鐔津文集 3.32

3.32

真諦者何。極妙絕待之謂也。聖人者何。神智有為之謂也。有為則以言乎權。絕待則以詣乎實。實之所以全心而泯迹。權之所以攝末而趨本。然則真諦也者。豈容擬議於其間哉。聊試寓言以明其蘊耳。夫真諦者群心之元心也。眾聖之實際也。如也非如也非非如也。隱群心而不昧。現聖智而不曜。神明不能測。巧歷不能窮。故般若曰。第一真諦無成無得。言其體而存之。則清淨空廓聖凡泯然。言其照而用之。則彌綸萬有鼓舞群動。然則體而存之。若其本乎。照而用之。似其末乎。當其心冥於至本也。默乎清淨而絕聖棄智。是亦宜爾。所謂第一義諦廓然空寂。無有聖人孰為繆乎。而秦人以為太甚逕庭不近人情。若無聖人而知無者誰歟。是亦未諭其微旨也。若夫凡聖知覺者。真諦之影響妄心之攀緣耳。存乎影響即凝滯於名數。以乎攀緣則眩惑於分別。是則非聖而聖而聖人。所以大聖。無知而知其真知。所以遍知。昔人有問於昔人曰。云何是第一義諦。應曰。廓然無聖。問者或曰。對朕者誰。應曰。不識。然斯人也非昧聖而固不識也。蓋不欲人以形言而求乎真諦者也。而問人不悟。乃復云云。刻舟求劍。遠亦遠矣。以指標月其指所以在月。以言諭道。其言所以在道。顧言而不顧其道。非知道也。視指而不視其月。非識月也。所以至人常妙悟於言象之表。而獨得于形骸之外。淨名默爾而文殊稱善。空生以無說而說。天帝以無聞而聞。其不然乎。

What is ultimate truth? It means supreme subtlety and absolute transcendence. What is a sage? It means divine wisdom and conditioned activity. Conditioned activity speaks to expedients; absolute transcendence reaches the real. The real is that by which the mind is preserved whole and traces are extinguished; expedients are that by which the branches are gathered in to return to the root. If so, then how could ultimate truth allow for deliberations and discussions within it? I merely try using metaphorical words to clarify its inner repository. Ultimate truth is the original mind of the multitude of minds, the actual limit of all the sages. It is thusness, not thusness, and not not thusness. It is hidden within the multitude of minds without being dimmed; it manifests within sage wisdom without being glaring. Divine intelligence cannot fathom it; ingenious reckoning cannot exhaust it. Therefore the Prajñā[-pāramitā] states: "The primary ultimate truth has no realization and no attainment." Speaking of its essence as it exists, it is pure, empty, and vast, with sage and ordinary completely obliterated. Speaking of its illumination in its functioning, it encompasses all that exists and animates all activities. If so, then its essence as it exists seems to be its root, does it not? Its illumination in its functioning seems to be its branches, does it not? When the mind is merged in the ultimate root, to remain silent in purity and discard sageliness and abandon wisdom is indeed fitting. As for what is called the primary truth being vast, empty, and quiescent, with no sage existing—who would call this an error? Yet people of Qin took this to be too excessive, wide of the mark, and contrary to human sentiment, saying: "If there is no sage, then who is it that knows this nothingness?" This is also failing to understand its subtle meaning. As for the perception of ordinary and sage, these are merely the reflections of ultimate truth and the grasping conditions of the deluded mind. Remaining within reflections, one becomes stuck in names and categories; through grasping conditions, one is bewildered by distinctions. Thus, not being a sage and yet being a sage is how a sage is a great sage; having no knowledge and yet knowing is how true knowledge is all-knowing. Ancient people once asked an ancient person, saying: "What is the primary truth?" The answer was: "Vastly empty, with no sageliness." The questioner then said: "Who is facing Us?" The answer was: "I do not know." Yet this person was not dim about sageliness and obstinately ignorant; rather, he did not want people to seek the ultimate truth through forms and words. But the questioner did not understand, and went on speaking further. This is like notching the boat to find the sword—far indeed from the mark! Pointing a finger at the moon, the finger exists for the sake of the moon; using words to explain the Dao, the words exist for the sake of the Dao. To look at the words and not look at the Dao is not knowing the Dao; to look at the finger and not look at the moon is not knowing the moon. Therefore, the utmost person always subtly awakens beyond words and images, and exclusively grasps what lies outside the physical body. Vimalakīrti was silent and Mañjuśrī praised him; Subhūti preached without speaking, and the Lord of the Devas heard without hearing. Is this not so?