English
English version: You speak of 'knowing'; how is this knowing known? However, wisdom is not without knowing, but ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya) is not something that can be known, so true wisdom is also not a form of knowing. And you wish to seek wisdom through conditions (pratyaya), thus you take wisdom to be knowing. Conditions themselves are not conditions; from where do you seek knowing? The questioner asks: The treatise says 'does not grasp'. Is it that one does not grasp because of not knowing? Or does one not grasp after knowing? If one does not grasp because of not knowing, then the sage would be like one wandering in the night, unable to distinguish between black and white! If one does not grasp after knowing, then knowing is different from not grasping! The answerer says: It is not that one does not grasp because of not knowing; nor is it that one does not grasp after knowing. Knowing is not grasping, therefore one is able to know without grasping. The questioner asks: The treatise says 'does not grasp', truly because the sage's mind is not attached to things, therefore there is no delusion or grasping. Without grasping, there is no 'is'; without 'is', there is no 'should be'. Who can judge the sage's mind, and say that the sage's mind knows everything? The answerer says: Yes. There is no 'is', no 'should be'. Without 'should be', then everything is appropriate; without 'is', then everything is not not. Everything is not not, therefore it is 'is' and yet not 'is'; everything is appropriate, therefore it is appropriate and yet not appropriate. Therefore, the sutra says: 'Completely seeing all dharmas and yet seeing nothing.' The questioner asks: It is not that the sage's mind cannot say 'is', truly because there is no 'is' to say. Even if there is no 'is' to say, therefore one should say that there is no 'is'. Therefore, the sutra says 'Ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya) has no form, therefore prajna (wisdom) has no knowing', truly because prajna (wisdom) has no knowing with form. If one takes no-form as no-form, what harm does it do to ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya)? The answerer says: The sage does not have no-form. Why? If one takes no-form as no-form, then no-form becomes form. Abandoning existence and heading towards non-existence is like fleeing from a mountain peak only to jump into a deep valley; neither can escape suffering. Therefore, the perfected person dwells in existence without being attached to existence, dwells in non-existence without being attached to non-existence. Although one does not grasp at existence or non-existence, one also does not abandon existence or non-existence. Therefore, one harmonizes with the dust and labor, revolves in the five realms of existence (gati), silently departs, suddenly arrives, tranquil and without action, yet there is nothing that is not done. The questioner asks: Although the sage's mind has no knowing, yet its way of responding to and harmonizing with the world is without error. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。是以可应者应之，不可应者存之。然则圣心有时而生、有时而灭。可得然乎？ 答曰：生灭者，生灭心也。圣人无心，生灭焉起？然非无心，但是无心心耳；又非不应，但是不应应耳。是以圣人应会之道，则信若四时之质。直以虚无为体，斯不可得而生、不可得而灭也。 难曰：圣智之无、惑智之无，俱无生灭。何以异之？ 答曰：圣智之无者，无知；惑智之无者，知无。其无虽同，所以无者，异也。何者？夫圣心虚静，无知可无，可曰无知，非谓知无。惑智有知，故有知可无，可谓知无，非曰无知也。无知，即般若之无也；知无，即真谛之无也。是以般若之与真谛，言用，即同而异；言寂，即异而同。同，故无心于彼此；异，故不失于照功。是以辨同者同于异，辨异者异于同，斯则不可得而异、不可得而同也。何者？内有独鉴之明，外有万法之实。万法虽实，然非照不得。内外相与以成其照功，此则圣所不能同；用也。内虽照而无知，外虽实而无相。内外寂然，相与俱无，此则圣所不能异；寂也。是以经云“诸法不异”者，岂曰续凫截鹤、夷岳盈壑，然后无异哉？诚以不异于异，故虽异而不异也。故经云：“甚奇，世尊！于无异法中而说诸法异。”又云：“般若与诸法，亦不一相，亦不异相。 现代汉语译本：所以，应该回应的就回应，不应该回应的就保持沉默。那么，圣人的心有时产生，有时消灭。可以这样认为吗？ 回答说：产生和消灭的是产生和消灭的心。圣人没有（分别）心，产生和消灭从哪里产生呢？然而，并非没有心，只是没有执着的心罢了；又不是不回应，只是不以有心的方式回应罢了。因此，圣人应付世事的方法，就像四季的运行一样自然。直接以虚无作为本体，这样就无法产生，也无法消灭。 提问说：圣人的智慧之‘无’，迷惑者的智慧之‘无’，都没有产生和消灭。有什么区别呢？ 回答说：圣人智慧的‘无’，是‘无知’（没有分别的智慧）；迷惑者智慧的‘无’，是‘知无’（知道万法皆空）。它们的‘无’虽然相同，但导致‘无’的原因不同。为什么呢？因为圣人的心虚空寂静，没有（具体的）知识可以去除，所以可以称为‘无知’，而不是说‘知道万法皆空’。迷惑者的智慧有（具体的）知识，所以有（具体的）知识可以去除，可以称为‘知无’，而不是说‘无知’。‘无知’，就是般若（prajna，智慧）的‘无’；‘知无’，就是真谛（paramārtha，第一义谛）的‘无’。因此，般若与真谛，从作用上说，相同而不同；从寂静上说，不同而相同。相同，所以心中没有彼此的分别；不同，所以不会失去照见万法的功用。因此，分辨相同的人，在不同中看到相同；分辨不同的人，在相同中看到不同，这样就无法说它们是不同，也无法说它们是相同。为什么呢？因为内心有独自照见的明性，外在有万法的实相。万法虽然是实相，但如果不能被照见，也就无法显现。内外相互作用，成就了照见的功用，这是圣人所不能等同的，这是从作用上来说的。内心虽然照见，却没有分别的知见；外在虽然是实相，却没有固定的相状。内外寂然不动，相互之间都归于空无，这是圣人所不能区分的，这是从寂静上来说的。因此，经书上说‘诸法不异’，难道是说把野鸭的腿接长，把鹤的腿截短，铲平高山，填满深谷，然后才没有差异吗？真正的不异，是在差异中看到不异，所以虽然有差异，但本质上是不异的。所以经书上说：‘非常奇妙，世尊（Śākyamuni，释迦牟尼佛）！在没有差异的法中，却宣说了诸法的差异。’又说：‘般若与诸法，也不是完全相同，也不是完全不同。’
English
English version: Therefore, those who can be responded to should be responded to, and those who cannot be responded to should be kept in silence. Then, the mind of a sage sometimes arises and sometimes ceases. Can it be considered so? The answer is: What arises and ceases is the mind of arising and ceasing. Sages have no (discriminating) mind, so where does arising and ceasing originate? However, it is not that they have no mind, but only that they have no attached mind; and it is not that they do not respond, but only that they do not respond with a deliberate mind. Therefore, the way sages respond to the world is as natural as the cycle of the four seasons. They directly take emptiness as their essence, so it cannot be born and cannot be extinguished. The question is: The 'absence' of a sage's wisdom and the 'absence' of a deluded person's wisdom both have no arising and ceasing. What is the difference between them? The answer is: The 'absence' of a sage's wisdom is 'no-knowing' (absence of discriminating wisdom); the 'absence' of a deluded person's wisdom is 'knowing absence' (knowing that all dharmas are empty). Although their 'absence' is the same, the reasons for the 'absence' are different. Why? Because the mind of a sage is empty and tranquil, and there is no (specific) knowledge to remove, so it can be called 'no-knowing', not 'knowing that all dharmas are empty'. The wisdom of a deluded person has (specific) knowledge, so there is (specific) knowledge to remove, and it can be called 'knowing absence', not 'no-knowing'. 'No-knowing' is the 'absence' of prajna (prajna, wisdom); 'knowing absence' is the 'absence' of paramārtha (paramārtha, ultimate truth). Therefore, prajna and paramārtha, in terms of function, are the same yet different; in terms of stillness, they are different yet the same. The same, so there is no distinction between self and other in the mind; different, so they do not lose the function of illuminating all dharmas. Therefore, those who distinguish sameness see sameness in difference; those who distinguish difference see difference in sameness, so it cannot be said that they are different, nor can it be said that they are the same. Why? Because there is a solitary illuminating clarity within, and there is the reality of all dharmas without. Although all dharmas are real, they cannot be manifested if they cannot be illuminated. The inner and outer interact to accomplish the function of illumination, which is what sages cannot equate, this is in terms of function. Although the inner illuminates, there is no discriminating knowledge; although the outer is real, there is no fixed form. The inner and outer are still and unmoving, and both return to emptiness, which is what sages cannot distinguish, this is in terms of stillness. Therefore, the scriptures say 'all dharmas are not different', does it mean that lengthening the legs of a wild duck, shortening the legs of a crane, leveling high mountains, and filling deep valleys, then there is no difference? True non-difference is seeing non-difference in difference, so although there is difference, it is essentially non-different. Therefore, the scriptures say: 'It is very wonderful, World Honored One (Śākyamuni, Buddha)! In the absence of different dharmas, you proclaim the differences of all dharmas.' It also says: 'Prajna and all dharmas are neither completely the same nor completely different.' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ”信矣。
Chinese
难曰：论云“言用则异，言寂则同。”未详般若之内，则有用寂之异乎？ 答曰：用即寂、寂即用，用寂体一，同出而异名；更无无用之寂而主于用也。是以智弥昧，照逾明；神弥静，应逾动。岂曰明昧动静之异哉？故《成具》云：“不为而过为。”《宝积》曰：“无心无识，无不觉知。”斯则穷神尽智，极象外之谈也。即之明文，圣心可知矣。 般若无知论(终) 刘遗民书问附 遗民和南：顷餐徽闻，有怀遥伫。岁未寒严，体中如何？音寄壅隔，增用抱蕴。弟子沉痾草泽，常有弊瘵耳。因慧明道人北游，裁通其情。古人不以形疏致淡，悟涉则亲。是以虽复江山悠邈，不面当年，至于企怀风味，镜心象迹，伫悦之勤，良以深矣。缅然无因，瞻霞永叹，顺时爱敬。冀因行李，数有承问。伏愿彼大众康和！外国法师休纳！上人以悟发之器而遘兹渊对，想开究之功，足以尽过半之思。故以每惟乖阔，愤愧何深。此山僧清常，道戒弥励，禅隐之余则惟研惟讲。恂恂穆穆，故可乐矣。弟子既以遂宿心，而睹兹上轨，感寄之诚，日月铭至。远法师顷恒履宜，思业精诣，干干宵夕。自非道用潜流，理为神御，孰以过顺之年，湛气若兹之勤？所以凭慰既深，仰谢逾绝。 去年夏末， 信矣。 难曰：论云‘言用则异，言寂则同。’未详般若（Prajna，智慧）之内，则有用寂之异乎？ 答曰：用即寂、寂即用，用寂体一，同出而异名；更无无用之寂而主于用也。是以智弥昧，照逾明；神弥静，应逾动。岂曰明昧动静之异哉？故《成具》云：‘不为而过为。’《宝积》曰：‘无心无识，无不觉知。’斯则穷神尽智，极象外之谈也。即之明文，圣心可知矣。 般若无知论(终) 刘遗民书问附 遗民和南：顷餐徽闻，有怀遥伫。岁未寒严，体中如何？音寄壅隔，增用抱蕴。弟子沉痾草泽，常有弊瘵耳。因慧明道人北游，裁通其情。古人不以形疏致淡，悟涉则亲。是以虽复江山悠邈，不面当年，至于企怀风味，镜心象迹，伫悦之勤，良以深矣。缅然无因，瞻霞永叹，顺时爱敬。冀因行李，数有承问。伏愿彼大众康和！外国法师休纳！上人以悟发之器而遘兹渊对，想开究之功，足以尽过半之思。故以每惟乖阔，愤愧何深。此山僧清常，道戒弥励，禅隐之余则惟研惟讲。恂恂穆穆，故可乐矣。弟子既以遂宿心，而睹兹上轨，感寄之诚，日月铭至。远法师顷恒履宜，思业精诣，干干宵夕。自非道用潜流，理为神御，孰以过顺之年，湛气若兹之勤？所以凭慰既深，仰谢逾绝。 去年夏末，