English
English version: Kumārajīva said: 'Yes. In the third year of the Hongshi era, when the year star was in the position of Xingji, the Qin state took the opportunity to plan an invasion and sent troops. This is the arrangement of the northern celestial movement, it is destined. The Heavenly King of Great Qin, his Dao (path) is in harmony with the ends of hundreds of kings, his virtue benefits thousands of years, he handles government affairs with ease, promotes the Dharma (law) all day long, is relied upon by the common people of the degenerate age, and is relied upon by the remaining Dharma (law) of Śākyamuni (释迦牟尼).’ At that time, he gathered more than five hundred śrāmaṇas (沙门) who were proficient in the study of meaning at Xiaoyao Garden, personally holding the Qin texts, and together with Kumārajīva (鸠摩罗什) carefully examined and determined the Vaipulya Sutras. What he pioneered, is it only for the benefit of the time? This is a bridge for many kalpas (aeons)! Because of my lack of talent and learning, I once participated in this grand meeting, thinking that this was the beginning of hearing profound and mysterious principles. Since this is the case, the wisdom of the sage is profound and subtle, difficult to fathom. Without form and without name, it cannot be expressed by words and images. I try to speculate on the mind of the sage, and express it in wild words, how can I say that I can discern the mind of the sage! Let's try to discuss it as follows: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (《放光般若经》) says: 'Prajñā (般若) has no all-possessing form, no arising and ceasing form.' The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (《道行般若经》) says: 'Prajñā (般若) knows nothing, sees nothing.' This distinguishes the function of wisdom's illumination, but says it is without form and without knowledge, why is this? Indeed, there exists knowledge without form, and illumination without knowledge, this is very clear. Why? Because if there is something known, then there is something not known. Because the mind of the sage is without knowledge, therefore it knows everything. This knowledge without knowledge is called all-knowing. Therefore, the sutra says: 'The mind of the sage knows nothing, yet knows everything.' This is indeed true! Therefore, the sage empties his mind and fills it with illumination, knowing all day long as if he has never known. Therefore, he can silently shine, hide his light, empty his mind, mysteriously contemplate, close his wisdom and hearing, and awaken alone in the darkness. Since this is the case, wisdom has the ability to exhaustively examine the profound, but has no knowledge; the spirit has the function of responding to events, but has no thought. The spirit has no thought, therefore it can reign alone outside the world; wisdom has no knowledge, therefore it can mysteriously illuminate outside of things. Although wisdom is outside of things, it has never been separated from things; although the spirit is outside of the world, it exists in the world all day long. Therefore, it can respond to changes, respond to infinity, there is no depth that cannot be perceived, but there is no merit of illumination. This is what is known by not knowing, is what the sage and spirit meet. However, as a thing, it is real but does not possess. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
、虚而不无。存而不可论者，其唯圣智乎。何者？欲言其有，无状无名；欲言其无，圣以之灵。圣以之灵，故虚不失照；无状无名，故照不失虚。照不失虚，故混而不渝；虚不失照，故动以接粗。是以圣智之用，未始暂废；求之形相，未暂可得。故《宝积》曰：“以无心意而现行。”《放光》云：“不动等觉而建立诸法。”所以圣迹万端，其致一而已矣。是以般若可虚而照，真谛可亡而知，万动可即而静，圣应可无而为。斯则不知而自知，不为而自为矣！复何知哉？复何为哉？ 难曰：夫圣人真心独朗，物物斯照；应接无方，动与事会。物物斯照，故知无所遗；动与事会，故会不失机。会不失机，故必有会于可会；知无所遗，故必有知于可知。必有知于可知，故圣不虚知；必有会于可会；故圣不虚会。既知既会，而曰无知无会者。何耶？若夫忘知遗会者，则是圣人无私于知会，以成其私耳。斯可谓不自有其知，安得无知哉？ 答曰：夫圣人功高二仪而不仁，明逾日月而弥昏，岂曰木石瞽其怀？其于无知而已哉。诚以异于人者神明，故不可以事相求之耳。子意欲令圣人不自有其知，而圣人未尝不有知，无乃乖于圣心、失于文旨者乎！何者？经云：“真般若者，清净如虚空，无知无见，无作无缘。”斯则知自 现代汉语译本：虚空却又并非一无所有。存在却又无法用言语来描述的，大概只有圣人的智慧了吧。为什么这么说呢？想说它有，却没有任何形状和名称可以指代；想说它没有，圣人却凭借它而具有灵性。圣人凭借它而具有灵性，所以虚空却不会失去照亮万物的能力；没有任何形状和名称可以指代，所以照亮万物的能力也不会失去其虚空的本质。照亮万物的能力不失去其虚空的本质，所以能够混同于万物却不会改变自身；虚空不失去照亮万物的能力，所以能够通过运动来接触粗糙的事物。因此，圣人智慧的运用，从未曾有片刻的停止；但如果想从外在的形相上寻找它，却从未曾能够找到。《宝积经》说：‘以无心意而显现行为。’《放光经》说：‘不动摇的等同觉悟而建立一切诸法。’所以圣人的事迹千变万化，但其最终的归宿却只有一个。因此，般若（Prajna，智慧）可以虚空却又能照亮万物，真谛（Paramārtha，最高真理）可以忘却却又能被认知，万物的运动可以即刻转化为静止，圣人的应化可以无所作为却又无所不为。这就是不知却又能自然而然地知晓，不作为却又能自然而然地作为！还需要知道什么呢？还需要做什么呢？ 有人反驳说：圣人的真心独自明亮，照耀着万物；应付各种情况没有固定的方式，行动与事物的发展相契合。照耀着万物，所以知晓没有遗漏；行动与事物的发展相契合，所以把握机会不会失去时机。把握机会不会失去时机，所以一定能够把握住可以把握的机会；知晓没有遗漏，所以一定能够知晓可以知晓的事物。一定能够知晓可以知晓的事物，所以圣人的知晓不是虚假的；一定能够把握住可以把握的机会，所以圣人的把握不是虚假的。既然知晓又能够把握，却说圣人无知无会，这是为什么呢？如果说是忘记了知晓，遗忘了把握，那就是圣人对于知晓和把握没有私心，从而成就了他的无私罢了。这可以说是没有将知晓据为己有，又怎么能说是无知呢？ 回答说：圣人的功德高于天地却不自以为有恩德，光明胜过日月却更加显得暗淡，难道是说圣人如同木头石头一样没有感觉吗？只是因为圣人达到了无知的境界罢了。实在是因为圣人异于常人的地方在于他的神明，所以不能用世俗的事相来要求他。你的意思是想让圣人不要将知晓据为己有，但圣人却未尝没有知晓，这难道不是违背了圣人的本心，曲解了经文的旨意吗？为什么这么说呢？经书上说：‘真正的般若（Prajna，智慧），清净如同虚空，无知无见，无作无缘。’这就是知晓的本
English
English version: Empty yet not nonexistent. Existing yet indescribable, perhaps only the wisdom of a sage can be like this. Why is that? If you want to say it exists, it has no form or name; if you want to say it doesn't exist, the sage uses it to be spiritually effective. Because the sage uses it to be spiritually effective, emptiness does not lose its ability to illuminate; because it has no form or name, the ability to illuminate does not lose its essence of emptiness. Because the ability to illuminate does not lose its essence of emptiness, it can merge with all things without changing itself; because emptiness does not lose its ability to illuminate, it can connect with coarse things through movement. Therefore, the use of the sage's wisdom never ceases for a moment; but if you try to find it in external forms, you can never find it. Therefore, the *Ratnakuta Sutra* says: 'Manifesting actions without intention.' The *Prajnaparamita Sutra* says: 'Establishing all dharmas while remaining in unwavering perfect enlightenment.' Therefore, the sage's actions are infinitely varied, but their ultimate goal is only one. Therefore, *Prajna* (wisdom) can be empty yet illuminate, *Paramārtha* (ultimate truth) can be forgotten yet known, the movement of all things can be instantly transformed into stillness, and the sage's response can be inaction yet accomplish everything. This is knowing without knowing, and acting without acting! What else needs to be known? What else needs to be done? Someone objects: The sage's true mind is uniquely bright, illuminating all things; responding to all situations without fixed methods, actions in harmony with the development of events. Illuminating all things, so there is no omission in knowledge; actions in harmony with the development of events, so seizing opportunities does not lose the timing. Seizing opportunities does not lose the timing, so one can certainly seize the opportunities that can be seized; knowing without omission, so one can certainly know the things that can be known. Certainly knowing the things that can be known, so the sage's knowledge is not false; certainly seizing the opportunities that can be seized, so the sage's seizing is not false. Since one knows and can seize, why say the sage has no knowledge and no seizing? If it is said that one forgets knowledge and abandons seizing, then it is that the sage has no selfish attachment to knowledge and seizing, thereby achieving his selflessness. This can be said to be not possessing knowledge as one's own, so how can it be said to be without knowledge? The answer is: The sage's merit is higher than heaven and earth yet he does not consider himself benevolent, his light surpasses the sun and moon yet he appears even more dim, is it said that the sage is like wood and stone, without feeling? It is only because the sage has reached the state of no-knowing. It is truly because the sage's difference from ordinary people lies in his spiritual brilliance, so he cannot be judged by worldly affairs. Your intention is to have the sage not possess knowledge as his own, but the sage has never been without knowledge, is this not contrary to the sage's mind and a misinterpretation of the meaning of the scriptures? Why is that? The scriptures say: 'True *Prajna* (wisdom) is pure like empty space, without knowing, without seeing, without acting, without conditions.' This is the essence of knowledge. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
无知矣，岂待返照然后无知哉？若有知性空而称净者，则不辨于惑智，三毒四倒亦皆清净，有何独尊于般若？若以所知美般若，所知非般若，所知自常净，故般若未尝净，亦无缘致净叹于般若。然经云“般若清净”者，将无以般若体性真净，本无惑取之知。本无惑取之知，不可以知名哉。岂唯无知名无知，知自无知矣！是以圣人以无知之般若，照彼无相之真谛。真谛无兔马之遗，般若无不穷之鉴，所以会而不差、当而无是。寂怕、无知，而无不知者矣。 难曰：夫物无以自通，故立名以通物。物虽非名，果有可名之物当于此名矣。是以即名求物，物不能隐。而论云“圣心无知”，又云“无所不知”。意谓无知未尝知，知未尝无知。斯则名教之所通，立言之本意也。然论者欲一于圣心，异于文旨。寻文求实，未见其当。何者？若知得于圣心，无知无所辨；若无知得于圣心，知亦无所辨；若二都无得，无所复论哉！ 答曰：经云：“般若义者，无名无说，非有非无，非实非虚。”虚不失照，照不失虚，斯则无名之法，故非言所能言也。言虽不能言，然非言无以传，是以圣人终日言而未尝言也。今试为子狂言辨之。夫圣心者，微妙无相，不可为有；用之弥勤，不可为无。不可为无，故圣智存焉；不可为有，故名 现代汉语译本：真是糊涂啊，难道要等到反过来观察之后才知道自己无知吗？如果有人认为知性是空性的，并称之为清净，那就无法分辨迷惑和智慧，三毒（贪嗔痴）和四倒（常乐我净的颠倒）也都是清净的，那般若（prajna，智慧）又有什么独特的尊贵之处呢？如果用所知来赞美般若，那么所知就不是般若，所知本身就是常净的，所以般若从未清净过，也没有任何因缘可以使它变得清净，从而赞叹般若。然而经书上说‘般若清净’，这难道不是因为般若的体性是真实清净的，本来就没有迷惑和执取的知吗？本来就没有迷惑和执取的知，难道可以用知来命名吗？岂止是没有知可以命名，没有知可以认知，知本身就是无知的啊！因此，圣人以无知的般若，照耀那无相的真谛（paramārtha-satya，胜义谛）。真谛没有兔角马毛的遗迹，般若没有无穷无尽的鉴照，所以能够契合而不差错，恰当而没有偏颇。寂静、空旷、无知，却又无所不知啊！ 有人提问说：事物不能自己沟通，所以设立名称来沟通事物。事物虽然不是名称本身，但确实有可以被命名的事物对应于这个名称。因此，根据名称来寻找事物，事物就无法隐藏。而您的理论说‘圣心无知’，又说‘无所不知’。意思是说无知从未真正知，知也从未真正无知。这正是名教（指儒家）所要沟通的，也是立言的根本用意啊。然而，您的理论想要统一于圣心，却背离了经文的旨意。按照经文来寻求实际，我没有看到它的合理之处。为什么呢？如果知是从圣心中获得的，那么无知就无法分辨；如果无知是从圣心中获得的，那么知也无法分辨；如果知和无知都无法从圣心中获得，那还有什么可以讨论的呢？ 回答说：经书上说：‘般若的意义，是无名无说，非有非无，非实非虚。’空虚不失去照耀，照耀不失去空虚，这就是无名的法，所以不是言语所能表达的。言语虽然不能完全表达，但没有言语就无法传达，所以圣人整天都在说话，却从未真正说过什么。现在我尝试用疯狂的言语来为您辩解。圣心，微妙而无相，不可认为是存在；运用它越是勤奋，越不可认为是虚无。不可认为是虚无，所以圣智存在于其中；不可认为是存在，所以称之为无知。