since it is called "marvelously reaching the end," it must exhaust all numbers of the mind. Regarding "because it exhausts all numbers, it responds in accordance with numbers": although it is called exhausting all numbers, it can respond according to numbers, as explained in the sūtras regarding transformations and deeds, leaving nothing undone. Regarding "because it responds in accordance with numbers, its movement harmonizes with affairs": responding to things through the mind's numbers, wherever there is a stimulus it arrives, leaving nothing unaccorded. Regarding "because it is provisionally referred to, the Way transcends beyond names": provisionally establishing a name, it transcends beyond names. Regarding "because the Way transcends beyond names, it is consequently termed 'non-being'": because the sage's mind transcends beyond names and none knows what to name it, it is termed "no-mind." Regarding "because its movement harmonizes with affairs, it is consequently termed 'being'": because the sage's mind responds to things, it is termed "having a mind." Regarding "being termed 'being' is to respond to those who assert being...": saying the sage's mind is termed "being" is only responding to those people who assert being, forcibly calling it being; the sage's mind is not actually so. Regarding "hence the sūtra says: 'The holy wisdom is non-knowing'...": quoting a sūtra as evidence. This is the general meaning of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, not a specific text. It also reflects the intent of the Viśeṣacintibrahmaparipṛcchā-sūtra. That sūtra says: "When I attained nirvāṇa, I only attained the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas. Because of non-attainment, there is attainment; because of non-knowing, there is knowing." Regarding "this refers to the path of animitta and tranquil cessation": this sūtra refers to the path of animitta. Furthermore, it explains these words of non-knowing and non-action, meaning the path of animitta. Another edition reads: "This path of wordlessness, animitta, and tranquil cessation." It means that this non-knowing and non-action is the path of wordlessness and animitta. Regarding "how could one say that it is being and thus constitutes being?...": "how could one say" means it is not like that. Calling it being does not necessarily make it being; calling it non-being does not make it non-being; movement and stillness are also like this.