肇論新疏 2.286

2.286

恐救云：我言無當無是，非是汎常是當，故云當而無當等。劉復云：若謂爾者，此蓋悟者謂至當真是，迷者謂常當常是。本自異爾，何須說云當而無當等邪？依此訓無者，非也。固論下，直非論意。恐滯於是當，故拂之；劉公却取為至當真是，心有所住，非般若也。見下答辭。

He fears a defense would say: 'When I say without match and without assertion, they are not ordinary assertions and matches; therefore I say matches yet is without match,' etc. Liu again says: if you say this, it is merely that the awakened call it the utmost match and true assertion, while the deluded call it an ordinary match and ordinary assertion. They are fundamentally different to begin with; why is it necessary to say 'matches yet is without match', etc.? Glossing 'without' according to this is incorrect. From 'this is truly' onward, he directly refutes the treatise's meaning. Fearing that one might stagnate in assertion and match, [Sengzhao] wiped them away; but Lord Liu instead grasped them as the utmost match and true assertion, and with a mind having an abiding place, it is not prajñā. See the reply below.