肇論疏 2.45

2.45

Second, the actual raising of the questions. Within this text there are two parts: first, a general question; second, specific questions. Now, as for the first: within the general [part], he first cites the preceding text and then poses the question. From "Now, the sage's mind is profoundly quiescent..." onward, it directly poses the question. This means that profoundly and tranquilly, it is the ultimate reach of principle, identical with emptiness and non-being. "Not hurried yet swift, not lax yet slow" refers to the consummate person's divine transformations being expansive or urgent. Being not hurried yet swift, there is no fixed swiftness; being not lax yet slow, there is no fixed slowness. These words come from the Zhuangzi. The Zhuangzi's "Outer Chapters: The Way of Heaven" says: Duke Huan was reading a book up in the hall, while Wheelwright Bian was chiseling a wheel down in the courtyard. Putting aside his hammer and chisel, he went up and asked Duke Huan, "May I venture to ask, whose words are you reading, my Lord?" The Duke said, "The words of the sages." [Bian] asked, "Are the sages still alive?" The Duke said, "They are already dead." [Bian] said, "Then what my Lord is reading is merely the dregs of the men of old!" Duke Huan said, "When I am reading, how dare a wheelwright criticize it! If you have an explanation, well and good; if not, you die!" Wheelwright Bian said, "Your servant looks at it from the perspective of his own work: in chiseling a wheel, if one is slow, it is loose and not firm; if one is hurried, it is tight and will not fit. Being neither slow nor hurried, one gets it in hand and responds from the heart; the mouth cannot express it in words, yet there is a knack in it. I cannot teach it to my own son, nor can my son receive it from me; this is why at the age of seventy I am still chiseling wheels in my old age. The men of old died together with what could not be transmitted. Thus what my Lord is reading is merely the dregs of the men of old!" From "Therefore knowing does not abandon quiescence..." onward, this clarifies that movement and stillness are non-dual. "Directing things and accomplishing merits" means moving sentient beings and causing them to turn toward the good path, so that meritorious deeds are accomplished. As for "though dwelling within the named, yet in the distance identical with the nameless": Laozi says, "Nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth; named is the mother of the myriad things." The meaning is that the named is existence and the nameless is non-existence. Although the sage is within existence, he is identical with non-existence. As for "the profundity of this principle is truly what has always been ever more obscure": the Erya says, "Gu (固) means long-standing. Mi (彌) means increasingly. Mei (昧) means obscure." This principle is profound and marvelous, an area that has long been obscure; it is not that doubt has only now arisen with the present treatise. From "Yet what is discussed now..." onward is the second part, the specific questions. Altogether there are three questions: the first asks whether the essence of wisdom possesses knowing or lacks knowing; the second asks whether the illuminated object has marks or lacks marks; the third asks, regarding the mutual opposition of object and wisdom, whether there is rightness or no rightness, whether there is fitness or no fitness. Now, as for the first: "What is discussed" refers to himself. "Doubts regarding the exalted treatise" refers to doubts regarding Master Sengzhao's treatise. "Wishing to inquire into the distinction of the sage's mind": is it with knowing, or is it without knowing? "Is it that it exhausts the spirit and reaches the utmost of mental factors, marvelously exhausting all and profoundly tallying?": this refers to having knowing. Does it exhaust the marvelous illumination of prajñā, reach the utmost of the mental factors of sagely wisdom, and marvelously succeed in knowing all and profoundly tallying with the Dharmatā? "Or is the essence of the mind naturally tranquil, secluded, and solitary in resonance?": is the essence of prajñā naturally non-knowing, refined and tranquil, not resonating with sentient beings? "If so, then the terms 'quiescence' and 'illumination' still have concentration and wisdom as their essence": although there is nothing it does not know, since it takes wisdom as its essence, it is still knowing. As for speaking of "concentration": when a concentrated mind knows dharmas, it is called "concentration and wisdom." Here, speaking of concentration and wisdom as the essence still refers to concentration among the mental factors of the ten mahābhūmikas; wisdom is taken as the essence of prajñā. The ten mental factors are sensation, desire, contact, wisdom, mindfulness, intention, resolution, sphere of cognition, concentration, and feeling. "Then the resonance of the various factors has indeed almost ceased": if it is naturally quiescent and without resonance, then this is non-knowing. As for gu (固): the Yijing commentary says, "Gu means firm." As for ji (幾): this character has altogether three pronunciations: first, the sound jī; second, the sound jǐ; third, the sound jī (qí). The Yijing says, "Knowing the subtle stirrings (jī)—is it not divine?" It also says, "Ji is the subtlety of movement." This is the jī sound. As in asking how many years (jǐ) old a person is, this is the jǐ sound. Here, when it says ji (幾), it has the qí sound. The Analects says, "Does it not come close (jī) to: 'In a single phrase one can prosper a state'?" This is the jǐ sound. The Zuozhuan commentary says, "Ji means close." Guo Xiang's commentary on the Zhuangzi says, "Ji means exhausted." From "Now since the mental factors are profound..." onward, it reviews the preceding clause. Since the sage's mental factors are profound, why say there is further illumination? "Illumination" refers to wisdom. It is abbreviated, not mentioning concentration. If stated fully, it should say: since the mental factors are profound, how can concentration and wisdom operate in isolation, taking concentration and wisdom as essence? From "The spirit is pure beyond the transformations..." onward, it reviews the subsequent clause. Since the sage's mental spirit is tranquil, pure, and harmonious beyond the worldly realm, how could a bright wisdom remain in isolation, not meeting and responding to sentient beings? "There must be a profound realization": there should be a distinct, profound realization and awakening; please distinguish it for me again. The Guangya says, "Bian (辨) means to distinguish." From "The doubter ought to..." onward is the second question, asking whether the illuminated object has marks or lacks marks. In this text there are two parts: first, clarifying that the knowledge that observes changes ought to be existent; second, clarifying that the knowledge that observes changes is distinct from the signless. If the knowledge that observes changes is existent, how can one say it is without knowing? If the knowledge that observes changes is distinct from the signless, one must know that it is definitely existent. "Guiding and meeting" means guiding and transforming sentient beings, tallying and meeting with conditions. "Responding to capacities" means responding to and receiving capacities and conditions. "Observing changes" means observing changes and movements. "Yet the import of the treatise says that originally there is no deluded grasping": your treatise merely says that there is no knowledge of deluded grasping and that it cannot be named 'knowing', but it has not yet stated the rationale for not deludedly grasping. From "It is proper first to determine the sage..." onward is the second part, clarifying that the knowledge that observes changes is distinct from the signless. Does he see emptiness, or does he see existence? Seeing the signless is seeing emptiness; seeing change and movement is seeing existence. As for mentioning "deluded," it also encompasses seeing existence. From "If he observes their changes..." onward: if he sees changes and movements, then there are marks, not signlessness. From "If he only illuminates the signless..." onward: if he entirely sees emptiness, then he does not see that there are sentient beings to be guided, received, and instructed. From "Having no encounter to guide yet possessing the merit of guiding encounters..." onward: since there is no encounter to guide, why say that the sage possesses the merit of guiding encounters? "It is hoped that you will again instruct me": it is hoped that you will again show and instruct me. Hui (誨) means to teach. From "The treatise says: if there is no fitness, then nothing is unfit..." onward is the third question, clarifying, regarding the mutual opposition of object and wisdom, whether there is rightness or no rightness, whether there is fitness or no fitness. First it cites, and then it challenges. Here first is the citation. From "Now, non-fitness..." onward, it directly challenges. Being without fitness yet nothing being unfit is actually being fit with non-being; hence it is called "ultimate fitness." Being without rightness yet nothing being not right is actually being right with non-being; hence it is called "true rightness." These, then, possess rightness and possess fitness; why say there is no rightness and no fitness? From "If one says that ultimate fitness is not ordinary fitness..." onward: if one says that being fit with non-being is ultimate fitness, not that being fit with existence is ordinary fitness; and that being right with non-being is true rightness, not that being right with existence is ordinary rightness—the principle should indeed be so. Ordinary rightness and ordinary fitness are delusion, while ultimate fitness and true rightness are awakening; these two meanings are fundamentally distinct and need not be debated. The original intent of your treatise also does not mean that ultimate fitness is not ordinary fitness, making it non-fitness, or that true rightness is not ordinary rightness, making it non-rightness. "To dispel their delusions": qu (祛) means to dispel.