十不二門指要鈔 2.12

2.12

答：「既許寫曰逼知，遂成智之一字，何妨往人寫日遠知，誤成知曰二字。必是因脫起字，復由二字相懸，致使有本作藉知曰修也。故知寫字添脫，遠近難可定之，魚魯之訛豈今獨有，須將義定方見是非。何者？他既暗於三法妙義，尚將一念因心陰識，直作真知解之，況今有此訛文知字可執，豈不作靈知解邪？且靈知之名圭峯專用，既非即陰而示，又無修發之相，正是偏指清淨真如，唯於真心及緣理斷九之義也。他云，因真教緣示善惡知，即是真知，乃知諸法唯心，故云藉知曰修。今問：此之知字，為解為行？若隨闕者則不名修。若單立知字解行足者，乃玄文智行二妙，《止觀》妙解正修便為徒設，則天台但傳《禪詮都序》也。又言示善惡知即真知者，還須先用妙解即之不？次用妙行即之不？若然者，正是藉智起修。若不然者，智行二妙全無用也。今云藉智起修，直是由於智妙起於行妙耳，故後結文云，如境本來具三，依理生解故名為智。智解導行，行解契理，三法相符不異而異。然智行俱修今偏在行者，蓋智從解了發起義彊，行就進趣修治義彊，故從彊也。又此一句，全是《釋籤》行妙中文，彼云藉智起行故。他又云，智名未稱全性成修。若爾，何名智妙？應亦本是知妙，後人改為智妙乎！」

Answer: "Since you grant that a copyist writing 'yue' too close to 'zhi' could result in the single character 'wisdom' (zhi 智), why could it not be that a previous copyist wrote the 'sun' radical (ri 日) too far from 'zhi' (知), mistakenly producing the two characters 'knowing is called' (zhi yue 知曰)? It must be that due to the omission of the character 'give rise' (qi 起), and because the two parts of the character were separated, some editions came to read 'relying on knowing is called cultivation.' Thus we know that in the addition or omission of characters by copyists, the proximity or distance of strokes is difficult to determine; how could the confusion between yu and lu be unique to the present day? One must determine the correct reading by means of the doctrinal meaning to see what is right and wrong. Why is this? Since those others are ignorant of the subtle meaning of the three dharmas, they already interpret the momentary causal mind and the aggregate-consciousness directly as true knowing; how much more so when there is this erroneous character 'knowing' (zhi) to cling to—how could they not interpret it as 'numinous knowing'? Furthermore, the term 'numinous knowing' was used exclusively by Guifeng [Zongmi]; it is neither shown as being identical to the aggregates, nor does it have the mark of arising through cultivation. It precisely points exclusively to pure tathatā, applying only to the true mind and the meaning of 'severing the nine [realms] by according with principle.' Others say: 'Because the conditions of the true teaching reveal that the knowing of good and evil is itself true knowing, one realizes that all dharmas are mind-only; hence it says relying on knowing is called cultivation.' Now I ask: is this character 'knowing' an understanding, or is it a practice? If it lacks either one, it cannot be called cultivation. If establishing the single character 'knowing' is sufficient for both understanding and practice, then the two subtleties of wisdom and practice in the Xuanwen and the wondrous understanding and correct cultivation in the Zhiguan would be deployed in vain, and Tiantai would merely be transmitting the Chan Preface (Chan quan duxu). Moreover, as for the assertion that showing the knowing of good and evil to be true knowing: must one first use wondrous understanding to identify it, or not? Must one next use wondrous practice to identify it, or not? If so, then it is precisely 'relying on wisdom to give rise to cultivation.' If not, then the two subtleties of wisdom and practice are entirely useless. Now, saying 'relying on wisdom to give rise to cultivation' simply means that through the subtlety of wisdom one gives rise to the subtlety of practice. Therefore the concluding passage below says: 'Just as the object originally possesses the three, based on principle one generates understanding, which is therefore called wisdom. The understanding of wisdom guides practice; the understanding of practice accords with principle; the three dharmas tally with one another, being different without being different.' Now, although both wisdom and practice are cultivation, here the emphasis is placed on practice because wisdom has the stronger sense of understanding and initiation, while practice has the stronger sense of progressing and cultivating; thus it follows the stronger. Furthermore, this single line is entirely the text from the subtlety of practice in the Shiqian, which states: 'because it relies on wisdom to give rise to practice.' They also say: 'The term wisdom does not yet match the idea that the entirety of nature constitutes cultivation.' If so, why is it called the subtlety of wisdom? Should that also originally have been the 'subtlety of knowing,' with later people altering it to 'subtlety of wisdom'?!"