肇論疏 2.65

2.65

第四、詰謬計也。詰責謬計聖心為有之人也。夫智之生也極於相內者，此言凡智也。世諦有相，故凡智有知。凡智之生起，於有相之內，不過此也。法本無相聖智何知者，此言聖智也。聖智見真諦，真諦無相，故聖智無知也。世稱無知者下，世間凡言無知者，是木石等法也。靈鑒幽燭形于未兆者，此是聖智也。聖智靈鑒，照見幽微，未形之事已見也。形者現也，于者於也，兆謂卦兆也。道無隱機寧曰無知者，無有隱機之道而不知也。機者微小也。以靈鑒幽燭及道無隱機，而義寧可言無知乎？亦可靈鑒幽燭為一義，形于未兆為一義，道無隱機為一義也。且無知生於無知無無知也者，無知者謂無所知也，以無所知故云無知，此無知之名生於無識也。知者聖智也，聖智無彼無知，故云無知無無知也。無有智也謂之非有下，無有故言非有，無無故言非無也。所也虛不失照下，虛是無也，照謂有也。虛而照，無即有也；照而虛，有則無也。泊然永寂靡執靡拘者，泊然謂恬泊也，拘謂拘執也。言寂滅故不可執也。孰能動之令有下，誰能起動令其有、安靜令其無耶。故經曰真般若者非有非無下，《大品》經意也。何則言其非有者下，其，謂聖心也。言聖心非有者，非是有相之有耳。但言非有，不得遂是無，故云非謂是非有，非有是定無也。言聖心非無者，非是無物之無耳。但言非無，不得遂是有，故云非謂是非無，非無是定有也。如東西中三處相望，言中非東，不言即是西也；言中非西，不言即是東也。准前作語，應云言其非東者，言其非是東，非謂是非非東，東是定西也。言其非西者，言其非是西，非謂是非西，非西是定東也。問曰：言其非有者，可言非是有，何得非非有？言其非無者，言其非是無，何得非非無？以非有非無是中故也。東西中亦准於此。言其非東者，言其非是東，何得非非東？言其非西者，言其非是西，何得非非西？以非東非西是中故也。答：若非有非無是中，何勞別用中名乎？東西中亦爾也。又非東未必即是非東，南北亦非東也。非西直非西，未必即是非西，南北亦非西也。以非東非西形非有非無，則可知矣。非有非非有下，覆疏前語耳。是以須菩提終日說般若下，《大品》經文也。彼經云：諸天子聞須菩提說般若。天子云：諸夜叉語言尚可解，須菩提所說不可解。須菩提言：諸天子不解不知耶？我無所說也。此絕言之道下，此謂般若絕言語道，不知何以傳之也。而言知何以傳者，不知所傳也。如古詩云：枯桑知天風，海水知天寒。言不知也，枯桑無葉，所以不知天風。海水不凍，所以不知天寒。知乃是不知耳。庶參玄君子下，庶，望也。《爾雅》云：庶幾，尚也。尚謂冀尚，冀尚亦望之別名也。謂劉公既參契玄理之耳。

Fourth, interrogating the erroneous calculation: this is interrogating the person who erroneously calculates the holy mind to be existent. 'Now, the arising of cognition reaches its utmost limit within signs': this refers to ordinary cognition. The conventional truth has signs, so ordinary cognition possesses knowing. Ordinary cognition's arising stays within what has signs, not exceeding this. 'Dharmas are fundamentally signless; what does holy cognition know?': this refers to holy cognition. Holy cognition sees the ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth is signless; therefore, holy cognition is non-knowing. 'What the world calls non-knowing' below: what ordinary people in the world call non-knowing refers to things like wood and stones. 'The spiritual mirror darkly illuminates, giving form to what has not yet portended': this is holy cognition. The spiritual mirror of holy cognition illuminates and sees the dark and subtle; it has already seen things that have not yet taken form. 'Giving form' (xing) means appearing; 'to' (yu) means at; 'portended' (zhao) refers to divination omens. 'The Dao has no hidden mechanism; how could it be said to be non-knowing?': there is no Dao of hidden mechanisms that it does not know. 'Mechanism' (ji) means subtle. Given the spiritual mirror darkly illuminating and the Dao lacking hidden mechanisms, how could the meaning ever be said to be non-knowing? One may also take 'the spiritual mirror darkly illuminates' as one meaning, 'giving form to what has not yet portended' as one meaning, and 'the Dao has no hidden mechanism' as one meaning. 'Furthermore, non-knowing arises from non-knowing, and there is no non-knowing': 'non-knowing' means having nothing that is known; because there is nothing that is known, it is called non-knowing—this name 'non-knowing' arises from the absence of consciousness. 'Knowing' is holy cognition; holy cognition lacks that [worldly] non-knowing, so it is said that 'non-knowing has no non-knowing.' 'Having no cognition is termed not existent' below: because it does not exist, it is called 'not existent'; because it is not non-existent, it is called 'not non-existent.' '[Vacuous, it does not lose illumination]' below: 'vacuous' is non-existence; 'illumination' refers to existence. Vacuous yet illuminating, non-existence is precisely existence; illuminating yet vacuous, existence is then non-existence. 'Tranquil and eternally quiescent, neither grasping nor bound': 'tranquil' (bo ran) means serene; 'bound' (ju) means clutching and grasping. This states that because it is quiescent and extinguished, it cannot be grasped. 'Who can stir it to make it exist?' below: who could arouse it to make it exist, or quiet it to make it non-existent? 'Therefore the sūtra says: "True prajñā is neither existent nor non-existent"' below: this is the intended meaning of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. 'Why so? To say it is not existent' below: 'it' refers to the holy mind. Saying that the holy mind is not existent merely means it is not the existence of having signs. Merely saying it is not existent does not mean it must then be non-existence; hence it says, 'it does not mean it is non-existent, for non-existence is determinate non-existence.' Saying that the holy mind is not non-existent merely means it is not the non-existence of having no things. Merely saying it is not non-existent does not mean it must then be existence; hence it says, 'it does not mean it is non-non-existent, for non-non-existence is determinate existence.' This is like looking at the three positions of east, west, and middle: saying that the middle is not east does not mean it is west; saying that the middle is not west does not mean it is east. Phrasing it according to the preceding pattern, it should say: to say that it is not east means it is not east, not that it is non-non-east, for [non-non-]east is determinately west; to say that it is not west means it is not west, not that it is non-west, for non-west is determinately east. Question: In saying that it is not existent, one can say it is not existent, but how can one say 'not non-existent'? In saying that it is not non-existent, one can say it is not non-existent, but how can one say 'not non-non-existent'? Because neither existent nor non-existent is the middle. East, west, and middle are also analogous to this. In saying that it is not east, one can say it is not east, but how can one say 'not non-east'? In saying that it is not west, one can say it is not west, but how can one say 'not non-west'? Because neither east nor west is the middle. Answer: If neither existent nor non-existent were the middle, why bother additionally using the name 'middle'? East, west, and middle are also like this. Furthermore, what is not east is not necessarily non-east; south and north are also not east. What is not west is simply not west, not necessarily non-west; south and north are also not west. By comparing neither east nor west to neither existent nor non-existent, this can be understood. 'Neither existent nor non-existent' below merely comments again on the previous phrasing. 'Therefore Subhūti spoke prajñā all day long' below: this is the text of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. That sūtra says: The devaputras heard Subhūti speak prajñā. The devaputras said: 'The speech of yakṣas can still be understood, but what Subhūti speaks cannot be understood.' Subhūti said: 'Devaputras, do you not understand and not know? I have spoken nothing.' 'This path of transcending words' below: this means that prajñā is the path that transcends words; one does not know how to transmit it. Yet saying 'knowing how to transmit' means not knowing what is transmitted. As an ancient poem says: 'The withered mulberry knows the sky's wind; / the sea water knows the sky's cold.' This expresses not knowing: the withered mulberry has no leaves, so it does not know the sky's wind; the sea water does not freeze, so it does not know the sky's cold. 'Knowing' is precisely not knowing. 'I hope that gentlemen who participate in the profound' below: 'hope' (shu) means looking forward to. The Erya says: 'Shuji means shang (to hope).' Shang means to hope, which is also another name for looking forward to. This refers to Lord Liu having already participated in and tallied with the profound principle.