宗鏡錄 36.60

36.60

答曰。聖智之無者。無知。惑智之無者。知無。其無雖同。所以無者異也。何者。夫聖心虛靜。無知可無。可曰無知。非謂知無。惑智有知。故有知可無。可謂知無。非曰無知也。無知。即般若之無也。知無。即真諦之無也。是以般若之與真諦。言用。即同而異。言寂。即異而同。同故無心於彼此。異故不失於照功。是以辯同者。同於異。辯異者。異於同。斯則不可得而異。不可得而同也。何者。內有獨鑒之明。外有萬法之實。萬法雖實。然非照不得。內外相與。以成其照功。此聖所不能同。用也。內雖照而無知。外雖實而無相。內外寂然。相與俱無。此則聖所不能異。寂也。是以經云。諸法不異者。豈曰續鳧截鶴。夷嶽盈壑。然後無異哉。誠以不異於異故。雖異而不異耳。故經曰。甚奇世尊。於無異法中。而說諸法異。又云。般若與諸法。亦不一相。亦不異相。信矣。

The answer is: The non-existence of holy wisdom is 'without knowledge' (wu zhi); the non-existence of deluded wisdom is 'knowing non-existence' (zhi wu). Although their non-existence is the same, that by which they are non-existent is different. Why? The holy mind is vacuous and tranquil: there is no knowledge that can be negated; it can be called 'without knowledge', not 'knowing non-existence'. Deluded wisdom possesses knowledge, so there is knowledge that can be negated; it can be called 'knowing non-existence', not 'without knowledge'. 'Without knowledge' is precisely the non-existence of prajñā; 'knowing non-existence' is precisely the non-existence of the ultimate truth. Therefore, as for prajñā and the ultimate truth, speaking of function, they are different in their sameness; speaking of stillness, they are the same in their difference. Being the same, there is no mind toward this or that; being different, they do not lose the power of illumination. Therefore, discerning sameness means being the same within difference; discerning difference means being different within sameness. Thus they cannot be made different, nor can they be made the same. Why? Within there is the brilliance of solitary scrutiny; without there is the reality of the myriad phenomena. Although the myriad phenomena are real, without illumination they cannot be attained. Inner and outer join together to accomplish their power of illumination: this is where the sage cannot make them the same—this is function. Within, though illuminating, it is without knowledge; without, though real, it is without marks. Inner and outer are tranquil, mutually non-existent together: this is where the sage cannot make them different—this is stillness. Therefore the sūtra says: 'All phenomena are not different.' How could it mean that only after lengthening the duck's legs, shortening the crane's legs, leveling the peaks, and filling the ravines, are they not different? It is truly because they are not different within difference that, though different, they are not different. Hence the sūtra says: 'Extraordinary, World-Honoured One! Within phenomena that are without difference, you speak of phenomena as different.' It also says: 'Prajñā and all phenomena are neither of one mark nor of different marks.' How true!