English
English version: Can one reach the past? Since we speak of past and present, why then seek to alter it? Therefore, to say 'gone' does not necessarily mean truly 'gone'; past and present are ever-present, in that they do not move. To say 'departed' does not necessarily mean truly 'departed'; it means not proceeding from present to past, in that they do not come. Not coming, therefore they do not race between past and present; not moving, therefore each nature abides in a single age. If this is so, then the various texts with their differing words, the hundred schools with their divergent theories, if one can grasp their common ground, how can one be deluded by differing words? Therefore, what others call 'abiding,' I call 'departing'; what others call 'departing,' I call 'abiding.' Thus, though 'departing' and 'abiding' differ, their principle is the same. Hence, the sutra says: 'Upright words seem contrary. Who will believe them?' There is a reason for this statement. Why? Others seek the past in the present, saying it does not abide. I seek the present in the past, knowing it does not depart. If the present could reach the past, the past should have the present; if the past could reach the present, the present should have the past. If the present has no past, we know it does not come; if the past has no present, we know it does not depart. If the past does not reach the present, and the present does not reach the past, each thing's nature abides in a single age. What thing is there that can come and go? Therefore, the four elements (earth, water, fire, wind) race like the wind, the celestial sphere spins like lightning. If one grasps the subtle principle, though swift, it does not turn. Thus, the Tathagata (Tathagata, title of the Buddha), his merit flows through myriad ages and ever remains, his path penetrates hundreds of kalpas and is ever more firm. Building a mountain begins with the first basket of earth, constructing a long road relies on the first step, precisely because merit and deeds cannot decay. Merit and deeds cannot decay, therefore, though in the past, they do not vanish; not vanishing, therefore they do not change. Not changing, therefore, they are clear and bright. Hence, the sutra says: 'Though the three calamities (fire, water, wind) encompass all, the karma (actions) remains clear.' Believe these words. Why? The fruit (result) does not occur simultaneously with the cause (reason), but cause produces fruit. Cause produces fruit, cause does not perish in the past; fruit does not occur simultaneously with cause, cause does not come to the present. Not perishing, not coming, then the principle of non-change is clear! Why then be deluded by going and staying, hesitating between movement and stillness? Therefore, even if heaven and earth were overturned, one cannot say it is not still; even if a great flood overwhelms the world, one cannot say it is moving. If one can align one's spirit with things as they are, then this principle is not far off, it can be known! On the Non-Moving Nature of Things (End) On Non-Emptiness, Part Two --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
夫至虚无生者，盖是般若玄鉴之妙趣，有物之宗极者也。自非圣明特达，何能契神于有无之间哉？是以至人通神心于无穷，穷所不能滞；极耳目于视听，声色所不能制者，岂不以其即万物之自虚，故物不能累其神明者也。是以圣人乘真心而理顺，则无滞而不通；审一气以观化，故所遇而顺适。无滞而不通，故能混杂致淳；所遇而顺适，故则触物而一。如此，则万象虽殊而不能自异。不能自异，故知象非真象。象非真象故，则虽象而非象。然则物我同根、是非一气，潜微幽隐，殆非群情之所尽，故顷尔谈论，至于虚宗，每有不同。夫以不同而适同，有何物而可同哉？故众论竞作而性莫同焉。何则？心无者，无心于万物，万物未尝无。此得在于神静，失在于物虚。即色者，明色不自色，故虽色而非色也。夫言色者，但当色即色，岂待色色而后为色哉？此直语色不自色，未领色之非色也。本无者，情尚于无，多触言以宾无。故非有，有即无；非无，无亦无。寻夫立文之本旨者，直以非有非真有，非无非真无耳。何必非有无此有，非无无彼无？此直好无之谈，岂谓顺通事实，即物之情哉！夫以物物于物，则所物而可物；以物物非物，故虽物而非物。是以物不即名而就实，名不即物而履真。然则真谛独静于名教之外，岂曰文 现代汉语译本： 那达到至虚无生的境界，大概就是般若玄鉴的精妙之处，是有形之物的根本归宿。如果不是圣明特别通达的人，怎么能使精神与有无之间相契合呢？因此，达到极高境界的人，使精神与无穷相通，探究事物到不能滞留的程度；穷尽耳目的视听功能，声音和色彩也不能控制他们，这难道不是因为他们认识到万物本来的空虚，所以外物不能拖累他们的精神吗？因此，圣人遵循真诚的心而顺应事理，就没有阻碍而不通达的；审察统一的元气来观察变化，所以无论遇到什么都能顺应适应。没有阻碍而不通达，所以能够混合杂乱而达到纯粹；无论遇到什么都能顺应适应，所以接触万物而融为一体。像这样，那么万象虽然不同却不能自我区分。不能自我区分，所以知道现象不是真实的现象。现象不是真实的现象，那么虽然是现象却不是现象。既然如此，那么物与我同根，是与非同源，深藏的微妙之处，大概不是众人所能完全理解的，所以稍微谈论，到虚无的宗旨，常常有不同之处。用不同来适应相同，有什么东西可以相同呢？所以各种议论纷纷出现而本质却不能相同。为什么呢？ 认为‘心无’的人，是使心不执着于万物，而万物却未尝不存在。这种理解得益于精神的宁静，失误在于把万物看作虚无。认为‘即色’的人，是明白色不是自身就是色，所以虽然是色却不是色。说‘色’的人，应当直接认识到色就是色，难道要等到‘空’之后才成为色吗？这只是直接说色不是自身就是色，没有领悟到色的非色。认为‘本无’的人，情感崇尚虚无，多用言语来辅助虚无。所以说非有，有也就是无；说非无，无也就是无。探究设立文字的本意，只是说非有不是真有，非无不是真无罢了。何必说非有才没有这个有，非无才没有那个无？这只是爱好虚无的谈论，怎么能说是顺应贯通事实，符合事物的实情呢！用事物来对待事物，那么所对待的事物就可以被对待；用事物来对待非事物，所以虽然是事物却不是事物。因此，事物不直接用名称来对应而追求实际，名称不直接用事物来对应而遵循真理。那么真谛独自在名教之外保持清静，难道是文字
English
English version: To attain the state of ultimate emptiness and non-origination is, in essence, the wondrous essence of Prajna's (wisdom) profound insight, the ultimate origin of things with form. If not for a sage of exceptional understanding, how could one's spirit align with the realm between existence and non-existence? Therefore, the perfected person connects their spirit with the infinite, exploring things to the point where they cannot be detained; they exhaust the functions of the ears and eyes in seeing and hearing, yet sounds and colors cannot control them. Is this not because they recognize the inherent emptiness of all things, so that external objects cannot burden their spirit? Thus, the sage follows the true heart and aligns with reason, so there is no obstruction that is not overcome; they examine the unified Qi (vital energy) to observe transformation, so whatever they encounter is met with harmony and adaptation. There is no obstruction that is not overcome, so they can mix the chaotic and achieve purity; whatever they encounter is met with harmony and adaptation, so they touch things and become one with them. In this way, although the myriad phenomena are different, they cannot differentiate themselves. Unable to differentiate themselves, they know that phenomena are not true phenomena. Because phenomena are not true phenomena, then although they are phenomena, they are not phenomena. If this is the case, then things and I share the same root, right and wrong share the same source, the subtle and hidden mysteries are probably not fully understood by the masses, so in brief discussions, reaching the doctrine of emptiness, there are often differences. Using difference to adapt to sameness, what is there that can be the same? Therefore, various arguments arise, but their essence cannot be the same. Why? Those who believe in 'no-mind' (心无) mean to make the mind unattached to all things, while all things have never ceased to exist. This understanding benefits from the tranquility of the spirit, but errs in viewing all things as void. Those who believe in 'is-color' (即色) understand that color is not self-existent, so although it is color, it is not color. Those who speak of 'color' should directly recognize that color is color, and not wait until 'emptiness' (空) to become color. This only directly says that color is not self-existent, without grasping the non-color of color. Those who believe in 'original non-being' (本无) have emotions that admire emptiness, and often use words to assist emptiness. Therefore, they say non-existence, existence is also non-existence; they say non-non-existence, non-existence is also non-existence. Exploring the original intention of establishing writing, it is only to say that non-existence is not true existence, and non-non-existence is not true non-existence. Why must it be said that non-existence is the absence of this existence, and non-non-existence is the absence of that non-existence? This is merely a discussion that favors emptiness, how can it be said to be conforming to and penetrating facts, and in accordance with the reality of things! Using things to treat things, then the things treated can be treated; using things to treat non-things, so although they are things, they are not things. Therefore, things do not directly correspond to names but pursue reality, and names do not directly correspond to things but follow truth. Then the ultimate truth alone remains pure outside of nominal teachings, how can it be said that writing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
言之能辨哉？然不能杜默，聊复厝言以拟之。试论之曰： 《摩诃衍论》云：“诸法亦非有相，亦非无相。”《中论》云：“诸法不有不无者，第一真谛也。”寻夫不有不无者，岂谓涤除万物、杜塞视听，寂寥虚豁，然后为真谛者乎？诚以即物顺通，故物莫之逆；即伪即真，故性莫之易。性莫之易，故虽无而有；物莫之逆，故虽有而无。虽有而无，所谓非有；虽无而有，所谓非无。如此，则非无物也，物非真物。物非真物，故于何而可物？故经云：“色之性空，非色败空。”以明夫圣人之于物也，即万物之自虚，岂待宰割以求通哉！是以寝疾有不真之谈，超日有即虚之称；然则三藏殊文，统之者一也。故《放光》云：“第一真谛，无成无得；世俗谛故，便有成有得。”夫有得即是无得之伪号，无得即是有得之真名。真名故，虽真而非有；伪号故，虽伪而非无。是以言真未尝有，言伪未尝无。二言未始一，二理未始殊。故经云：“真谛、俗谛谓有异耶？答曰：无异也。”此经直辩真谛以明非有，俗谛以明非无；岂以谛二而二于物哉？然则万物果有其所以不有，有其所以不无。有其所以不有，故虽有而非有；有其所以不无，故虽无而非无。虽无而非无，无者不绝虚；虽有而非有，有者非真有。若有不即真，无不夷迹 现代汉语译本： 能用言语分辨清楚吗？虽然不能完全沉默，姑且再次用言语来尝试比拟它。试着论述如下： 《摩诃衍论》（Mahāyāna-sūtra，大乘论）说：‘诸法既非有相，也非无相。’《中论》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā，根本中论）说：‘诸法不有不无，是第一真谛。’那么，所谓不有不无，难道是指清除万物、杜绝视听，达到寂寥空虚，然后才是真谛吗？实在是因为顺应万物的自然规律，所以万物不会违逆它；即伪即真，所以本性不会改变。本性不会改变，所以即使看似没有，实则存在；万物不会违逆它，所以即使看似存在，实则为空。看似存在实则为空，这就是所谓的‘非有’；看似没有实则存在，这就是所谓的‘非无’。如此，就不是没有事物，而是事物并非真实的实体。事物并非真实的实体，那么又从何处可以执着于事物呢？所以经书说：‘色的本性是空，不是色被破坏后才空。’以此来说明圣人对于万物的态度，是顺应万物自身的虚幻，哪里需要宰割来求得通达呢！因此，生病有不真实的说法，超越时间有即是虚幻的称谓；那么三藏（Tripiṭaka，佛教经典的总称）不同的说法，统合起来是一个道理。所以《放光经》（Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra，放光般若经）说：‘第一真谛，无成无得；世俗谛故，便有成有得。’所谓有得，就是无得的虚假名称；所谓无得，就是有得的真实名称。因为是真实名称，所以虽然真实却并非实有；因为是虚假名称，所以虽然虚假却并非全无。因此，说真的时候未尝有，说假的时候未尝无。两种说法从未曾相同，两种道理从未曾相异。所以经书说：‘真谛、俗谛（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗谛） 认为有差异吗？’回答说：‘没有差异。’这部经直接阐明真谛来说明非有，用俗谛来说明非无；难道是因为真谛和俗谛的差别而导致万物也产生差别吗？既然如此，那么万物确实有其所以不有的原因，也有其所以不无的原因。有其所以不有的原因，所以即使存在也并非实有；有其所以不无的原因，所以即使看似没有也并非全无。即使看似没有也并非全无，这种没有不是断灭的虚无；即使存在也并非实有，这种存在不是真实的实体。如果存在不等于真实，那么没有也不会消灭任何痕迹。