宗鏡錄 36.51

36.51

難曰。論云不取者。為無知故不取。為知然後不取耶。若無知故不取。聖人則冥若夜遊。不辯緇素之異也。若知然後不取。知則異於不取矣。

The objection says: When the treatise says 'not grasping', is it because of having no knowledge that it does not grasp, or is it that knowing occurs and only thereafter it does not grasp? If it does not grasp because of having no knowledge, the sage would be in darkness like one walking at night, unable to distinguish between black and white. If knowing occurs and only thereafter it does not grasp, then knowing is different from not grasping.