English
English version: Can it be clearly distinguished with words? Although one cannot remain completely silent, let me again try to approximate it with words. Let's discuss it as follows: The *Mahāyāna-sūtra* (摩诃衍论, Great Vehicle Treatise) says: 'All dharmas are neither with form nor without form.' The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* (中论, Treatise on the Middle Way) says: 'That dharmas are neither existent nor non-existent is the ultimate truth.' Now, does 'neither existent nor non-existent' mean clearing away all things, blocking sight and hearing, achieving desolate emptiness, and then considering that to be the ultimate truth? Indeed, it is because of conforming to the natural order of things that things do not resist it; it is because of being both false and true that the nature does not change. Because the nature does not change, it exists even though it seems not to; because things do not resist it, it is empty even though it seems to exist. Existing but being empty, this is what is called 'non-existence'; seeming not to exist but existing, this is what is called 'non-non-existence.' Thus, it is not that there are no things, but that things are not real entities. If things are not real entities, then where can one be attached to things? Therefore, the scripture says: 'The nature of form is emptiness, not that form is empty after being destroyed.' This is to explain that the attitude of a sage towards things is to conform to the inherent illusion of all things; where is there a need to dissect them to seek understanding! Therefore, illness has untrue statements, and transcending time has the designation of being illusory; then the different statements of the *Tripiṭaka* (三藏, the three baskets of Buddhist scriptures) are unified into one principle. Therefore, the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (放光经, Sutra on the Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 Lines) says: 'The ultimate truth is without accomplishment and without attainment; because of conventional truth, there is accomplishment and attainment.' So-called attainment is the false name of non-attainment; so-called non-attainment is the true name of attainment. Because it is a true name, it is not truly existent even though it is true; because it is a false name, it is not completely non-existent even though it is false. Therefore, when speaking of truth, it has never existed; when speaking of falsehood, it has never been non-existent. The two statements have never been the same, and the two principles have never been different. Therefore, the scripture says: 'Are the ultimate truth and the *Saṃvṛti-satya* (俗谛, conventional truth) considered to be different?' The answer is: 'There is no difference.' This scripture directly elucidates non-existence with the ultimate truth and non-non-existence with the conventional truth; is it because of the difference between the ultimate truth and the conventional truth that differences arise in all things? Since this is the case, then all things indeed have a reason for not existing and a reason for not being non-existent. Having a reason for not existing, they are not truly existent even though they exist; having a reason for not being non-existent, they are not completely non-existent even though they seem not to exist. Even though they seem not to exist, they are not completely non-existent, and this non-existence is not annihilation; even though they exist, they are not truly existent, and this existence is not a real entity. If existence is not equal to truth, then non-existence will not erase any traces. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
，然则有无称异，其致一也。故童子叹曰：“说法不有亦不无，以因缘故诸法生。”《璎珞经》云：“转法轮者，亦非有转，亦非无转，是谓转无所转。”此乃众经之微言也。何者？谓物无耶，则邪见非惑；谓物有耶，则常见为得。以物非无，故邪见为惑；以物非有，故常见不得。然则非有非无者，信真谛之谈也。故《道行》云：“心亦不有亦不无。”《中观》云：“物从因缘故不有，缘起故不无。”寻理，即其然矣。所以然者，夫有若真有，有自常有，岂待缘而后有哉？譬彼真无，无自常无，岂待缘而后无也！若有不自有，待缘而后有者，故知有非真有。有非真有，虽有，不可谓之有矣。不无者，夫无则湛然不动，可谓之无。万物若无，则不应起；起则非无。以明缘起故不无也。故《摩诃衍论》云：“一切诸法，一切因缘故应有；一切诸法，一切因缘故不应有。一切无法，一切因缘故应有；一切有法，一切因缘故不应有。”寻此有无之言，岂直反论而已哉！若应有，即是有，不应言无；若应无，即是无，不应言有。言有，是为假有，以明非无。借无，以辨非有。此事一称二，其文有似不同。苟领其所同，则无异而不同。然则万法，果有其所以不有不可得而有；有其所以不无不可得而无。何则？欲言其有，有非真生； 欲言其无；事象既形。象形，不即无；非真，非实有。然则不真空义，显于兹矣！故《放光》云：“诸法假号不真，譬如幻化人。非无幻化人，幻化人非真人也。”夫以名求物，物无当名之实；以物求名，名无得物之功。物无当名之实，非物也；名无得物之功，非名也。是以名不当实，实不当名。名实无当，万物安在？故《中观》云：“物无彼此。”而人以此为此，以彼为彼。彼亦以此为彼，以彼为此。此、彼莫定乎一名，而惑者怀必然之志。然则彼此初非有，惑者初非无，既悟彼此之非有，有何物而可有哉？故知万物非真，假号久矣！是以《成具》立强名之文，园林托指马之况。如此，则深远之言，于何而不在！是以圣人乘千化而不变，履万惑而常通者，以其即万物之自虚，不假虚而虚物也。故经云：“甚奇，世尊！不动真际为诸法立处。”非离真而立处，立处即真也。然则道远乎哉？触事而真！圣远乎哉？体之即神！ 不真空论(终) 般若无知论第三 夫般若虚玄者，盖是三乘之宗极也。诚真一之无差，然异端之论，纷然久矣。有天竺沙门鸠摩罗什者，少践大方，研机斯趣。独拔于言象之表，妙契于希夷之境；齐异学于迦夷，扬淳风于东扇。将爰烛殊方而匿籴凉土者，所以道不虚应，应必有 现代汉语译本：想要说它是‘无’，但事物的现象已经形成。现象的形成，不能简单地说就是‘无’；它不是真实的，也不是实在的存在。这样看来，‘不真空’的意义就显现出来了！所以《放光般若经》说：‘诸法只是假的名字，不是真实的，就像幻化出来的人一样。不能说没有幻化出来的人，但幻化出来的人不是真人。’用名称去寻找事物，事物没有符合名称的实际；用事物去寻找名称，名称没有得到事物的功用。事物没有符合名称的实际，就不是真正的事物；名称没有得到事物的功用，就不是真正的名称。因此，名称不符合实际，实际不符合名称。名称和实际没有对应关系，万物又在哪里呢？所以《中观论》说：‘事物没有彼此的区分。’而人们却以这个为‘此’，以那个为‘彼’。‘彼’也以这个为‘彼’，以那个为‘此’。‘此’和‘彼’都不能在一个名称上确定，而迷惑的人却怀着必然如此的想法。这样看来，‘彼此’最初就不是真实存在的，迷惑的人最初也不是不存在的，既然领悟到‘彼此’不是真实存在的，还有什么事物是可以执着的呢？所以知道万物不是真实的，只是假的名字已经很久了！因此，《成具光明定经》设立强加名称的说法，园林用指鹿为马的情况来比喻。像这样，那么深刻而长远的道理，在哪里不能体现出来呢！因此，圣人经历千变万化而不改变，身处万般迷惑而常常通达，是因为他们认识到万物自身就是空虚的，不需要借助‘虚’来使万物空虚。所以经书说：‘非常奇妙啊，世尊！在不动的真如实际中为诸法设立处所。’不是离开真如而设立处所，设立处所就是真如。这样看来，道还遥远吗？接触任何事物都是真如！圣人还遥远吗？体会它就是神通！ 《不真空论》（终） 《般若无知论》第三 般若的虚玄，是三乘（声闻乘、缘觉乘、菩萨乘）的最终归宿。确实是真一而没有差别的，然而不同派别的论调，纷乱已经很久了。有位来自天竺的沙门鸠摩罗什（Kumārajīva），年轻时就学习大乘佛法，研究其中精妙的道理。他超脱于语言文字的表面，巧妙地契合于虚无寂静的境界；使不同的学说归于一致，在东方传播纯正的风气。他将要用佛法照亮遥远的地方，而隐匿在凉州这片土地上，所以他的教导不是虚假的应付，应验必定有原因。
English
English version: Wanting to say it is 'non-being'; yet the phenomena of things have already taken shape. The shaping of phenomena cannot simply be said to be 'non-being'; it is not real, nor is it truly existent. Thus, the meaning of 'not truly empty' becomes manifest! Therefore, the *Fangguang Jing* (放光般若经, *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*) says: 'All dharmas are merely provisional names, not real, like an illusionary person. One cannot say there is no illusionary person, but the illusionary person is not a real person.' Using a name to seek a thing, the thing has no reality that matches the name; using a thing to seek a name, the name has no function of obtaining the thing. The thing has no reality that matches the name, so it is not a true thing; the name has no function of obtaining the thing, so it is not a true name. Therefore, the name does not match the reality, and the reality does not match the name. When name and reality have no correspondence, where are the myriad things? Therefore, the *Madhyamaka-karika* (中观论, Treatise on the Middle Way) says: 'Things have no distinction of this and that.' Yet people take this as 'this' and that as 'that.' 'That' also takes this as 'that' and that as 'this.' 'This' and 'that' cannot be determined by a single name, and the deluded harbor the thought that it must be so. Thus, 'this' and 'that' were never truly existent from the beginning, and the deluded were never non-existent from the beginning. Since one has realized that 'this' and 'that' are not truly existent, what thing is there that can be clung to? Therefore, know that the myriad things are not real, and have been provisional names for a long time! Therefore, the *Chengju Guangming Ding Jing* (成具光明定经) establishes the statement of forcibly assigning names, and the garden uses the situation of pointing at a deer and calling it a horse as a metaphor. Like this, then where can profound and far-reaching principles not be manifested! Therefore, the sage experiences a thousand transformations without changing, and dwells amidst myriad delusions while always being unobstructed, because they recognize that the myriad things are inherently empty, and do not need to rely on 'emptiness' to make things empty. Therefore, the sutra says: 'How wondrous, World Honored One! In the immovable true reality, you establish a place for all dharmas.' It is not establishing a place apart from true reality; establishing a place is true reality. Thus, is the Dao far away? Touching any matter is true! Is the sage far away? Embodying it is spiritual power! *Treatise on Not Truly Empty* (End) *Treatise on Prajna's Non-Knowing* Third The emptiness and profundity of Prajna (般若, Wisdom) is the ultimate destination of the Three Vehicles (三乘, *Triyāna*). It is indeed true oneness without difference, yet the arguments of different schools have been in disarray for a long time. There was a *Shramana* (沙门, Monk) from India, Kumārajīva (鸠摩罗什), who studied Mahayana (大乘, Great Vehicle) Buddhism at a young age and researched its subtle principles. He transcended the surface of language and writing, and subtly conformed to the realm of emptiness and tranquility; he unified different doctrines, and spread a pure atmosphere in the East. He was about to illuminate distant lands with the Dharma, while concealing himself in the land of Liangzhou (凉州), so his teachings are not a false response, and the verification must have a reason. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
由矣。弘始三年，岁次星纪，秦乘入国之谋，举师以来之意也。北天之运，数其然也。大秦天王者，道契百王之端，德洽千载之下，游刃万机，弘道终日，信季俗苍生之所天，释迦遗法之所仗也。时乃集义学沙门五百余人于逍遥观，躬执秦文，与什公参定方等。其所开拓者，岂谓当时之益，乃累劫之津梁矣。余以短乏，曾厕嘉会，以为上闻异要，始于时也。然则圣智幽微，深隐难测。无相无名，乃非言象之所得。为试罔象其怀，寄之狂言耳，岂曰圣心而可辨哉！试论之曰： 《放光》云：“般若无所有相，无生灭相。”《道行》云：“般若无所知、无所见。”此辨智照之用，而曰无相、无知者，何耶？果有无相之知、不知之照，明矣。何者？夫有所知，则有所不知。以圣心无知，故无所不知。不知之知，乃曰一切知。故经云：“圣心无所知，无所不知。”信矣！是以圣人虚其心而实其照，终日知而未尝知也。故能默耀韬光虚心玄鉴，闭智塞聪而独觉冥冥者矣。然则智有穷幽之鉴而无知焉，神有应会之用而无虑焉。神无虑，故能独王于世表；智无知，故能玄照于事外。智虽事外，未始无事；神虽世表，终日域中。所以俯仰顺化应接无穷，无幽不察而无照功。斯则无知之所知，圣神之所会也。然其为物也，实而不有 现代汉语译本： 鸠摩罗什（Kumārajīva）说：‘是的。弘始三年，太岁在星纪的位置，秦国趁机策划入侵，发兵前来。这是北方天运的安排，是命中注定的。大秦的天王，他的道与历代圣王相契合，他的德泽惠及千年之后，处理政务游刃有余，弘扬佛法终日不倦，是季世百姓所仰赖的，是释迦牟尼（Śākyamuni）遗法所依靠的。’当时，他召集了五百多位精通义学的沙门（śrāmaṇa）在逍遥园，亲自拿着秦国的文本，与鸠摩罗什（Kumārajīva）一起参详审定方等经典。他所开创的事业，难道只是为了当时的利益吗？这是累世的津梁啊！我因为才疏学浅，曾经参与过这场盛会，认为这是听到高深玄妙的道理的开端。既然如此，圣人的智慧幽深微妙，难以测度。无相无名，不是言语形象所能表达的。我尝试着揣摩圣人的心怀，用狂妄的言语来表达，哪里能说可以辨明圣人的心意呢！试着论述如下： 《放光般若经》（Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）说：‘般若（Prajñā）没有所有相，没有生灭相。’《道行般若经》（Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）说：‘般若（Prajñā）无所知、无所见。’这辨析的是智慧观照的作用，却说无相、无知，这是为什么呢？确实存在无相的知、不知的照，这是很明显的。为什么呢？因为有所知，就有所不知。圣人的心因为无知，所以无所不知。这种不知的知，才叫做一切知。所以经书上说：‘圣人的心无所知，无所不知。’确实如此！因此圣人虚空他的心而充实他的观照，终日知晓却好像从未知晓一样。所以能够默默地发光，隐藏光芒，虚空心怀，玄妙地观照，闭塞智慧和听觉而独自觉悟于冥冥之中。既然如此，智慧有穷尽幽深的鉴察能力却没有知，精神有应和世事的功用却没有思虑。精神没有思虑，所以能够独自称王于世俗之外；智慧没有知，所以能够玄妙地观照于事物之外。智慧虽然在事物之外，却未尝脱离事物；精神虽然在世俗之外，却终日存在于世俗之中。所以能够俯仰顺应变化，应接无穷，没有幽深之处不能察觉，却没有观照的功劳。这就是无知所知，是圣神所会合的。然而它作为一种事物，真实而不占有。