廣弘明集 18.89

18.89

問曰。暫知為假。知者。則非不知矣。但見理向淺。未能常用耳。雖不得與真知等照。然寧可謂無入照之分耶。若暫知未是見理。豈得云理暫為用。又不知以何稱知。

The question asks: Temporary knowledge is conventional. As for knowing, 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 be said to 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.