肇論新疏 2.286

2.286

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.