廣弘明集 18.82

18.82

問曰。暫知為假知者。則非不知矣。但見理尚淺。未能常用耳。雖不得與真知等照。然寧無入照之分耶。若暫知未是見理。豈得云轉理暫為用。又不知以為稱知。

The question asks: If temporary knowledge is conventional knowledge, then it is not lack of knowledge. It is merely that one's seeing of principle is still shallow, and one cannot yet constantly employ it. Although it cannot illuminate equally with true knowledge, how could it lack any share in entering illumination? If temporary knowledge were not yet seeing principle, how could it be said that principle is temporarily turned to function? Nor do I know by what it is designated as knowledge.