Essays of Sengzhao (肇論)

Treatise on the Non-Conceptual Nature of Prajna, Chapter 3

The profound and subtle nature of Prajna is the ultimate principle shared by all three vehicles. It is truly one and unchanging, yet heretical views have long created confusion. There was an Indian monk named Kumarajiva, who from a young age trod the broad path and delved deeply into this profound truth. He stood uniquely beyond words and appearances, wondrously attuned to the realm of the formless and silent. He harmonized diverse teachings in Kapiśā, and spread the pure wind of the Dharma eastward. His mission was to illuminate distant lands, yet he remained hidden in the region of Liang, for the Way does not respond without cause—every response has its reason. In the third year of Hongshi, during the year of Jupiter's cycle, the Qin state enacted its plan to bring the Master here. Such was the destiny of the northern heavens. The Great King of Qin, whose virtue matched the origins of a hundred kings and whose grace extended across a thousand generations, wielded his authority with ease while promoting the Dharma throughout the day. Truly, he was the refuge of the people in these degenerate times and the support of the Buddha's remaining teachings. At that time, he gathered more than five hundred learned monks at the Xiaoyao Pavilion, personally holding the Qin text and consulting with Master Kumarajiva to settle the Mahāyāna scriptures. What they opened up was not merely a benefit for that age but a bridge for countless eons. Though I am lacking in ability, I was fortunate to attend such an assembly, and it was then that I first heard the essential teachings. Yet the wisdom of the sages is subtle and profound, deeply hidden and difficult to fathom. Formless and nameless, it cannot be grasped through words or appearances. I merely attempt to feel for it in my thoughts and entrust it to these reckless words—how could I claim to discern the sage's mind! Let me venture to discuss it thus:

The *Fangguang* says: "Prajna has no characteristics of existence, no characteristics of arising or ceasing." The *Daoxing* says: "Prajna has nothing it knows, nothing it sees." These passages describe the function of wisdom in illuminating, yet they speak of it as having no characteristics and no knowledge—why is that? If there truly exists a knowledge that is without knowing, and an illumination that is not conscious—this becomes clear. Why? Because wherever there is something known, there is also something unknown. Because the sage's mind knows nothing, it knows everything. This knowledge that is not knowing is called all-knowing. Thus the scriptures say: "The sage's mind knows nothing, yet knows everything." This is truly so! Therefore, the sage empties his mind and fills his illumination; throughout the day he knows, yet never clings to knowing. Thus he can shine in silence, conceal his radiance, empty his mind and mirror the profound; he closes off wisdom and silences perception, yet alone awakens in the darkness. Though wisdom possesses the clarity to fathom the deepest mysteries, it is without knowing; though spirit has the power to respond and unite, it is without deliberation. Because spirit is without deliberation, it can stand alone beyond the world; because wisdom is without knowing, it can illuminate from beyond all things. Though wisdom dwells beyond things, it never abandons things; though spirit transcends the world, it remains throughout within it. Thus it follows change in all directions, responding without end; nothing is too subtle to be perceived, yet there is no trace of illuminating effort. This is what knowledge-without-knowing knows, and what the sacred spirit comprehends. Yet as an entity, it is real yet not existent, empty yet not absent. It exists yet cannot be discussed—is this not only the wisdom of the sage? Why? If we try to say it exists, it has no form and no name; if we try to say it does not exist, the sage is spiritual through it. Because the sage is spiritual through it, emptiness does not lose its illumination; because it has no form and no name, illumination does not lose its emptiness. Illumination without losing emptiness—therefore it can blend without changing; emptiness without losing illumination—therefore it can move to engage the coarse. Thus the function of sage wisdom is never for a moment suspended; yet seek it in forms and signs, and it can never be grasped. Therefore the *Baoji* says: "Without mind or intention, yet acting." The *Fangguang* says: "Without moving from equal enlightenment, yet establishing all things." Thus the sage's traces are manifold, but their purpose is one. Therefore prajna can illumine while being empty, ultimate truth can be known while being forgotten, the myriad movements can be stilled while being engaged, and sacred response can act without acting. This is knowing without knowing, acting without acting! What more is there to know? What more is there to do?

Objection: If the sage's true mind shines alone, illuminating all things, and responds without fixed patterns, always aligning with events in action—if it illuminates all things, then nothing is left unknown; if it always aligns with events, then no opportunity is missed. Since no opportunity is missed, there must be engagement with what can be engaged; since nothing is left unknown, there must be knowing of what can be known. There being knowing of what can be known, the sage does not know in vain; there being engagement with what can be engaged, the sage does not engage in vain. Yet if there is both knowing and engaging, how can it be said that there is no knowing and no engaging? If one sets aside knowing and abandons engaging, then the sage would have no personal stake in knowing and engaging, only to achieve a personal stake through that very detachment. This could be called not possessing one's own knowing—but how can it truly be called no knowing?

The answer: The sage's merit surpasses heaven and earth, yet he shows no partiality; his wisdom outshines sun and moon, yet he remains obscure. How could this mean he is blind like wood or stone? Is he merely without knowledge? Indeed, because his spirit differs from ordinary beings, he cannot be sought through appearances. You seem to suggest that the sage should not be considered as possessing knowledge, yet the sage has never been without knowledge—does this not contradict the sage's true intent and miss the meaning of the scriptures? Why? The scriptures say: "True Prajna is pure like empty space, without knowledge, without views, without action, without conditions." This means knowledge is inherently without knowledge—why must it rely on reflection to become "without knowledge"? If one claims that the emptiness of knowledge's nature is what makes it "pure," then this would fail to distinguish between delusion and wisdom, and the three poisons and four inverted views would all be equally pure—so why single out Prajna as supreme? If one praises Prajna for what it knows, what it knows is not Prajna itself; what is known is inherently pure on its own, so Prajna would never be pure, and there would be no grounds to attribute purity to it. Yet the scriptures speak of "Prajna's purity"—this must mean that Prajna's essence is truly pure, fundamentally free from the knowledge born of deluded grasping. Since it is free from such knowledge, it cannot be named as "knowledge." Is it only that "without knowledge" cannot be named as knowledge? Knowledge itself is inherently without knowledge! Therefore, the sage uses the knowledge-less Prajna to illuminate the formless true reality. True reality leaves nothing out, like a rabbit or a horse fully discerned, and Prajna's reflection is inexhaustible—so it meets reality without error and responds without fixed assertions. It is serene and without knowledge, yet without not-knowing.

Question: Things cannot make themselves known, so names are established to make things known. Though a thing is not its name, there is indeed a thing that can be named which corresponds to this name. Therefore, when one seeks the thing through the name, the thing cannot be hidden.

Yet the treatise says, "The sage's mind is without knowing," and also says, "It is without anything not known." The meaning is that non-knowing has never been knowing, and knowing has never been non-knowing. This is what the teachings of names convey, and it is the original intent of the words as established. However, those who discuss the treatise wish to make the sage's mind one and the same, which differs from the meaning of the text. Seeking the reality through the text, I do not see how this holds. Why? If knowing is what the sage's mind attains, then non-knowing has nothing to distinguish it. If non-knowing is what the sage's mind attains, then knowing likewise has nothing to distinguish it. If neither is attained, there is nothing more to discuss.

The answer: The sutra says, "The meaning of prajna is nameless and indescribable; it is neither existent nor nonexistent, neither real nor unreal." Emptiness does not lose its illuminating quality, and illumination does not lose its emptiness. This is the Dharma of no-name, and therefore cannot be expressed in words. Though words cannot express it, without words it cannot be transmitted. That is why the sage speaks all day yet has never spoken. Now let me attempt to explain this for you in bold words.

The sage's mind is subtle and without form; it cannot be considered as existing. Yet when put to use, it becomes ever more active; it cannot be considered as nonexistent. Since it cannot be considered nonexistent, the sage's wisdom is present. Since it cannot be considered as existing, names and teachings come to an end. Therefore, knowing is not knowing, yet it is used to penetrate its reflection. Not knowing is not non-knowing, yet it is used to discern its characteristics. Discerning characteristics is not nonexistence; penetrating reflection is not existence. Since it is not existence, knowing is without knowing. Since it is not nonexistence, without knowing there is knowing. Therefore, knowing is precisely not-knowing, and not-knowing is precisely knowing. Do not suppose that because words differ, it differs from the sage's mind.

Question: The ultimate truth is profound and hidden; without wisdom, it cannot be fathomed. The power of sacred wisdom is revealed precisely here. Thus the scripture says: "Without prajna, one cannot see the ultimate truth." The ultimate truth is the object of prajna. Seeking wisdom through its object, wisdom then knows.

Answer: If you seek wisdom through conditions, then wisdom is not knowledge. Why? The Radiant Light Sutra says: "When consciousness does not arise from form, this is called not seeing form." It also says: "Because the five aggregates are pure, prajna is pure." Prajna is what knows; the five aggregates are what is known. What is known is the condition. Now, knowing and what is known arise together and cease together. Because they cease together, nothing truly exists; because they arise together, nothing truly does not exist. Since nothing truly does not exist, it is produced by conditions; since nothing truly exists, it cannot be produced by conditions. Because it cannot be produced by conditions, illumination of conditions is not knowledge; because it is produced by conditions, knowledge and conditions arise mutually dependent. Therefore, knowing and not-knowing arise from what is known. Why? Wisdom knows what is known, and because it grasps characteristics, it is called knowledge. Ultimate truth itself has no characteristics—how could true wisdom know it? The reason is this: what is known is not really what is known, for what is known arises from knowing; since what is known gives rise to knowing, knowing also gives rise to what is known. Since the known and knowing give rise to each other, this mutual arising is conditioned phenomena, and conditioned phenomena are not true. Not being true, they are not ultimate truth. Therefore the Madhyamaka says: "Things exist from causes and conditions, therefore they are not true. They do not exist from causes and conditions, therefore they are true." Now ultimate truth is called true, and what is true is not conditioned. Since the true is not conditioned, nothing at all is produced from conditions. Therefore the sutra says: "No dharma is seen to arise without a condition." Thus true wisdom contemplates ultimate truth without ever grasping what is known. If wisdom does not grasp what is known, how could this wisdom know? Yet wisdom is not without knowing—it is simply that ultimate truth is not an object of knowing, and so true wisdom is also not knowledge. But you wish to seek wisdom through conditions, and therefore take wisdom to be knowledge. Since conditions themselves are not conditions, where could you seek knowledge?

Question: The treatise says "not grasping." Is it because of ignorance that one does not grasp? Or is it because one knows, and therefore does not grasp? If it is because of ignorance that one does not grasp, then the sage would be wandering in the dark like someone groping at night, unable to tell black from white! If it is because one knows and therefore does not grasp, then knowing would be different from not grasping!

They answered: It is not through having no knowledge that one does not grasp; nor is it that one first knows and then does not grasp. Knowing itself is non-grasping—and so one can both not grasp and yet know.

Question: The treatise says "not grasping." This surely means that the sage's mind does not treat things as objects, and so there is no deluded grasping. But if there is no grasping, there is no affirming; if there is no affirming, there is no matching. Who then matches the sage's mind, such that you claim the sage's mind knows all things?

He replied: Yes. There is no "this" and no "that." When there is no "that," nothing is not "that"; when there is no "this," nothing is not "this." Since nothing is not "this," there is "this" yet no "this." Since nothing is not "that," there is "that" yet no "that." Therefore the scripture says: "To fully see all dharmas is to see nothing at all."

A question arises: It is not that the sage's mind is incapable of such affirmation, but truly because there is nothing to affirm. Yet even though there is nothing to affirm, one should still affirm this very "nothing to affirm." Therefore the scripture says, "Ultimate truth has no marks, and so prajna has no knowing"—this truly means that prajna does not possess the knowing of things with marks. If one takes "no marks" as itself a mark, how would that burden ultimate truth?

The answer is: A sage does not cling to the idea of "no marks" either. Why? If you take "no marks" to be "no marks," then "no marks" itself becomes a mark. To abandon existence and rush toward nothingness is like fleeing a peak only to plunge into a pit—neither escape from trouble. That is why the perfected person dwells in existence without being attached to existence, and abides in emptiness without being attached to emptiness. Though they do not grasp at existence or emptiness, they also do not abandon existence or emptiness. Thus they blend their light with the dust of toil, move freely through the five realms, depart in stillness, arrive in tranquility, remain calm and effortless, yet accomplish everything.

A questioner asks: "The sage's mind may be free of ordinary knowing, yet its way of responding and meeting situations is not off the mark. Therefore, it responds to what can be responded to, and leaves be what cannot be responded to. If that is so, then the sage's mind sometimes arises and sometimes ceases. Is that acceptable?"

He replied: Birth and death belong to the mind that is born and dies. A sage has no such mind—how could birth and death arise in them? Yet this is not to say they have no mind at all; it is simply that they have no mind while still being mind. Nor is it that they do not respond; it is simply that they respond without responding. Therefore, the sage's way of meeting and connecting with things is as trustworthy and unchanging as the seasons. Taking emptiness and nothingness as their very essence, they cannot be found to be born, nor can they be found to pass away.

Question: The non-existence of the sage's wisdom and the non-existence of deluded wisdom are both without arising or cessation. How do they differ?

The answer: The non-existence of noble wisdom is non-knowing; the non-existence of deluded wisdom is knowing non-existence. Their non-existence is the same, but the reason for their non-existence differs.

Why? The noble mind is empty and still, so there is no knowing to be done away with; this can be called non-knowing, but it is not called knowing non-existence. Deluded wisdom has knowing, so there is knowing to be done away with; this can be called knowing non-existence, but it is not called non-knowing. Non-knowing is the non-existence of prajna; knowing non-existence is the non-existence of ultimate truth.

Therefore, when we speak of prajna and ultimate truth in terms of function, they are the same yet different; when we speak of them in terms of stillness, they are different yet the same. Because they are the same, the mind does not dwell on either; because they are different, the power of illumination is not lost.

Thus, one who distinguishes sameness finds sameness in difference, and one who distinguishes difference finds difference in sameness. This being so, they can neither be made different nor made the same.

Why? Within there is the clarity of unique insight; without there is the reality of all dharmas. Though all dharmas are real, without illumination they cannot be known. Inner and outer mutually support each other to accomplish the work of illumination—this is what the noble ones cannot make the same: their function. Though within there is illumination, there is no knowing; though without there is reality, there is no appearance. Inner and outer are both still, mutually together in non-existence—this is what the noble ones cannot make different: their stillness.

Therefore, when the scripture says "all dharmas are not different," how could it mean cutting the duck's legs short or stretching the crane's legs long, leveling mountains or filling valleys, and only then calling it non-difference? Truly, because non-difference is found within difference, though there is difference, there is yet non-difference.

Hence the scripture says: "How wonderful, World-Honored One! Within the Dharma of non-difference, you speak of the differences of all dharmas." It also says: "Prajna and all dharmas are neither of one appearance nor of different appearances." This is true indeed.

Question: The treatise says, "In terms of function they differ; in terms of stillness they are the same." I do not yet understand—within Prajna itself, are there really these differences of function and stillness?

The answer is: Function and stillness are one. Stillness is function; function is stillness. Function and stillness are one reality, arising together yet called by different names. There is no stillness apart from function that rules over function. Therefore, the deeper the wisdom, the brighter the illumination; the quieter the spirit, the more active its response. How could there be any difference between illumination and dimness, activity and stillness? Thus the *Chengju* says: "Doing nothing, yet nothing is left undone." The *Ratnakuta* says: "Without mind, without consciousness, yet nothing is unknown." This is the ultimate teaching that exhausts spirit and wisdom, reaching beyond all images. Through these clear words, the mind of the sage can be known.

The Wisdom of Not Knowing