肇論疏 2.67

2.67

第二、答前第二境智有相無相問也。前第二問中文有兩段：前明覩變之知應是有，後明覩變之知異無相。今先答後問，然後答前問也。談者似謂無相與變下，談者即劉公也。言不一者，謂異也。覩變則異乎無相下，明不一之所以也。謂見變動即是有相，非無相也。見無相則無所見，不能撫接應會也。然則即真之義或有滯也者，若然，則滯經中色即是空之義。色即是空，故名為真耳。經云色不異空空不異色下，《大品經．習應品》文也。若如來旨下，若如所難來意，則色空別也。前心見色，後心見空也。若一心見色下，出其過也。一心見色，則唯是色而不見空，何謂即空？下句反此也。然則空色兩陳莫定其本者，空色各別，故曰兩陳。既其各別，莫知經中相即之本意也。又云空色兩陳，不知色為空本、空為色本也。是以經云非色者，釋經本意，如下說也。誠以非色於色不非色於非色者，誠，信也。信將非色之言非於色耳，不是非於非色也。若非色於非色下，却難也。若經云非色於非色者，則是說太虛非色為非色耳，此欲明何理耶？太虛非色，凡人共知，此非真理，豈經中所明非色之本意也？若以非色於色下，辨經之本意也。若經言非色非於色者，明知色不異於非色耳。故知變即無相下，變即有也，無相無也。色既即空，有即無也。群情不同故教迹有異者，人心各別，故聖教不同，說有說空，言有異也。考之玄籍本之聖意者，《楚詞》注云：考，校也。《爾雅》云：考，成也。玄籍，謂經也。本，謂本盡也。聖意，謂至人無心也。豈復真偽殊心空有異照耶者，尋經意則真偽不殊心，空有不異照。真謂真諦，偽謂俗諦，空有亦真俗也。是以照無相下，既空有不異，故照無仍照有，所以不失撫會之功。見有仍見無，所以不乖無相之旨也。造有不異無下，覆疏上意也。《廣雅》云：造，詣也。《小雅》云：造，適也。未甞不有下，未甞，未曾也。未曾不見有，此有猶是無。未曾不見無，此無猶是有耳。故曰不動等覺而建立諸法者，此是舊《大品放光經》語耳。今經云實際也。實際是平等正覺所知之法也，故名實際為等覺耳。亦可言覺謂般若實際般若等，故詔實際為等覺。如《涅槃》云：十二因緣名為智慧。經云：如胡瓜名為熱病。何者？胡瓜雖非熱病，能生執病，故名熱病。因緣雖非智慧，能證智慧，故名智慧。今亦如是，實際非是覺，與覺相似，故名等覺耳。以此而推寂用何妨者，何得謂異耶？如之何謂覩變之知異無相之照乎者，傷劉公言異也。之是語助，不計義也。直言如何將覩變之知異無相也？亦可云如之何者，言無如之何也。無如之何，猶是無奈何也。汝言覩變之知異無相，則奈汝何也。

which secondly answers the earlier second question concerning whether object and cognition have signs or are signless. In the text of the earlier second question, there were two sections: first, explaining that the cognition that observes changes should be existent; later, explaining that the cognition that observes changes is different from the signless. Now it first answers the latter question, and afterward answers the former question. 'The discussant seems to think that the signless and change' below: 'the discussant' is Lord Liu. Saying 'are not one' means they are different. 'Observing change then differs from the signless' below: this clarifies the reason why they are not one. It means that seeing movement and change is having signs, not being signless; seeing the signless, there is nothing seen, and one cannot guide, connect, respond, and encounter. 'If that is so, then the meaning of "matter as such is real" may perhaps be obstructed': if it is so, then it is obstructed regarding the meaning in the sūtra that form is emptiness. Form is emptiness, and therefore it is called 'real.' 'The sūtra says: "Form is not different from emptiness; emptiness is not different from form"' below: this is the text of the 'Practicing Correspondingly Chapter' in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. 'If it is as the objection intends' below: if it is according to the intention of what was objected to, then form and emptiness would be distinct: the earlier mind would see form, and the later mind would see emptiness. 'If a single mind sees form' below: pointing out its error. If a single mind sees form, then it is exclusively form and does not see emptiness; how could it be called 'identical to emptiness'? The lower line reverses this. 'If so, then emptiness and form are set forth as two, and their root cannot be determined': emptiness and form are distinct from each other, hence it is said 'set forth as two.' Since they are distinct, one does not know the original meaning of their mutual identity in the sūtras. Also, saying 'emptiness and form are set forth as two' means not knowing whether form is the root of emptiness or emptiness is the root of form. 'Therefore the sūtra says "not form"': this explains the original meaning of the sūtra, as stated below. 'Truly, by negating form with respect to form, it does not negate form with respect to what is not form': 'truly' (cheng) means trust. Trust that the words 'not form' negate form [itself]; they do not negate what is not form. 'If it negated form with respect to what is not form' below: refuting the objection. If the sūtra negated form with respect to what is not form, then it would be saying that great space is not form and negating it as form; what principle would this intend to clarify? That great space is not form is known in common by ordinary people; this is not the true principle, so how could it be the original meaning of 'not form' clarified in the sūtra? 'If it is by negating form with respect to form' below: distinguishing the original meaning of the sūtra. If the sūtra's words 'not form' negate form, one clearly knows that form is not different from what is not form. 'Therefore one knows that change is precisely signless' below: change is existence; signless is non-existence. Since form is emptiness, existence is non-existence. 'Because the dispositions of the multitude are not identical, the traces of teaching have differences': people's minds are distinct, so the holy teachings are not the same; speaking of existence and speaking of emptiness, the words have differences. 'Examining it in the profound scriptures and rooting it in the holy intention': the commentary on the Chuci says: 'Kao (examining) means comparing.' The Erya says: 'Kao means completing.' 'Profound scriptures' refers to the sūtras. 'Rooting' means exhausting the root. 'Holy intention' refers to the ultimate person having no mind. 'How could there again be different minds for the real and the provisional, or different illuminations for emptiness and existence?': inquiring into the sūtra's intention, the real and the provisional do not involve different minds, and emptiness and existence do not involve different illuminations. 'Real' refers to the ultimate truth; 'provisional' refers to the conventional truth; emptiness and existence are also the ultimate and conventional. 'Therefore, illuminating the signless' below: since emptiness and existence are not different, illuminating non-existence still illuminates existence, which is why it does not lose the efficacy of guiding and encountering; seeing existence still sees non-existence, which is why it does not contravene the principle of the signless. 'Going to existence is not different from non-existence' below: commenting again on the meaning above. The Guangya says: 'Zao (going) means arriving.' The Xiaoya says: 'Zao means proceeding.' 'It is never not existent' below: 'never' (weichang) means not ever. It has never not seen existence, yet this existence is still non-existence; it has never not seen non-existence, yet this non-existence is still existence. 'Therefore it is said: "Without moving from equal enlightenment, he establishes all dharmas"': these are words from the old Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Fangguang jing. The present sūtra says 'reality limit' (bhūtakoṭi). The reality limit is the dharma known by equal, correct enlightenment (samyaksaṃbodhi); hence the reality limit is called 'equal enlightenment.' One may also say that 'enlightenment' refers to prajñā: the reality limit and prajñā are equal, so the reality limit is addressed as equal enlightenment. As the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'The twelve links of dependent origination are called wisdom.' The sūtra says: 'Like a cucumber is called a fever.' Why? Although a cucumber is not a fever, it can produce a feverish disease, so it is called a fever. Although dependent origination is not wisdom, it can realize wisdom, so it is called wisdom. Here it is also like this: the reality limit is not enlightenment, but it is similar to enlightenment, so it is called 'equal enlightenment.' 'Inferring from this, what obstacle is there between quiescence and function?': how could they be called different? 'How can one say that the cognition observing changes is different from the illumination of the signless?': grieving over Lord Liu's statement that they are different. Zhi is an auxiliary particle without meaning. It simply says: how can one treat the cognition observing changes as different from the signless? One may also say: 'how can one' (ru zhi he) means there is nothing one can do about it. 'Nothing one can do about it' is still 'having no recourse.' You say that the cognition observing changes differs from the signless, so what can be done with you?