肇論疏 2.69

2.69

第二、答第二問中，前問覩變之知應是有也，即接前變之餘勢，因以答之。恐汝謂兩心有異，故言覩變之知是有非無耳。若能捨己心於封內下，己心於封執之內無著，故云捨也。玄機，謂至理也。求至理於事相之外也。齊萬有於一虛者，《莊子》有〈齊物篇〉，今借此意也。知萬有同一虛無耳。曉至虛之非無者，《莊子》云：至虛極，守靜篤。今借此語名至理也。至理虛無，是即色之無，非斷無也。當言至人終日應會下，知有即無，雖有何妨，故云應會無所不為也。與物移推，謂進退同世間也。乘運撫化，謂乘機運撫萬化也。未始為，謂未曾有為也。聖心若此何有可取者，答前未釋所以不取之理也。此何所有所取而復須釋耶。有本云「何有何取」，言不可取也。

secondly, this answers the earlier question in the second query: whether the cognition observing changes should be existent. It directly takes up the remaining momentum of the preceding discussion of change and uses it to reply. Fearing that you might think the two minds are different, he therefore states that the cognition observing changes is existent and not non-existent. 'If one can relinquish one's own mind within attachments' below: one's own mind has no clinging within attachments and fixations, hence it says 'relinquish.' 'Profound mechanism' refers to the ultimate principle. One seeks the ultimate principle outside of phenomena and signs. 'Equalizing the myriad existences in a single vacuity': the Zhuangzi has an 'Equalizing Things Chapter,' and this meaning is borrowed here. One knows that the myriad existences are identically a single vacuous non-existence. 'Understanding that the utmost vacuity is not non-existence': the Zhuangzi says: 'Attain utmost vacuity; maintain stillness earnestly.' This phrasing is borrowed here to name the ultimate principle. The ultimate principle is vacuous and non-existent; this is the non-existence of 'matter as such,' not an annihilatory non-existence. 'One should say that the ultimate person responds and encounters all day long' below: knowing that existence is precisely non-existence, though it exists, what obstacle is there? Hence it says that in responding and encountering, there is nothing he does not do. 'Shifting and advancing with things' means advancing and retreating together with the mundane world. 'Mounting the fortunes to guide transformation' means mounting the opportunities and fortunes to guide the myriad transformations. 'Never yet acting' means never having had purposeful action. 'If the holy mind is like this, what is there that could be grasped?': this answers the earlier unclarified principle of why it does not grasp. What is there here that could be possessed or grasped, such that it would still need explanation? Another text reads 'what existence, what grasping,' meaning it cannot be grasped.