[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016) › 36.46 # 宗鏡錄 36.46 宗鏡錄 36.46 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [36.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.36.46) 答曰。夫聖人功高二儀而不仁。明逾日月而彌昏者。豈曰木石瞽其懷。其於無知而已哉。誠以。異於人者神明。故不可以事相求之耳。子意欲令聖人不自有知。而聖人未嘗不有知。無乃乖於聖心。失於文旨者乎。何者。經云。真般若者。清淨如虛空。無知無見。無作無緣。斯則知自無知矣。豈待反照。然後無知哉。若有知性空而稱淨者。則不辯於惑智。三毒四倒。皆亦清淨。又何獨尊淨於般若。若以所知美般若。所知則非般若。所知自常淨。般若未嘗淨。亦無緣致淨。歎於般若。然經云。般若清淨者。將無以般若體相真淨。本無惑取之知。無惑取之知。不可以知名哉。豈唯無知名無知。知自無知矣。是以聖人以無知之般若。照彼無相之真諦。真諦無兔馬之遺。般若無不窮之鑒。所以會而不差。當而無是。寂怕無知。而無不知者矣。 > The answer is: Indeed, the sage's merit is loftier than the two modes yet he is not humane; his radiance exceeds the sun and moon yet he is increasingly dark—how could it be said that trees and rocks blind his breast, that his state is merely \[dull\] nescience? Truly, it is because what differs from ordinary humans is divine brilliance; hence one cannot seek it through phenomenal marks. Your intention wishes to make the sage not possess knowledge for himself, while the sage has never been without knowledge. Is this not to go against the holy mind and miss the purport of the texts? Why? The sūtra says: 'True prajñā is pure like empty space: it is without knowledge and without perception, without activity and without conditions.' This means knowledge is intrinsically without knowledge; how could it depend on turning reflection around to be without knowledge only thereafter? If having knowledge whose nature is empty were called purity, then one would not distinguish delusion from wisdom: the three poisons and the four inversions would all be pure as well, so why singularly revere prajñā as pure? If one praises prajñā through what is known, what is known is not prajñā; what is known would itself be eternally pure while prajñā has never been pure, nor would there be any causal condition to bring about purity to praise prajñā. Thus, when the sūtra states that prajñā is pure, must it not be that because the substance and marks of prajñā are truly pure, it originally lacks the knowledge of deluded grasping? Lacking the knowledge of deluded grasping, it cannot be called knowledge. How is it merely that the absence of knowledge is called 'no knowledge'? Knowledge is itself devoid of knowledge! Therefore, the sage, with prajñā that is devoid of knowledge, illuminates that markless ultimate truth. The ultimate truth leaves out nothing, not even a hare or a horse; prajñā has no scrutiny that fails to be exhaustive. Hence it accords without deviation, hits the mark without positing correctness, and is tranquil without knowledge, yet there is nothing it does not know. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 36.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.36.45) - [Next: 36.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.36.47) - [Up: 36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.36) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.36.46) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [肇論新疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.2.80) — Classical Chinese - [肇論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.21) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.36.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.36.46) · Pramāṇa