宗鏡錄 36.47

36.47

難曰。夫物無以自通。故立名以通物。物雖非名。果有可名之物。當於此名矣。是以即名求物。物不能隱。而論云。聖心無知。又云。無所不知。意謂無知未嘗知。知未嘗無知。斯則名教之所通。立言之本意也。然論者。欲一於聖心。異於文旨。尋文求實。未見其當。何者。若知得於聖心。無知無所辯。若無知得於聖心。知亦無所辯。若二都無得。無所復論哉。

The objection says: Things cannot communicate themselves; therefore names are established to communicate things. Although a thing is not a name, there certainly exists a thing that can be named corresponding to this name. Therefore, seeking the thing according to its name, the thing cannot hide. Yet the treatise says: 'The holy mind is without knowledge,' and also says: 'It has nothing it does not know.' The meaning suggests that 'no knowledge' has never known, and 'knowing' has never been without knowledge. This is what the teachings of names communicate, and the original intention behind establishing words. Yet the author of the treatise wishes to unify them in the holy mind while differentiating them from the literal purport of the text. Seeking the reality by examining the text, I do not see its appropriateness. Why? If knowing is found in the holy mind, then 'no knowledge' has nothing to discern; if 'no knowledge' is found in the holy mind, knowing also has nothing to discern. If both are utterly unfound, there would be nothing left to discuss!