English
English version: Master Shi wrote the 《Vimalakirti Sutra》 (维摩经) commentary in the Wu year, and I, a humble monk, attended the lectures at that time; in my spare time, I recorded his words and used them as a reference for my own annotations. Although the writing is not elegant, the meaning is based on solid principles. Now, someone is taking a copy to the South, so if you have time, you can take a look. Your letter asks so earnestly that it is difficult to refuse. I, a humble monk, do not have profound thoughts and am not good at writing. Moreover, the highest truth is beyond words; once spoken, it inevitably deviates from the original meaning. After all this talk, what can be clarified? I will just use some wild words to respond to your request. The commentary says: 'Praising the sage's mind as being in a state of profound stillness (冥寂), the principle reaches the ultimate sameness with 'non-being' (无). Although situated in the world of 'having names' (有名), it is far removed from and the same as 'having no name' (无名).' This profound principle is often confusing. If one can keep this in mind, one can naturally achieve inner understanding without words, thereby settling one's mind. Why seek to be different from the sage's mind simply because it differs from ordinary people's thoughts? The commentary says: 'Those who discuss it say that by exhausting the spiritual and numerical extremes, and subtly reaching the state of perfect accord with the mysterious, one distinguishes the names of Samatha-vipassana (寂照), so this is the substance of Samadhi-prajna (定慧). If the mind-essence is naturally spiritual and uniquely sensitive, then the responses of all phenomena will naturally cease.' My meaning is that the subtle exhaustion of the mysterious accord cannot be named Samadhi-prajna; the spiritual and unique sensitivity cannot be said to have ceased the responses of all phenomena. Although the two statements are different, their subtle function is always the same. Ordinary people act by clinging to 'self' (我), and sages do the same, without any difference. Why? Because the sage's profound mind silently illuminates everything, and the principle reaches the ultimate sameness with 'non-being'. Since it is said to be the same, it is the ultimate sameness with 'non-being'. Since it is the ultimate sameness with 'non-being', how can there be the name of Samadhi-prajna? The name of Samadhi-prajna is not a term outside of 'sameness'. If it is said to arise within 'sameness', then this term is not 'sameness'; if it is said to arise outside of 'sameness', then this term is not 'self'. Moreover, the sage's mind is empty and subtle, transcending ordinary realms. It perceives everything and responds to everything, connects with everything and penetrates everything. In the darkness, the mechanism operates naturally, and its function is effortless. How can the responses of all phenomena cease? Furthermore, the existence of the mind is because it has something that exists. But the existence of 'being' is not determined by itself, so the sage's mind does not cling to 'being'. Not clinging to 'being', therefore 'being' ceases to exist. When 'being' ceases to exist, then 'non-being' also ceases to exist. When 'non-being' ceases to exist, then the sage does not cling to 'not non-being'. Not clinging to 'not non-being', his spirit is empty. Why? Because of 'being' and 'non-being'. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
，心之影响也。言也、象也，影响之所攀缘也。有无既废，则心无影响。影响既沦，则言象莫测。言象莫测，则道绝群方。道绝群方，故能穷灵极数。穷灵极数，乃曰妙尽。妙尽之道，本乎无寄。夫无寄在乎冥寂，冥绝故虚以通之；妙尽存乎极数，极数故数以应之。数以应之，故动与事会；虚以通之，故道超名外。道超名外，因谓之无；动与事会，因谓之有。因谓之有者，应夫真有，强谓之然耳。彼何然哉？故经云：“圣智无知而无所不知，无为而无所不为。”此无言无相寂灭之道。岂曰有而为有、无而为无？动而乖静、静而废用耶？而今谈者多即言以定旨，寻大方而徴隅，怀前识以标玄，存所存之必当。是以闻圣有知，谓之有心；闻圣无知；谓等大虚。有无之境，边见所存，岂是处中莫二之道乎！何者？万物虽殊，然性本常一；不可而物，然非不物。可物于物，则名相异陈；不物于物，则物而即真。是以圣人不物于物、不非物于物。不物于物，物非有也；不非物于物，物非无也。非有，所以不取；非无，所以不舍。不舍，故妙存即真；不取，故名相靡因。名相靡因，非有知也；妙存即真，非无知也。故经云：“般若于诸法，无取无舍，无知无不知。”此攀缘之外、绝心之域，而欲以有无诘者，不亦远乎！请诘夫陈有 无者。夫智之生也，极于相内。法本无相，圣智何知？世称无知者，谓等木石、太虚、无情之流。灵鉴幽烛，形于未兆，道无隐机，宁曰无知？且无知生于无知，无无知也，无有知也。无有知也，谓之非有；无无知也，谓之非无。所以虚不失照、照不失虚，怕然永寂，靡执靡拘。孰能动之令有、静之使无耶？故经云：“真般若者，非有非无，无起无灭，不可说示于人。”何则？言其非有者，言其非是有，非谓是非有；言其非无者，言其非是无，非谓是非无。非有，非非有；非无，非非无。是以须菩提终日说般若，而云无所说。此绝言之道，知何以传？庶参玄君子，有以会之耳！ 又云“宜先定圣心所以应会之道，为当唯照无相耶？为当咸睹其变耶？”谈者似谓无相与变，其旨不一，睹变则异乎无相，照无相则失于抚会。然则即真之义，或有滞也。经云：“色不异空，空不异色。色即是空，空即是色。”若如来旨，观色空时，应一心见色、一心见空。若一心见色，则唯色非空；若一心见空，则唯空非色。然则空色两陈，莫定其本也。是以经云“非色”者，诚以非色于色，不非色于非色。若非色于非色，太虚则非色，非色何所明？若以非色于色，即非色不异色。非色不异色，色即为非色。故知变即无相，无相即变。 现代汉语译本： 关于‘无’的含义。智慧的产生，穷尽于对事物内在本质的观察。法的本质本无表相，圣人的智慧又如何能认知？世俗所说的‘无知’，是指等同于木石、太虚、没有情感的事物。但真正的灵性之光能够照亮幽深之处，在事物显现征兆之前就能预知，道的运行没有隐藏的玄机，怎么能说是无知呢？况且，无知产生于无知，不存在没有无知的情况，也不存在没有知的情况。所谓‘无有知’，是指它不是‘有’；所谓‘无无知’，是指它不是‘无’。因此，虚空不会失去照亮万物的能力，照亮万物的能力也不会失去虚空的本质，达到一种寂静永恒的状态，没有任何执着和束缚。谁能够使它从无到有，又使它从有到无呢？所以经书上说：‘真正的般若智慧，非有非无，无生无灭，无法用语言向人展示。’为什么呢？说它‘非有’，是说它不是一般的‘有’，不是说它根本就不是‘有’；说它‘非无’，是说它不是一般的‘无’，不是说它根本就不是‘无’。既非‘有’，也非‘非有’；既非‘无’，也非‘非无’。因此，须菩提整天都在讲说般若，却说自己什么也没说。这种超越言语的道，又如何能够传达呢？希望参悟玄机的君子，能够有所领会！ 又有人说：‘应该首先确定圣人的心如何与道相应相合，是仅仅照见万物的无相本质呢？还是应该全部观察到万物的变化呢？’提出这种问题的人似乎认为无相和变化，它们的旨意并不相同，观察变化就不同于观察无相，观察无相就会失去对事物的体察和领会。如果这样，那么对‘即真’的理解，可能就有所滞碍了。经书上说：‘色不异空，空不异色，色即是空，空即是色。’如果按照如来的旨意，观察色和空的时候，应该一心一意地只看到色，或者一心一意地只看到空。如果一心一意地只看到色，那么就只有色而没有空；如果一心一意地只看到空，那么就只有空而没有色。这样一来，色和空就成了两种并列的事物，无法确定它们的根本。所以经书上说‘非色’，确实是因为在色中看到非色，而不是在非色中看到非色。如果在非色中看到非色，那么太虚就成了非色，那么非色又有什么可以说明的呢？如果以在色中看到非色，那么非色就不异于色。非色不异于色，色即为非色。所以要知道，变化就是无相，无相就是变化。
English
English version: On the meaning of 'non-being' (无, Wú). The arising of wisdom is exhausted in the observation of the inner essence of things. The nature of Dharma is originally without form (相, xiàng), so how can the wisdom of a sage know it? What the world calls 'ignorance' (无知, Wúzhī) refers to things equivalent to wood, stone, the great void, and insentient beings. But the true spiritual light can illuminate the depths, foreseeing things before they manifest signs. The operation of the Dao has no hidden mechanisms, so how can it be called ignorance? Moreover, ignorance arises from ignorance; there is no such thing as the absence of ignorance, nor is there the absence of knowledge. The so-called 'absence of knowledge' (无有知, wú yǒu zhī) means that it is not 'being' (有, yǒu); the so-called 'absence of non-knowledge' (无无知, wú wú zhī) means that it is not 'non-being' (无, wú). Therefore, emptiness does not lose its ability to illuminate, and the ability to illuminate does not lose the essence of emptiness, reaching a state of eternal stillness, without any attachment or constraint. Who can move it from non-being to being, or from being to non-being? Therefore, the scriptures say: 'True Prajna wisdom is neither being nor non-being, without arising or ceasing, and cannot be shown to people through language.' Why? Saying it is 'not being' means it is not ordinary 'being,' not that it is fundamentally not 'being.' Saying it is 'not non-being' means it is not ordinary 'non-being,' not that it is fundamentally not 'non-being.' It is neither 'being' nor 'not-being'; it is neither 'non-being' nor 'not-non-being.' Therefore, Subhuti speaks of Prajna all day long, yet says he has said nothing. How can this path beyond words be conveyed? May those who contemplate the mysteries have some understanding! Furthermore, some say: 'One should first determine how the heart of a sage corresponds and unites with the Dao. Is it merely to perceive the formless essence of all things, or should one fully observe the changes of all things?' Those who raise this question seem to think that formlessness and change have different meanings. Observing change is different from observing formlessness, and observing formlessness will lose the ability to understand and comprehend things. If so, then the understanding of 'is truth' (即真, jí zhēn) may be hindered. The scriptures say: 'Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form, form is emptiness, emptiness is form.' If according to the Buddha's intention, when observing form and emptiness, one should wholeheartedly see only form, or wholeheartedly see only emptiness. If one wholeheartedly sees only form, then there is only form and no emptiness; if one wholeheartedly sees only emptiness, then there is only emptiness and no form. In this way, form and emptiness become two parallel things, and their root cannot be determined. Therefore, the scriptures say 'not form' (非色, fēi sè), truly because one sees non-form in form, not because one sees non-form in non-form. If one sees non-form in non-form, then the great void becomes non-form, so what can non-form explain? If one sees non-form in form, then non-form is not different from form. Non-form is not different from form, form is non-form. Therefore, know that change is formlessness, and formlessness is change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
群情不同，故教迹有异耳。考之玄籍，本之圣意，岂复真伪殊心、空有异照耶！是以照无相，不失抚会之功；睹变动，不乖无相之旨。造有，不异无；造无，不异有。未尝不有，未尝不无，故曰“不动等觉而建立诸法”。以此而推，寂用何妨！如之何谓睹变之知，异无相之照乎，恐谈者脱谓空有两心，静躁殊用，故言睹变之知，不可谓之不有耳。若能舍已心于封内，寻玄机于事外，齐万有于一虚，晓至虚之非无者，当言至人终日应会，与物推移，乘运抚化，未始为有也。圣心若此，何有可取而曰“未释不取之理”。 又云“无是乃所以为真是，无当乃所以为至当。”亦可如来言耳。若能无心于为是，而是于无是，无心于为当，而当于无当者，则终日是，不乖于无是；终日当，不乖于无当。但恐有是于无是、有当于无当，所以为患耳。何者？若真是可是、至当可当，则名相以形，美恶是生。生生奔竞，孰与止之？是以圣人空洞其怀，无识无知。然居动用之域，而止无为之境，处有名之内，而宅绝言之乡。寂寥虚旷，莫可以形名得，若斯而已矣。乃曰真是可是、至当可当，未喻雅旨也。恐是当之生，物谓之然，彼自不然，何足以然耳。夫言迹之兴，异途之所由生也。而言有所不言，迹有所不迹。是以善言言者，求言 现代汉语译本： 众生的根器不同，所以佛陀教化的方式也各有差异。但如果考察佛经的精义，探求佛陀的本意，哪里会有真伪之分，空有之别呢！因此，体悟无相的真理，并不会妨碍利益众生的方便法门；观察世间的变动，也不会违背无相的宗旨。证悟‘有’，并不异于‘无’；证悟‘无’，也不异于‘有’。不是不‘有’，也不是不‘无’，所以说‘在不动的真如本性上建立一切诸法’。由此推论，寂静和妙用又有什么妨碍呢！怎么能说观察变动的智慧，就不同于体悟无相的真理呢？恐怕论者错误地认为空和有是两种不同的心，静和动是两种不同的作用，所以才说观察变动的智慧，不能说它不存在。如果能够放下自己的主观执念，在现象之外寻求玄妙的真机，把万有都看作是虚幻的，明白至虚的境界并非什么都没有，那么就应该说，圣人整天都在应机说法，随着事物变化，顺应时势教化众生，从来没有执着于‘有’。圣人的心境是这样的，哪里还有什么可以执取的，而说‘没有解释不执取的道理’呢？ 又说：‘无是’才是真正的‘是’，‘无当’才是真正的‘当’。这也可以说是如来的教诲。如果能够不执着于‘是’，而以‘无是’为‘是’，不执着于‘当’，而以‘无当’为‘当’，那么整天都是‘是’，也不会违背‘无是’；整天都是‘当’，也不会违背‘无当’。只是担心执着于‘是’而否定‘无是’，执着于‘当’而否定‘无当’，这才是问题的根源。为什么呢？如果认为‘真’是可以肯定的，‘至当’是可以执着的，那么就会产生名相的束缚，美和丑的分别就会产生。在生灭轮回中奔波追逐，谁能停止呢？因此，圣人虚怀若谷，没有分别的意识和知识。虽然身处动荡的世界，却安住在无为的境界；虽然处在有名的世界，却安住在超越言语的境界。寂静空旷，无法用语言和名相来描述，只能如此而已。如果说‘真’是可以肯定的，‘至当’是可以执着的，那就是没有领悟佛法的精妙之处。恐怕‘是’和‘当’的产生，人们认为是正确的，但别人却不认为是正确的，又怎么能说是正确的呢？言语的产生，是由于不同的途径所导致的。而言语有所表达，也有所不表达；行为有所作为，也有所不作为。因此，善于运用言语的人，会探求言语背后的真意。