十不二門指要鈔 2.12

2.12

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'?!"