肇論新疏 2.266

2.266

餘本「虛」作「靈」字，瑤作「虛」字，今從之。問意云：論稱寂用相即為一者，謂般若之用，證窮真諦之虛、斷盡俗諦之數，妙盡冥符為一邪？此難實智冥真為一。謂將下，自然者，謂般若之用不在窮虛極數，當體虛怕無相獨存為一邪？此難疑無權智。言獨者，不應群機故。二邪字，疑而審之之辭。下雙關。

Other editions have the character 'numinous' (ling) instead of 'empty' (xu); the Yao edition has 'empty', which we follow here. The meaning of the question is: when the treatise claims that quiescence and function are mutually identical as one, does it mean that the function of prajñā realizes and exhausts the emptiness of the ultimate truth and cuts off completely the reckoning of the conventional truth, subtly exhausting them and darkly tallying with them as one? This questions whether tattva-jñāna darkly tallying with truth is one. From 'Or do you say' onward, 'naturally' means: is the function of prajñā not in exhausting emptiness and carrying reckoning to the utmost, but rather that its very substance is empty, tranquil, animitta, and solitary in abiding as one? This questions and suspects the absence of upāya-jñāna. 'Solitary' means because it does not respond to the capacities of the multitude. The two characters 'ye' (or) are expressions of questioning and investigating. Below he addresses both alternatives.