English
English version: How ignorant! Must one wait to reflect inwardly before realizing one's ignorance? If someone considers the nature of knowing to be empty and calls it pure, then they cannot distinguish between delusion and wisdom. The three poisons (greed, hatred, and delusion) and the four inversions (the misperception of permanence, pleasure, self, and purity) would all be pure, so what unique dignity would prajna (wisdom) possess? If one uses what is known to praise prajna, then what is known is not prajna. What is known is inherently always pure, so prajna has never been pure, nor is there any condition that can make it pure, thus praising prajna. However, the scriptures say 'prajna is pure.' Isn't this because the essence of prajna is truly pure, originally without the knowing of delusion and attachment? Originally without the knowing of delusion and attachment, can it be named by knowing? Not only is there no knowing to name, no knowing to perceive, but knowing itself is unknowing! Therefore, the sage uses unknowing prajna to illuminate the formless true reality (paramārtha-satya). True reality has no trace of rabbit horns or horsehair, and prajna has inexhaustible illumination, so it can accord without error, be appropriate without bias. Silent, vast, unknowing, yet there is nothing it does not know! Someone asks: Things cannot communicate by themselves, so names are established to communicate things. Although things are not the names themselves, there are indeed things that can be named corresponding to these names. Therefore, if you seek things according to their names, things cannot hide. But your theory says 'the sage's mind is unknowing,' and also says 'knows everything.' The meaning is that unknowing has never truly known, and knowing has never truly been unknowing. This is precisely what the teachings of names (referring to Confucianism) aim to communicate, and it is the fundamental intention of establishing words. However, your theory wants to unify with the sage's mind, but it deviates from the meaning of the scriptures. Seeking reality according to the scriptures, I do not see its rationality. Why? If knowing is obtained from the sage's mind, then unknowing cannot be distinguished; if unknowing is obtained from the sage's mind, then knowing cannot be distinguished; if neither knowing nor unknowing can be obtained from the sage's mind, then what is there to discuss? The answer is: The scriptures say: 'The meaning of prajna is nameless and unspeakable, neither existent nor non-existent, neither real nor unreal.' Emptiness does not lose its illumination, and illumination does not lose its emptiness. This is the nameless Dharma, so it cannot be expressed by words. Although words cannot fully express it, without words there is no way to convey it, so the sage speaks all day long, but has never truly said anything. Now I will try to explain it to you with crazy words. The sage's mind is subtle and formless, it cannot be considered existent; the more diligently it is used, the more it cannot be considered non-existent. Because it cannot be considered non-existent, sage wisdom exists within it; because it cannot be considered existent, it is called unknowing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
教绝焉。是以言知不为知，欲以通其鉴；不知非不知，欲以辨其相。辨相，不为无；通鉴，不为有。非有，故知而无知；非无；故无知而知。是以知即无知，无知即知。无以言异而异于圣心也。 难曰：夫真谛深玄，非智不测。圣智之能，在兹而显。故经云：“不得般若，不见真谛。”真谛，则般若之缘也。以缘求智，智则知矣。 答曰：以缘求智，智非知也。何者？放光云：“不缘色生识，是名不见色。”又云：“五阴清净故，般若清净。”般若即能知也，五阴即所知也。所知，即缘也。夫知与所知，相与而有、相与而无。相与而无，故物莫之有；相与而有，故物莫之无。物莫之无，故为缘之所起；物莫之有，故则缘所不能生。缘所不能生，故照缘而非知；为缘之所起，故知、缘相因而生。是以知与无知，生于所知矣。何者？夫智以知所知，取相故名知。真谛自无相，真智何由知？所以然者，夫所知非所知，所知生于知；所知既生知，知亦生所知。所、知既相生，相生即缘法，缘法故非真。非真，故非真谛也。故《中观》云：“物从因缘有，故不真。不从因缘有，故即真。”今真谛曰真，真则非缘。真非缘，故无物从缘而生也。故经云：“不见有法无缘而生。”是以真智观真谛，未尝取所知。智不取所 现代汉语译本：教化止息了。因此，（圣人）说知道不是真正的知道，是为了能够通达事物的本性；不知道不是真正的不知道，是为了能够辨别事物的表象。辨别事物的表象，不是虚无；通达事物的本性，不是实有。不是实有，所以知道也等于无知；不是虚无，所以无知也等于知道。因此，知道就是无知，无知就是知道。没有什么可以用言语来区分，而能不同于圣人的心境。 有人提问：真谛（Paramārtha-satya，终极真理）深奥玄妙，不用智慧无法测度。圣人的智慧能力，正是在这里显现。所以佛经上说：‘不得般若（Prajñā，智慧），不见真谛。’真谛，就是般若的所缘。通过所缘来求得智慧，智慧就能认识真谛了。 回答说：通过所缘来求得的智慧，不是真正的智慧。为什么呢？《放光经》上说：‘不缘于色（Rūpa，物质）而生起识（Vijñāna，意识），这叫做不见色。’又说：‘五阴（Pañca-skandha，五蕴）清净的缘故，般若也就清净。’般若就是能知，五阴就是所知。所知，就是所缘。能知与所知，相互依存而存在，相互依存而消亡。相互依存而消亡，所以万物没有实在的自性；相互依存而存在，所以万物没有完全的虚无。万物没有完全的虚无，所以是因缘所生起；万物没有实在的自性，所以不是因缘所能生。不是因缘所能生，所以照见因缘而不是真正的知；是因缘所生起，所以知与因缘相互依存而生。因此，知与无知，都生于所知。为什么呢？智慧通过认识所知而产生，因为取了事物的表象所以叫做知。真谛本身没有表象，真正的智慧又怎么能认识它呢？之所以这样说，是因为所知不是真正的所知，所知是由于知而产生的；所知既然产生了知，知也产生了所知。所知与知既然相互产生，相互产生就是缘法，是缘法就不是真。不是真，所以不是真谛。所以《中观论》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）上说：‘事物从因缘而有，所以不是真实的。不从因缘而有，那就是真实的。’现在说真谛是真，真就不是因缘。真不是因缘，所以没有事物是从因缘而生的。所以佛经上说：‘没有不依靠因缘而产生的法。’因此，真正的智慧观察真谛，从来不取所知。
English
English version: Teaching ceases. Therefore, it is said that knowing is not true knowing, in order to understand the nature of things; not knowing is not true not knowing, in order to distinguish the appearances of things. Distinguishing appearances is not emptiness; understanding the nature of things is not existence. Not existence, therefore knowing is equivalent to not knowing; not emptiness, therefore not knowing is equivalent to knowing. Therefore, knowing is not knowing, and not knowing is knowing. There is nothing that can be distinguished by words that differs from the mind of a sage. Objection: The true reality (Paramārtha-satya, ultimate truth) is profound and mysterious, and cannot be fathomed without wisdom. The ability of the sage's wisdom is manifested here. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Without prajna (Prajñā, wisdom), one cannot see the true reality.' The true reality is the object of prajna. Seeking wisdom through the object, wisdom will then know the true reality. Reply: Wisdom sought through the object is not true wisdom. Why? The Sutra of Light Emission says: 'Not arising consciousness (Vijñāna, consciousness) from form (Rūpa, matter), this is called not seeing form.' It also says: 'Because the five skandhas (Pañca-skandha, five aggregates) are pure, prajna is pure.' Prajna is the knower, and the five skandhas are the known. The known is the object. The knower and the known exist together and cease together. Ceasing together, therefore all things have no inherent nature; existing together, therefore all things are not completely empty. Because things are not completely empty, they arise from conditions; because things have no inherent nature, they cannot be produced by conditions. Because they cannot be produced by conditions, they illuminate conditions but are not true knowledge; because they arise from conditions, knowledge and conditions arise interdependently. Therefore, knowing and not knowing arise from the known. Why? Wisdom arises by knowing the known, and is called knowing because it takes the appearance of things. The true reality itself has no appearance, so how can true wisdom know it? The reason for this is that the known is not truly known, and the known arises from knowing; since the known arises from knowing, knowing also arises from the known. Since the known and knowing arise mutually, mutual arising is conditioned dharma, and conditioned dharma is not true. Not true, therefore not the true reality. Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way) says: 'Things exist from conditions, therefore they are not real. Not existing from conditions, that is real.' Now the true reality is called true, and true is not a condition. True is not a condition, therefore no thing arises from conditions. Therefore, the sutra says: 'There is no dharma that arises without conditions.' Therefore, true wisdom observes the true reality without ever taking the known. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
知，此智何由知？然智非无知，但真谛非所知，故真智亦非知。而子欲以缘求智，故以智为知。缘自非缘，于何而求知？ 难曰：论云“不取”者，为无知故不取？为知然后不取耶？若无知故不取，圣人则冥若夜游，不辨缁素之异耶！若知然后不取，知则异于不取矣！ 答曰：非无知，故不取；又非知，然后不取。知即不取，故能不取而知。 难曰：论云“不取”者，诚以圣心不物于物，故无惑取也。无取则无是，无是则无当。谁当圣心，而云圣心无所不知耶？ 答曰：然。无是、无当者。夫无当，则物无不当；无是；则物无不是。物无不是，故是而无是；物无不当，故当而无当。故经云：“尽见诸法而无所见。” 难曰：圣心非不能是，诚以无是可是。虽无是可是，故当是于无是矣。是以经云“真谛无相故般若无知”者，诚以般若无有有相之知。若以无相为无相，有何累于真谛耶？ 答曰：圣人无无相也。何者？若以无相为无相，无相即为相。舍有而之无，譬犹逃峰而赴壑，俱不免于患矣。是以至人处有而不有，居无而不无。虽不取于有无，然亦不舍于有无。所以和光尘劳，周旋五趣，寂然而往，怕尔而来，恬淡无为而无不为。 难曰：圣心虽无知，然其应会之道不差 现代汉语译本：你所说的‘知’，是通过什么来了解的呢？然而智慧并非没有知觉，只是真谛并非可以被认知的事物，所以真正的智慧也不是一种认知。而你想要通过因缘来寻求智慧，所以把智慧当成了认知。因缘本身就不是因缘，又从何处去寻求认知呢？ 提问者说：经论中说‘不取’，是因为没有知觉所以不取吗？还是因为知道之后才不取呢？如果因为没有知觉所以不取，那么圣人就如同在黑夜中行走，无法分辨黑色和白色之间的区别了！如果知道之后才不取，那么知道就和不取是不同的了！ 回答者说：不是因为没有知觉，所以不取；也不是因为知道，然后才不取。知道就是不取，所以能够不取而知。 提问者说：经论中说‘不取’，确实是因为圣人的心不被外物所束缚，所以没有迷惑和执取。没有执取就没有‘是’，没有‘是’就没有‘当’。谁能评判圣人的心，而说圣人的心无所不知呢？ 回答者说：是的。没有‘是’，没有‘当’。没有‘当’，那么万物没有不合适的；没有‘是’，那么万物没有不是的。万物没有不是的，所以是而无是；万物没有不合适的，所以当而无当。所以经书上说：‘完全看见诸法却没有任何看见。’ 提问者说：圣人的心不是不能说是，确实是因为没有‘是’可以去说是。即使没有‘是’可以去说是，所以应当说是没有‘是’。因此经书上说‘真谛没有相，所以般若没有知’，确实是因为般若没有具有有相的知。如果把没有相当作没有相，对真谛有什么损害呢？ 回答者说：圣人没有没有相。为什么呢？如果把没有相当作没有相，没有相就成了相。舍弃有而趋向无，好比逃离山峰却跳入深谷，都不能免除祸患。因此，达到极高境界的人，处于有而不执着于有，处于无而不执着于无。虽然不执取于有无，然而也不舍弃有无。所以和光同尘，周旋于五道轮回，寂静地离去，忽然地到来，恬淡无为却无所不为。 提问者说：圣人的心虽然没有知，然而它应合世间万物的道理不会有差错