宗鏡錄 36.50

36.50

答。以緣求智。知非知也。何者。放光云。不緣色生識。是名不見色。又云。五陰清淨。故般若清淨。般若即能知也。五陰即所知也。所知即緣也。夫知與所知。相與而有。相與而無。相與而無。故物莫之有。相與而有。故物莫之無。物莫之無故。為緣之所起。物莫之有故。緣所不能生。緣所不能生故。照緣而非知。為緣之所起故。知緣相因而生。是以知與無知。生於所知矣。何者。夫知以所知取相。故名知。真諦自無相。真智何由知。所以然者。夫所知非所知。所知生於知。所知既生知。知亦生所知。所知既相生。相生即緣法。緣法故非真。非真故非真諦。故中觀曰。物從因緣有。故不真。不從因緣有。故即真。今真諦。曰真。真則非緣。真非緣故。無物從緣而生也。故經云。不見有法。無緣而生。是心真智觀真諦。未嘗取所知。智不取所知。此智何由知。然智非無知。但真諦非所知故。真智亦非知。而子欲以緣求智故。以智為知。緣自非緣。於何而求知乎。

The answer is: If you seek wisdom through conditions, knowing is not knowing. Why? The *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā* says: 'Not producing consciousness conditioned by form is called not seeing form.' It also says: 'Because the five aggregates are pure, prajñā is pure.' Prajñā is the knowing subject; the five aggregates are the known object; the known object is the condition. Knowing and the known exist mutually and are non-existent mutually. Because they are non-existent mutually, no thing possesses them; because they exist mutually, no thing lacks them. Because no thing lacks them, they arise due to conditions; because no thing possesses them, conditions cannot produce them. Because conditions cannot produce them, the illumination of conditions is not knowing; because they arise due to conditions, knowing and conditions arise relying on each other. Therefore, knowing and not knowing arise from what is known. Why? Knowing grasps marks through what is known, hence it is called knowing. The ultimate truth is itself without marks; on what basis could true wisdom know it? The reason is this: What is known is not an intrinsically known object; what is known is born of knowing. Since what is known gives rise to knowing, knowing also gives rise to what is known. Since they mutually produce each other, mutual production is conditioned phenomena. Conditioned phenomena are therefore not real; not being real, they are not the ultimate truth. Hence the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: 'Things exist through causes and conditions, therefore they are not real; not existing through causes and conditions, therefore they are real.' Now, the ultimate truth is called true; what is true is not conditioned. Since the true is not conditioned, no thing arises from conditions. Hence the sūtra says: 'I see no phenomenon arising without conditions.' When this true wisdom of the mind contemplates the ultimate truth, it has never grasped what is known. If wisdom does not grasp what is known, on what basis could this wisdom know? Yet wisdom is not without knowledge; it is merely that because the ultimate truth is not an object of knowledge, true wisdom is also not knowing. Yet you wish to seek wisdom through conditions and therefore take wisdom to be knowing. Conditions are themselves not conditions; where would you seek knowing?