廣弘明集 18.90

18.90

答曰。不知而稱知者。政以假知得名耳。假者為名非暫知如何。不恒其用豈常之謂。既非常用。所以交賒相傾。故諫人則言政理悅已則犯所知。若以諫時為照。豈有悅時之犯。故知言理者浮談。犯知者沈惑。推此而判。自聖已下無淺深之照。然中人之性有崇替之心矣。

The answer says: That which is not knowing yet is designated as knowing takes its name solely from conventional knowledge. Being designated as conventional, if it is not temporary knowledge, what could it be? If its function is not constant, how could it be called eternal? Since it is not constantly employed, alternation between shallow and deep subverts it: therefore when admonishing others, one speaks of the right principle, but when gratifying oneself, one violates what one knows. If the moment of admonition were illumination, how could there be violation at the moment of gratification? Thus we know that speaking of principle is superficial talk, and violating knowledge is deep delusion. Deducing from this to judge, from the Sage on down there is no illumination of shallow and deep, yet the nature of average people has a mind of elevation and decline.