T45n1858_肇論
大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1858 肇論
No. 1858
肇論序
小招提寺沙門 慧達 作
慧達率愚，通序長安釋僧肇法師所作《宗本》《物不遷》等四論。但末代弘經，允屬四依菩薩。爰傳茲土，抑亦其例。至如彌天大德童壽桑門，並創始命宗，圖辯格致，播揚宣述，所事玄虛，唯斯擬聖默之所祖。自降乎已還，歷代古今，凡著名僧傳及傳所不載者，釋僧睿等三千餘僧、清信檀越謝靈運等八百許人，至能辯正方言、節文階級、善核名教、精搜義理。揖此群賢語之所統，有美若人，超語兼默，標本則句句深達佛心，明末則言言備通眾教。諒是大乘懿典、方等博書。自古自今著文著筆，詳汰名賢所作諸論，或六七宗，爰延十二，並判其臧否、辯其差當，唯此憲章無弊斯咎。良由襟情泛若，不知何系。譬彼淵海，數越九流，挺拔清虛，蕭然物外。知公者希，歸公採什，如曰不知，則公貴矣。
達猥生天幸，逢此正音，忻躍弗已，饗宴無疲。每至披尋，不勝手舞，誓願生生盡命弘述。達于肇之遺文，其猶若是，況《中》、《百》、《門》觀，爰洎方等深經，而不至增乎！世諺咸云：「肇之所作，故是誠實真諦，地論通宗，莊老所資猛浪之說。」此實巨蠱之言，欺誣亡沒，
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《肇論》序
小招提寺沙門慧達 作
慧達以愚昧之身，概述長安釋僧肇法師所作的《宗本》、《物不遷》等四論。末法時代弘揚佛經，確實要依靠四依菩薩（指比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷）。佛經傳到這片土地，也是同樣的道理。像鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）這樣的大德高僧，開創宗派，研究辯論方法，傳播宣揚佛法，所從事的玄妙虛無之事，都是傚法聖人的沉默之道。自從鳩摩羅什之後，歷代古今，凡是著名的僧傳以及僧傳沒有記載的，像釋僧睿等三千多僧人、清信檀越（Dānapati，指施主）謝靈運等八百多人，都能辨正方言，整理文章的結構，善於考覈名教，精深地搜尋義理。綜合這些賢人的言論，有像僧肇這樣美好的人，超越了言語和沉默，從根本上說，句句都深刻地領悟了佛心，從末節上說，字字都完備地通達了各種教義。這確實是大乘的優秀典籍、方等部的廣博經書。從古到今，著書立說，詳細地評判名賢所作的各種論著，有的六七宗，有的甚至十二宗，都評判它們的優劣，辨別它們的差異和恰當之處，只有這部《肇論》沒有弊病和過失。這實在是由於僧肇的胸懷像大海一樣寬廣，不知道歸屬於哪個體系。譬如那深淵大海，容納了無數的河流，僧肇挺拔清虛，超然於物外。瞭解他的人很少，歸納他的思想，如果說不了解，那麼他的思想就顯得更加珍貴了。
我慧達有幸生逢這個純正的聲音，歡喜雀躍，不知疲倦。每當打開閱讀，都忍不住手舞足蹈，發誓生生世世盡力弘揚闡述。我對僧肇的遺文，尚且如此，更何況《中論》、《百論》、《十二門論》（Madhyamaka-kārikā, Śata-śāstra, Dvādaśa-mukha-śāstra）這些論著，以及方等部的深奧經典，難道不會更加努力嗎！世俗的諺語都說：『僧肇所作的，本來就是誠實真諦，《地論》通達宗義，莊子和老子是猛浪之說。』這實在是巨大的蠱惑之言，欺騙和誣陷已經去世的人。
【English Translation】 English version Preface to the Zhao Lun
By Śrāmaṇa Huida of Xiaozhaoti Monastery
Huida, in his foolishness, provides a general introduction to the four treatises, including the 'Zongben' (The Fundamental Principle) and 'Wubuqian' (Things Do Not Move), written by the Śramaṇa Sengzhao of Chang'an. In this final age of propagating the scriptures, it is indeed reliant on the Fourfold Assembly Bodhisattvas (referring to Bhikṣus, Bhikṣuṇīs, Upāsakas, and Upāsikās). The transmission of the scriptures to this land follows the same principle. Great virtuous monks like Kumārajīva, who founded schools, researched methods of debate, propagated and expounded the Dharma, engaged in profound and subtle matters, all emulated the silence of the sages. Since Kumārajīva, throughout the ages, both those recorded in famous monastic biographies and those not recorded, such as the three thousand monks including Shi Sengrui, and the eight hundred or so devout patrons including Xie Lingyun, were all able to rectify dialects, organize the structure of texts, skillfully examine the teachings of Confucianism, and deeply search for the principles of righteousness. Combining the words of these wise individuals, there was someone as excellent as Sengzhao, who transcended both speech and silence. Fundamentally speaking, every sentence profoundly understood the Buddha's mind; in detail, every word thoroughly comprehended all teachings. This is truly an excellent scripture of the Mahāyāna, a vast book of the Vaipulya (方等) division. From ancient times to the present, in writing and composing, detailed evaluations have been made of the various treatises written by famous scholars, some with six or seven schools, some even with twelve, all judging their merits and demerits, distinguishing their differences and appropriateness. Only this Zhao Lun has no flaws or faults. This is truly because Sengzhao's mind is as vast as the ocean, not knowing to which system it belongs. Like the deep sea, which accommodates countless rivers, Sengzhao stands tall and pure, detached from worldly affairs. Few understand him; summarizing his thoughts, if one says they do not understand, then his thoughts become even more precious.
I, Huida, am fortunate to have encountered this pure sound, rejoicing and leaping without end, never tiring. Every time I open and read it, I cannot help but dance with my hands, vowing to propagate and expound it to the best of my ability in every lifetime. If I am like this towards Sengzhao's surviving writings, how much more so towards treatises such as the Madhyamaka-kārikā, Śata-śāstra, and Dvādaśa-mukha-śāstra, as well as the profound scriptures of the Vaipulya division! The common saying goes: 'What Sengzhao wrote is originally the honest and true ultimate truth; the Dasabhumika-sutra (地論) penetrates the essence of the teachings, while Zhuangzi and Laozi are merely turbulent waves.' This is truly a huge bewilderment, deceiving and slandering the deceased.
街巷陋音，未之足拾。夫神道不形，心敏難繪。既文拘而義遠，故眾端之所詭。肇之卜意豈徒然哉？良有以也。如復徇狎其言，愿生生不面，至獲忍心，還度斯下。
達留連講肆二十餘年，頗逢重席，末睹斯論。聊寄一序，托悟在中。同我賢余，請俟來哲。夫大分深義，厥號本無，故建言宗旨標乎實相。開空法道，莫逾真俗，所以次釋二諦，顯佛教門。但圓正之因無上般若，至極之果唯有涅槃，故末啟重玄，明眾聖之所宅。雖以性空擬本，無本可稱；語本絕言，非心行處。然則不遷當俗，俗則不生；不真為真，真但名說。若能放曠蕩然崇茲一道，清耳虛襟無言二諦，斯則凈照之功著，故般若無知。無名之德興，而涅槃不稱。余謂此說周圓罄佛淵海，浩博無涯窮法體相。雖復言約而義豐、文華而理詣，語勢連環，意實孤誕。敢是絕妙好辭，莫不竭茲洪論。所以童壽嘆言：「解空第一，肇公其人。」斯言有由矣，彰在翰牘。但宗本蕭然，莫能致詰。《不遷》等四論，事開接引，問答析微，所以稱論。
肇論
後秦長安 釋僧肇 作
宗本義
本無、實相、法性、性空、緣會，一義耳。何則？一切諸法，緣會而生。緣會而生，則未生無有，緣離則滅。如其真有，有則無滅。以此而推，故知雖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 街頭巷尾的粗俗言語，不值得拾取。神道的玄妙無法用具體形象來描繪，即使心思敏銳的人也很難領會。如果文字過於拘泥，就會導致意義的偏離，從而產生各種各樣的誤解。當初開始占卜來揣測天意，難道是徒勞的嗎？其中自有道理。如果再遷就那些粗俗的言語，我寧願生生世世不再見面，甚至狠下心腸，也要遠離這些低俗的東西。 達法師在講堂里講學二十多年，也曾多次參加重要的法會，但從未見過這樣的論述。我姑且寫一篇序言，希望讀者能從中領悟。與我志同道合的賢士們，請等待未來的智者來評判。所謂『大分深義』，其名稱本來就是沒有的，所以建立言說的宗旨在於標明『實相』（Reality）。開啟空性的法門，沒有超過『真諦』（Ultimate Truth）和『俗諦』（Conventional Truth）的，所以接下來解釋二諦，來彰顯佛教的法門。但是，圓滿正道的因是無上的『般若』（Prajna，智慧），最終極的果是唯一的『涅槃』（Nirvana，寂滅），所以最後開啟重玄之門，來說明眾聖所歸之處。雖然用『性空』（Emptiness of inherent existence）來比擬根本，但根本是無法用言語來稱說的；說到根本，就超越了言語，不是心識所能達到的地方。如此說來，不遷流就相當於俗諦，俗諦就是不生不滅；不認為是真的才是真諦，真諦只是一個名稱而已。如果能夠放曠自在，崇尚這一道理，以清凈的耳朵和虛懷若谷的心態來領悟無言的二諦，那麼清凈觀照的功用就會顯現，所以說般若無知。無名的德行興盛，而涅槃也無法用言語來稱說。我認為這種說法周全圓滿，窮盡了佛法的淵深廣闊，浩瀚無邊，窮盡了法體的相狀。雖然言語簡略而意義豐富，文采華麗而道理精深，語勢連貫，但意境確實獨特。即使是最絕妙的辭藻，也無法窮盡這宏大的論述。所以童壽讚歎說：『對於空性的理解，僧肇是第一人。』這種說法是有原因的，彰顯在他的著作中。但是宗本的道理深遠，沒有人能夠提出質疑。《不遷》等四論，是爲了接引初學者而展開的，通過問答來分析細微之處，所以被稱為『論』。 《肇論》 後秦長安 釋僧肇 作 宗本義 本無（The Original Non-Being）、實相（Reality）、法性（Dharmata, the nature of phenomena）、性空（Emptiness of inherent existence）、緣會（Dependent arising），這都是一個意思。為什麼這麼說呢？因為一切諸法都是由因緣和合而生。由因緣和合而生，那麼在未生之前就是沒有的，因緣離散就會滅亡。如果它真的是存在的，存在就不會滅亡。通過這個道理來推論，所以知道雖然
【English Translation】 English version: Vulgar sounds from streets and alleys are not worth picking up. The subtlety of the divine way cannot be depicted in concrete form, and even those with keen minds find it difficult to comprehend. If the writing is too rigid, it will lead to a deviation in meaning, resulting in various misunderstandings. Was the initial divination to speculate on the will of heaven in vain? There is a reason for it. If I were to indulge in those vulgar words again, I would rather not meet them in lifetimes to come, and even harden my heart to stay away from these vulgar things. For more than twenty years, Dharma Master Da has lectured in lecture halls and has also participated in important Dharma assemblies many times, but he has never seen such a discussion. I will write a preface to it, hoping that readers can understand it. Fellow wise men who share my aspirations, please wait for future wise men to judge. The so-called 'great division and profound meaning', its name is originally non-existent, so the purpose of establishing speech lies in marking 'Reality'. Opening the Dharma gate of emptiness, there is nothing that exceeds 'Ultimate Truth' and 'Conventional Truth', so next, explain the two truths to highlight the Dharma gate of Buddhism. However, the cause of the perfect path is the supreme 'Prajna' (wisdom), and the ultimate fruit is the only 'Nirvana' (extinction), so in the end, the gate of profoundness is opened to explain the place where all saints return. Although 'Emptiness of inherent existence' is used to compare the root, the root cannot be described in words; when it comes to the root, it transcends words and is not a place that consciousness can reach. In this way, non-migration is equivalent to conventional truth, and conventional truth is neither born nor dies; not considering it true is the ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth is just a name. If one can be free and unrestrained and admire this principle, and use pure ears and a humble mind to understand the unspoken two truths, then the function of pure contemplation will appear, so it is said that prajna is unknowing. The virtue of the nameless flourishes, and Nirvana cannot be described in words. I think this statement is complete and perfect, exhausting the profound and vastness of the Buddha's Dharma, boundless, and exhausting the appearance of the Dharma body. Although the words are concise and the meaning is rich, the writing is gorgeous and the reasoning is profound, the tone is coherent, but the artistic conception is indeed unique. Even the most exquisite rhetoric cannot exhaust this grand discussion. Therefore, Tong Shou exclaimed: 'For the understanding of emptiness, Sengzhao is the first person.' There is a reason for this statement, which is manifested in his writings. However, the principle of the root is profound, and no one can question it. The four treatises such as 'Non-Migration' are unfolded to guide beginners, and the subtle points are analyzed through questions and answers, so they are called 'treatises'. The Zhao Treatise Written by Shi Sengzhao in Chang'an, Later Qin Dynasty The Meaning of the Root Principle Original Non-Being, Reality, Dharmata, Emptiness of inherent existence, Dependent arising, these all mean the same thing. Why is that? Because all dharmas arise from the combination of causes and conditions. If they arise from the combination of causes and conditions, then they do not exist before they are born, and they will perish when the causes and conditions are separated. If it really exists, existence will not perish. By reasoning through this principle, we know that although
今現有，有而性常自空。性常自空，故謂之性空。性空故，故曰法性。法性如是，故曰實相。實相自無，非推之使無，故名本無。言不有不無者，不如有見常見之有，邪見斷見之無耳。若以有為有，則以無為無。夫不存無以觀法者，可謂識法實相矣。雖觀有而無所取相，然則法相為無相之相，聖人之心為住無所住矣。三乘，等觀性空而得道也。性空者，謂諸法實相也。見法實相故云正觀，若其異者便為邪觀。設二乘不見此理，則顛倒也。是以三乘觀法無異，但心有大小為差耳。漚和般若者，大慧之稱也。諸法實相，謂之般若；能不形證，漚和功也。適化眾生，謂之漚和；不染塵累，般若力也。然則般若之門觀空，漚和之門涉有。涉有未始迷虛，故常處有而不染；不厭有而觀空，故觀空而不證。是謂一念之力權慧具矣。一念之力權慧具矣，好思，歷然可解。泥洹盡諦者，直結盡而已，則生死永滅，故謂盡耳；無復別有一盡處耳。
物不遷論第一
夫生死交謝，寒暑迭遷，有物流動。人之常情。余則謂之不然。何者？《放光》云：「法無去來，無動轉者。」尋夫不動之作，豈釋動以求靜？必求靜于諸動。必求靜于諸動，故雖動而常靜；不釋動以求靜，故雖靜而不離動。然則動靜未始異，而惑者不同，緣使真言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在所存在的萬物，其本性常常是空寂的。因為本性常常是空寂的，所以稱之為『性空』。因為是性空，所以叫做『法性』。法性就是這樣，所以叫做『實相』。實相本來就是空無的，不是通過推論才使其變成空無，所以叫做『本無』。說它既非有也非無，是因為它不像那些執著于『有』的常見之見，或是陷入『無』的邪見和斷見。如果認為『有』就是『有』，那麼也會認為『無』就是『無』。如果不執著于『無』來觀察諸法，就可以說是認識了諸法的實相了。雖然觀察到『有』，但心中不執取任何表象，那麼諸法的表象就是無相之相，聖人的心境就是安住于無所安住的狀態。聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna），緣覺乘（Pratyekabuddhayāna），菩薩乘（Bodhisattvayāna）這三乘，都是平等地觀察到性空而證得覺悟的。所謂的『性空』，就是指諸法的實相。見到諸法的實相，所以稱為『正觀』，如果與此不同，那就是『邪觀』。如果二乘（Śrāvakayāna 和 Pratyekabuddhayāna）不能理解這個道理，那就是顛倒。因此，三乘觀察諸法並沒有不同，只是心量的大小有所差別而已。『漚和（Ogha）』和『般若（Prajñā）』，是對大智慧的稱讚。諸法的實相，稱之為『般若』；能夠不執著于表象，是『漚和』的功用。善於教化眾生，稱之為『漚和』；不被世俗塵埃所污染，是『般若』的力量。這樣看來，『般若』之門是觀察空性的，『漚和』之門是涉入世俗的。涉入世俗卻從未迷失於虛妄，所以常常處於世俗之中而不被污染；不厭棄世俗而觀察空性，所以觀察空性而不執著于空。這就是所謂的一念之力同時具備權巧和智慧。一念之力同時具備權巧和智慧，好好思考，就能清晰地理解。『泥洹盡諦（Nirvana）』，只是斷盡煩惱而已，這樣生死輪迴就永遠滅盡，所以說是『盡』；沒有另外一個可以達到『盡』的地方。
《物不遷論》第一
生死交替，寒暑更迭，萬物都在流動變化，這是人們通常的看法。但我卻認為不是這樣。《放光般若經（Fangguang Banruo Jing）》中說：『法沒有來去，沒有動轉。』探尋這不動的本質，難道是要捨棄動而去追求靜嗎？一定是在各種動之中去尋求靜。一定是在各種動之中去尋求靜，所以即使在動中也常常是靜止的；不是捨棄動而去追求靜，所以即使在靜中也沒有離開動。這樣看來，動和靜本來就沒有什麼不同，只是迷惑的人們不理解，這才使得真理
【English Translation】 English version: All things that exist now, their nature is always empty. Because their nature is always empty, it is called 'Śūnyatā (性空, emptiness)'. Because it is Śūnyatā, it is called 'Dharmatā (法性, the nature of reality)'. Dharmatā is like this, so it is called 'Tathātā (實相, suchness)'. Tathātā is originally non-existent, not made non-existent through reasoning, so it is called 'original non-existence (本無)'. To say it is neither existent nor non-existent is because it is not like the common view that clings to 'existence', or the nihilistic and annihilationist views that fall into 'non-existence'. If one considers 'existence' as 'existence', then one will also consider 'non-existence' as 'non-existence'. If one does not cling to 'non-existence' to observe the Dharma, then one can be said to have recognized the true nature of the Dharma. Although observing 'existence', one does not grasp any appearances, then the appearance of the Dharma is the appearance of no-appearance, and the mind of a sage is dwelling in a state of dwelling nowhere. The Three Vehicles (三乘, Triyāna) – Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘, Hearer Vehicle), Pratyekabuddhayāna (緣覺乘, Solitary Realizer Vehicle), and Bodhisattvayāna (菩薩乘, Bodhisattva Vehicle) – equally observe Śūnyatā and attain enlightenment. 'Śūnyatā' refers to the true nature of all Dharmas. Seeing the true nature of the Dharma is called 'right view', and anything different from this is 'wrong view'. If the Two Vehicles (二乘, Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) do not understand this principle, then they are deluded. Therefore, the Three Vehicles do not differ in their observation of the Dharma, but only in the size of their minds. 'Ogha (漚和)' and 'Prajñā (般若, wisdom)' are praises for great wisdom. The true nature of all Dharmas is called 'Prajñā'; being able to not cling to appearances is the function of 'Ogha'. Being skilled at transforming sentient beings is called 'Ogha'; not being defiled by worldly dust is the power of 'Prajñā'. Thus, the gate of 'Prajñā' observes emptiness, and the gate of 'Ogha' engages in existence. Engaging in existence without ever being deluded by illusion, so one is always in existence without being defiled; not disliking existence while observing emptiness, so one observes emptiness without clinging to emptiness. This is what is meant by the power of a single thought possessing both skillful means and wisdom. The power of a single thought possesses both skillful means and wisdom; think carefully, and it can be clearly understood. 'Nirvana (泥洹) is the ultimate truth (盡諦)', simply meaning the exhaustion of afflictions, so that the cycle of birth and death is forever extinguished, hence it is called 'exhaustion'; there is no other place to reach 'exhaustion'.
Essay on the Non-Transience of Things, Chapter 1
The interchange of birth and death, the alternation of cold and heat, and the movement of all things are the common perceptions of people. But I say it is not so. Why? The Fangguang Banruo Jing (放光般若經) says: 'The Dharma has no coming and going, no movement.' Seeking the essence of non-movement, is it to abandon movement to seek stillness? It is certainly to seek stillness within all movements. It is certainly to seek stillness within all movements, so even in movement, it is always still; not abandoning movement to seek stillness, so even in stillness, it does not leave movement. Thus, movement and stillness are originally not different, but those who are deluded do not understand, which makes the truth
滯于競辯，宗途屈於好異。所以靜躁之極，未易言也。何者？夫談真則逆俗，順俗則違真。違真故迷性而莫返，逆俗故言淡而無味。緣使中人未分于存亡，下士撫掌而弗顧，近而不可知者，其唯物性乎！然不能自已，聊復寄心於動靜之際，豈曰必然！試論之曰：
《道行》云：「諸法本無所從來，去亦無所至。」《中觀》云：「觀方知彼去，去者不至方。」斯皆即動而求靜，以知物不遷，明矣。夫人之所謂動者，以昔物不至今，故曰動而非靜。我之所謂靜者，亦以昔物不至今，故曰靜而非動。動而非靜，以其不來；靜而非動。以其不去。然則所造未嘗異，所見未嘗同。逆之所謂塞，順之所謂通。茍得其道，復何滯哉！傷夫人情之惑也久矣，目對真而莫覺。既知往物而不來，而謂今物而可往。往物既不來，今物何所往？何則？求向物于向，于向未嘗無；責向物於今，於今未嘗有。於今未嘗有，以明物不來；于向未嘗無，故知物不去。覆而求今，今亦不往。是謂昔物自在昔，不從今以至昔；今物自在今，不從昔以至今。故仲尼曰：「回也見新，交臂非故。」如此，則物不相往來，明矣。既無往返之微朕，有何物而可動乎？然則旋嵐偃岳而常靜，江河兢注而不流，野馬飄鼓而不動，日月曆天而不周。復何怪哉！噫！聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：沉溺於爭辯，宗旨偏離而趨向怪異。所以要達到靜與躁的極致，是不容易說清楚的。為什麼呢？因為談論真理就會違背世俗，順應世俗就會違背真理。違背真理，所以迷失本性而無法返回；違背世俗，所以言論平淡而沒有趣味。因此使得中等資質的人無法分辨存亡，下等資質的人拍手而不顧。近在眼前卻無法瞭解的，大概只有物性了吧！然而我不能控制自己，姑且將心思寄託在動與靜之間，難道說一定是這樣嗎！試著論述如下： 《道行》中說：『諸法本來沒有從哪裡來，去也沒有到哪裡去。』《中觀》中說：『觀察方向才知道它離去，離去的東西沒有到達方向。』這些都是從動中尋求靜，從而知道事物不會遷移，這是很明顯的。人們所說的動，是因為過去的事物不會來到現在，所以說是動而不是靜。我所說的靜，也是因為過去的事物不會來到現在，所以說是靜而不是動。動而不是靜，是因為它不來；靜而不是動，是因為它不去。既然這樣，那麼所造作的沒有不同，所見到的沒有相同。與它相逆的就說是閉塞，順從它的就說是通達。如果掌握了其中的道理，又有什麼可滯留的呢！可嘆的是人們被情感迷惑已經很久了，面對真理卻不覺悟。既然知道過去的事物不會到來，卻認為現在的事物可以前往。過去的事物既然不來，現在的事物又往哪裡去呢？為什麼呢？在過去尋找過去的事物，在過去未嘗沒有；在現在追究過去的事物，在現在未嘗有。在現在未嘗有，以此說明事物不來；在過去未嘗沒有，所以知道事物不去。反過來追究現在，現在也不會前往。這就是說過去的事物自在過去，不是從現在到達過去；現在的事物自在現在，不是從過去到達現在。所以仲尼（Confucius）說：『顏回（Yan Hui）每天都能發現新的東西，即使是擦肩而過也不是舊的。』這樣看來，事物不互相往來，就很明顯了。既然沒有往返的細微跡象，又有什麼事物可以動呢？既然這樣，那麼迴旋的狂風吹倒山嶽而山嶽常常是靜止的，江河競相奔流而不流動，脫韁的野馬奔跑跳躍而不動搖，太陽和月亮經歷天空而不環繞。又有什麼奇怪的呢！唉！聖人啊！
【English Translation】 English version: Being stuck in competitive debates, the core principles deviate towards favoring the bizarre. Therefore, reaching the extremes of stillness and agitation is not easy to articulate. Why is that? Because discussing truth goes against worldly customs, and conforming to worldly customs goes against truth. Going against truth leads to losing one's nature and being unable to return; going against worldly customs leads to speech being bland and without flavor. Consequently, those of middling capacity cannot distinguish between existence and extinction, and those of lower capacity clap their hands and disregard it. What is near yet unknowable is perhaps only the nature of things! However, I cannot control myself, and I tentatively entrust my mind to the realm between movement and stillness. Is it necessarily so! Let us try to discuss it: The Daoxing (Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says: 'All dharmas originally come from nowhere, and going, they also go nowhere.' The Madhyamaka (Middle Way) says: 'Observing the direction, one knows that it departs, but that which departs does not arrive at the direction.' These all seek stillness from within movement, thereby knowing that things do not migrate, which is clear. What people call movement is because past things do not come to the present, therefore it is said to be movement and not stillness. What I call stillness is also because past things do not come to the present, therefore it is said to be stillness and not movement. Movement and not stillness is because it does not come; stillness and not movement is because it does not go. Since this is so, then what is created is never different, and what is seen is never the same. Going against it is called obstruction, and conforming to it is called unobstructed. If one grasps the principle, then what is there to be stuck on! Alas, people have been deluded by emotions for a long time, facing the truth without awakening. Since they know that past things do not come, they think that present things can go. Since past things do not come, where do present things go? Why is that? Seeking past things in the past, in the past they are never absent; questioning past things in the present, in the present they are never present. Being never present in the present explains that things do not come; being never absent in the past, one knows that things do not go. Reversely seeking the present, the present also does not go. This means that past things are at ease in the past, not coming from the present to the past; present things are at ease in the present, not coming from the past to the present. Therefore, Confucius said: 'Yan Hui sees something new every day, and even a brief encounter is not old.' In this way, it is clear that things do not come and go to each other. Since there is no subtle trace of coming and going, what thing can move? Since this is so, then the whirling wind overturns mountains but is always still, rivers rush and pour but do not flow, wild horses gallop and leap but do not move, the sun and moon traverse the sky but do not revolve. What is so strange about that! Alas! The sage!
人有言曰：「人命逝速，速于川流。」是以聲聞悟非常以成道，緣覺覺緣離以即真。茍萬動而非化，豈尋化以階道？覆尋聖言，微隱難測。若動而靜，似去而留。可以神會，難以事求。是以言去不必去，閑人之常想；稱住不必住，釋人之所謂往耳。豈曰去而可遣、住而可留也。故《成具》云：「菩薩處計常之中，而演非常之教。」《摩訶衍論》云：「諸法不動，無去來處。」斯皆導達群方，兩言一會，豈曰文殊而乖其致哉？是以言常而不住，稱去而不遷。不遷，故雖往而常靜；不住，故雖靜而常往。雖靜而常往，故往而弗遷；雖往而常靜，故靜而弗留矣。然則莊生之所以藏山，仲尼之所以臨川，斯皆感往者之難留，豈曰排今而可往？是以觀聖人心者，不同人之所見，得也。何者？人則謂少壯同體、百齡一質，徒知年往，不覺形隨。是以梵志出家，白首而歸。鄰人見之曰：「昔人尚存乎？」梵志曰：「吾猶昔人，非昔人也。」鄰人皆愕然，非其言也。所謂有力者負之而趨，昧者不覺。其斯之謂歟！是以如來因群情之所滯，則方言以辯惑，乘莫二之真心，吐不一之殊教，乖而不可異者，其唯聖言乎！故談真有不遷之稱，導俗有流動之說。雖復千途異唱，會歸同致矣。而徴文者聞不遷，則謂昔物不至今；聆流動者，而謂今物
可至昔。既曰古今，而欲遷之者，何也？是以言往不必往，古今常存，以其不動；稱去不必去，謂不從今至古，以其不來。不來，故不馳騁于古今；不動，故各性住於一世。然則群籍殊文、百家異說，茍得其會，豈殊文之能惑哉？是以人之所謂住，我則言其去；人之所謂去，我則言其住。然則去住雖殊，其致一也。故經云：「正言似反。誰當信者？」斯言有由矣。何者？人則求古於今，謂其不住。吾則求今于古，知其不去。今若至古，古應有今；古若至今，今應有古。今而無古，以知不來；古而無今，以知不去。若古不至今，今亦不至古，事各性住於一世，有何物而可去來？然則四象風馳、璇璣電卷，得意毫微，雖速而不轉。是以如來，功流萬世而常存，道通百劫而彌固。成山假就於始簣，修途托至於初步，果以功業不可朽故也。功業不可朽，故雖在昔而不化，不化故不遷。不遷故，則湛然明矣。故經云：「三災彌綸而行業湛然。」信其言也。何者？果不俱因，因因而果。因因而果，因不昔滅；果不俱因，因不來今。不滅不來，則不遷之致明矣！復何惑于去留，踟躕于動靜之間哉？然則乾坤倒覆，無謂不靜；洪流滔天，無謂其動。茍能契神于即物，斯不遠而可知矣！
物不遷論(終)
不真空論第二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 可至昔（可以到達過去）。既然說了古今，卻又想改變它，是為什麼呢？因此說，『往』不一定真的『往』，古今是常存的，因為它們不動；說『去』不一定真的『去』，是指不是從現在到過去，因為它們不來。不來，所以不會在古今之間奔馳；不動，所以各自的性質都安住於一個時代。既然這樣，那麼各種典籍不同的文字、百家不同的學說，如果能夠懂得它們的共同之處，又怎麼會被不同的文字所迷惑呢？因此，別人所說的『住』（停留），我則說是『去』（離去）；別人所說的『去』，我則說是『住』。這樣看來，『去』和『住』雖然不同，它們的道理卻是一樣的。所以經書上說：『正直的話聽起來好像是相反的，誰會相信呢？』這話是有原因的。為什麼呢？別人是從現在去追求過去，認為過去不是停留的。我則是從過去來追求現在，知道現在不是離去的。如果現在能到過去，過去就應該有現在；如果過去能到現在，現在就應該有過去。現在如果沒有過去，就知道它不來；過去如果沒有現在，就知道它不去。如果過去不到現在，現在也不到過去，事物各自的性質都安住於一個時代，有什麼東西可以去來呢？既然這樣，那麼四象（指地、水、火、風）像風一樣飛馳，天體像閃電一樣旋轉，如果能領會到其中細微的道理，即使速度很快也不會轉動。因此，如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號），功德流傳萬世而常存，道行貫通百劫而更加穩固。堆成高山是從最初的一筐土開始，修築長路是從最初的一步開始，正是因為功業不會腐朽的緣故。功業不會腐朽，所以即使在過去也不會消逝，不消逝所以不會改變。不改變，那麼就清澈明瞭了。所以經書上說：『即使經歷了三災（指火災、水災、風災）的毀滅，行業（指善惡行為）仍然清澈不變。』相信這話是有道理的。為什麼呢？果（結果）不是和因（原因）同時產生的，而是因產生果。因產生果，因不會在過去消滅；果不是和因同時產生的，因不會來到現在。不消滅不來臨，那麼不改變的道理就明白了！又何必迷惑于去留，在動靜之間猶豫不決呢？既然這樣，那麼即使天地倒轉，也不能說它不靜；即使洪水滔天，也不能說它在動。如果能夠使精神與事物相契合，那麼這個道理就不遠了，是可以知道的！
《物不遷論》（終）
《不真空論》第二
【English Translation】 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
夫至虛無生者，蓋是般若玄鑒之妙趣，有物之宗極者也。自非聖明特達，何能契神于有無之間哉？是以至人通神心於無窮，窮所不能滯；極耳目于視聽，聲色所不能制者，豈不以其即萬物之自虛，故物不能累其神明者也。是以聖人乘真心而理順，則無滯而不通；審一氣以觀化，故所遇而順適。無滯而不通，故能混雜致淳；所遇而順適，故則觸物而一。如此，則萬象雖殊而不能自異。不能自異，故知象非真象。象非真像故，則雖象而非像。然則物我同根、是非一氣，潛微幽隱，殆非群情之所盡，故頃爾談論，至於虛宗，每有不同。夫以不同而適同，有何物而可同哉？故眾論競作而性莫同焉。何則？心無者，無心於萬物，萬物未嘗無。此得在於神靜，失在於物虛。即色者，明色不自色，故雖色而非色也。夫言色者，但當色即色，豈待色色而後為色哉？此直語色不自色，未領色之非色也。本無者，情尚于無，多觸言以賓無。故非有，有即無；非無，無亦無。尋夫立文之本旨者，直以非有非真有，非無非真無耳。何必非有無此有，非無無彼無？此直好無之談，豈謂順通事實，即物之情哉！夫以物物於物，則所物而可物；以物物非物，故雖物而非物。是以物不即名而就實，名不即物而履真。然則真諦獨靜于名教之外，豈曰文
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 那達到至虛無生的境界，大概就是般若玄鑒的精妙之處，是有形之物的根本歸宿。如果不是聖明特別通達的人，怎麼能使精神與有無之間相契合呢？因此，達到極高境界的人，使精神與無窮相通，探究事物到不能滯留的程度；窮盡耳目的視聽功能，聲音和色彩也不能控制他們，這難道不是因為他們認識到萬物本來的空虛，所以外物不能拖累他們的精神嗎？因此，聖人遵循真誠的心而順應事理，就沒有阻礙而不通達的；審察統一的元氣來觀察變化，所以無論遇到什麼都能順應適應。沒有阻礙而不通達，所以能夠混合雜亂而達到純粹；無論遇到什麼都能順應適應，所以接觸萬物而融為一體。像這樣，那麼萬象雖然不同卻不能自我區分。不能自我區分，所以知道現象不是真實的現象。現象不是真實的現象，那麼雖然是現象卻不是現象。既然如此，那麼物與我同根，是與非同源，深藏的微妙之處，大概不是眾人所能完全理解的，所以稍微談論，到虛無的宗旨，常常有不同之處。用不同來適應相同，有什麼東西可以相同呢？所以各種議論紛紛出現而本質卻不能相同。為什麼呢？ 認為『心無』的人，是使心不執著于萬物，而萬物卻未嘗不存在。這種理解得益於精神的寧靜，失誤在於把萬物看作虛無。認為『即色』的人，是明白色不是自身就是色，所以雖然是色卻不是色。說『色』的人，應當直接認識到色就是色，難道要等到『空』之後才成為色嗎？這只是直接說色不是自身就是色，沒有領悟到色的非色。認為『本無』的人，情感崇尚虛無，多用言語來輔助虛無。所以說非有，有也就是無；說非無，無也就是無。探究設立文字的本意，只是說非有不是真有，非無不是真無罷了。何必說非有才沒有這個有，非無才沒有那個無？這只是愛好虛無的談論，怎麼能說是順應貫通事實，符合事物的實情呢！用事物來對待事物，那麼所對待的事物就可以被對待；用事物來對待非事物，所以雖然是事物卻不是事物。因此，事物不直接用名稱來對應而追求實際，名稱不直接用事物來對應而遵循真理。那麼真諦獨自在名教之外保持清靜，難道是文字
【English Translation】 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' (心無) 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' (本無) 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
言之能辨哉？然不能杜默，聊復厝言以擬之。試論之曰：
《摩訶衍論》云：「諸法亦非有相，亦非無相。」《中論》云：「諸法不有不無者，第一真諦也。」尋夫不有不無者，豈謂滌除萬物、杜塞視聽，寂寥虛豁，然後為真諦者乎？誠以即物順通，故物莫之逆；即偽即真，故性莫之易。性莫之易，故雖無而有；物莫之逆，故雖有而無。雖有而無，所謂非有；雖無而有，所謂非無。如此，則非無物也，物非真物。物非真物，故於何而可物？故經云：「色之性空，非色敗空。」以明夫聖人之於物也，即萬物之自虛，豈待宰割以求通哉！是以寢疾有不真之談，超日有即虛之稱；然則三藏殊文，統之者一也。故《放光》云：「第一真諦，無成無得；世俗諦故，便有成有得。」夫有得即是無得之偽號，無得即是有得之真名。真名故，雖真而非有；偽號故，雖偽而非無。是以言真未嘗有，言偽未嘗無。二言未始一，二理未始殊。故經云：「真諦、俗諦謂有異耶？答曰：無異也。」此經直辯真諦以明非有，俗諦以明非無；豈以諦二而二於物哉？然則萬物果有其所以不有，有其所以不無。有其所以不有，故雖有而非有；有其所以不無，故雖無而非無。雖無而非無，無者不絕虛；雖有而非有，有者非真有。若有不即真，無不夷跡
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 能用言語分辨清楚嗎？雖然不能完全沉默，姑且再次用言語來嘗試比擬它。試著論述如下： 《摩訶衍論》（Mahāyāna-sūtra，大乘論）說：『諸法既非有相，也非無相。』《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā，根本中論）說：『諸法不有不無，是第一真諦。』那麼，所謂不有不無，難道是指清除萬物、杜絕視聽，達到寂寥空虛，然後才是真諦嗎？實在是因為順應萬物的自然規律，所以萬物不會違逆它；即偽即真，所以本性不會改變。本性不會改變，所以即使看似沒有，實則存在；萬物不會違逆它，所以即使看似存在，實則為空。看似存在實則為空，這就是所謂的『非有』；看似沒有實則存在，這就是所謂的『非無』。如此，就不是沒有事物，而是事物並非真實的實體。事物並非真實的實體，那麼又從何處可以執著於事物呢？所以經書說：『色的本性是空，不是色被破壞后才空。』以此來說明聖人對於萬物的態度，是順應萬物自身的虛幻，哪裡需要宰割來求得通達呢！因此，生病有不真實的說法，超越時間有即是虛幻的稱謂；那麼三藏（Tripiṭaka，佛教經典的總稱）不同的說法，統合起來是一個道理。所以《放光經》（Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra，放光般若經）說：『第一真諦，無成無得；世俗諦故，便有成有得。』所謂有得，就是無得的虛假名稱；所謂無得，就是有得的真實名稱。因為是真實名稱，所以雖然真實卻並非實有；因為是虛假名稱，所以雖然虛假卻並非全無。因此，說真的時候未嘗有，說假的時候未嘗無。兩種說法從未曾相同，兩種道理從未曾相異。所以經書說：『真諦、俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦） 認為有差異嗎？』回答說：『沒有差異。』這部經直接闡明真諦來說明非有，用俗諦來說明非無；難道是因為真諦和俗諦的差別而導致萬物也產生差別嗎？既然如此，那麼萬物確實有其所以不有的原因，也有其所以不無的原因。有其所以不有的原因，所以即使存在也並非實有；有其所以不無的原因，所以即使看似沒有也並非全無。即使看似沒有也並非全無，這種沒有不是斷滅的虛無；即使存在也並非實有，這種存在不是真實的實體。如果存在不等於真實，那麼沒有也不會消滅任何痕跡。
【English Translation】 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 (摩訶衍論, Great Vehicle Treatise) says: 'All dharmas are neither with form nor without form.' The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (中論, 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 (放光經, 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 (俗諦, 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.
，然則有無稱異，其致一也。故童子嘆曰：「說法不有亦不無，以因緣故諸法生。」《瓔珞經》云：「轉法輪者，亦非有轉，亦非無轉，是謂轉無所轉。」此乃眾經之微言也。何者？謂物無耶，則邪見非惑；謂物有耶，則常見為得。以物非無，故邪見為惑；以物非有，故常見不得。然則非有非無者，信真諦之談也。故《道行》云：「心亦不有亦不無。」《中觀》云：「物從因緣故不有，緣起故不無。」尋理，即其然矣。所以然者，夫有若真有，有自常有，豈待緣而後有哉？譬彼真無，無自常無，豈待緣而後無也！若有不自有，待緣而後有者，故知有非真有。有非真有，雖有，不可謂之有矣。不無者，夫無則湛然不動，可謂之無。萬物若無，則不應起；起則非無。以明緣起故不無也。故《摩訶衍論》云：「一切諸法，一切因緣故應有；一切諸法，一切因緣故不應有。一切無法，一切因緣故應有；一切有法，一切因緣故不應有。」尋此有無之言，豈直反論而已哉！若應有，即是有，不應言無；若應無，即是無，不應言有。言有，是為假有，以明非無。借無，以辨非有。此事一稱二，其文有似不同。茍領其所同，則無異而不同。然則萬法，果有其所以不有不可得而有；有其所以不無不可得而無。何則？欲言其有，有非真生；
欲言其無；事象既形。象形，不即無；非真，非實有。然則不真空義，顯于茲矣！故《放光》云：「諸法假號不真，譬如幻化人。非無幻化人，幻化人非真人也。」夫以名求物，物無當名之實；以物求名，名無得物之功。物無當名之實，非物也；名無得物之功，非名也。是以名不當實，實不當名。名實無當，萬物安在？故《中觀》云：「物無彼此。」而人以此為此，以彼為彼。彼亦以此為彼，以彼為此。此、彼莫定乎一名，而惑者懷必然之志。然則彼此初非有，惑者初非無，既悟彼此之非有，有何物而可有哉？故知萬物非真，假號久矣！是以《成具》立強名之文，園林托指馬之況。如此，則深遠之言，於何而不在！是以聖人乘千化而不變，履萬惑而常通者，以其即萬物之自虛，不假虛而虛物也。故經云：「甚奇，世尊！不動真際為諸法立處。」非離真而立處，立處即真也。然則道遠乎哉？觸事而真！聖遠乎哉？體之即神！
不真空論(終)
般若無知論第三
夫般若虛玄者，蓋是三乘之宗極也。誠真一之無差，然異端之論，紛然久矣。有天竺沙門鳩摩羅什者，少踐大方，研機斯趣。獨拔于言象之表，妙契于希夷之境；齊異學于迦夷，揚淳風于東扇。將爰燭殊方而匿糴涼土者，所以道不虛應，應必有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：想要說它是『無』，但事物的現象已經形成。現象的形成，不能簡單地說就是『無』；它不是真實的，也不是實在的存在。這樣看來，『不真空』的意義就顯現出來了！所以《放光般若經》說：『諸法只是假的名字，不是真實的，就像幻化出來的人一樣。不能說沒有幻化出來的人，但幻化出來的人不是真人。』用名稱去尋找事物，事物沒有符合名稱的實際；用事物去尋找名稱，名稱沒有得到事物的功用。事物沒有符合名稱的實際，就不是真正的事物；名稱沒有得到事物的功用，就不是真正的名稱。因此，名稱不符合實際，實際不符合名稱。名稱和實際沒有對應關係，萬物又在哪裡呢？所以《中觀論》說：『事物沒有彼此的區分。』而人們卻以這個為『此』，以那個為『彼』。『彼』也以這個為『彼』，以那個為『此』。『此』和『彼』都不能在一個名稱上確定，而迷惑的人卻懷著必然如此的想法。這樣看來，『彼此』最初就不是真實存在的，迷惑的人最初也不是不存在的，既然領悟到『彼此』不是真實存在的，還有什麼事物是可以執著的呢？所以知道萬物不是真實的，只是假的名字已經很久了！因此，《成具光明定經》設立強加名稱的說法，園林用指鹿為馬的情況來比喻。像這樣，那麼深刻而長遠的道理，在哪裡不能體現出來呢！因此，聖人經歷千變萬化而不改變，身處萬般迷惑而常常通達，是因為他們認識到萬物自身就是空虛的，不需要藉助『虛』來使萬物空虛。所以經書說：『非常奇妙啊，世尊！在不動的真如實際中為諸法設立處所。』不是離開真如而設立處所，設立處所就是真如。這樣看來，道還遙遠嗎？接觸任何事物都是真如！聖人還遙遠嗎？體會它就是神通！ 《不真空論》（終）
《般若無知論》第三
般若的虛玄，是三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的最終歸宿。確實是真一而沒有差別的，然而不同派別的論調，紛亂已經很久了。有位來自天竺的沙門鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva），年輕時就學習大乘佛法，研究其中精妙的道理。他超脫于語言文字的表面，巧妙地契合于虛無寂靜的境界；使不同的學說歸於一致，在東方傳播純正的風氣。他將要用佛法照亮遙遠的地方，而隱匿在涼州這片土地上，所以他的教導不是虛假的應付，應驗必定有原因。
【English Translation】 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 (放光般若經, 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 (中觀論, 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 (成具光明定經) 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 (沙門, Monk) from India, Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什), 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 (涼州), so his teachings are not a false response, and the verification must have a reason.
由矣。弘始三年，歲次星紀，秦乘入國之謀，舉師以來之意也。北天之運，數其然也。大秦天王者，道契百王之端，德洽千載之下，遊刃萬機，弘道終日，信季俗蒼生之所天，釋迦遺法之所仗也。時乃集義學沙門五百餘人于逍遙觀，躬執秦文，與什公參定方等。其所開拓者，豈謂當時之益，乃累劫之津樑矣。余以短乏，曾廁嘉會，以為上聞異要，始於時也。然則聖智幽微，深隱難測。無相無名，乃非言象之所得。為試罔象其懷，寄之狂言耳，豈曰聖心而可辨哉！試論之曰：
《放光》云：「般若無所有相，無生滅相。」《道行》云：「般若無所知、無所見。」此辨智照之用，而曰無相、無知者，何耶？果有無相之知、不知之照，明矣。何者？夫有所知，則有所不知。以聖心無知，故無所不知。不知之知，乃曰一切知。故經云：「聖心無所知，無所不知。」信矣！是以聖人虛其心而實其照，終日知而未嘗知也。故能默耀韜光虛心玄鑒，閉智塞聰而獨覺冥冥者矣。然則智有窮幽之鑑而無知焉，神有應會之用而無慮焉。神無慮，故能獨王於世表；智無知，故能玄照於事外。智雖事外，未始無事；神雖世表，終日域中。所以俯仰順化應接無窮，無幽不察而無照功。斯則無知之所知，聖神之所會也。然其為物也，實而不有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）說：『是的。弘始三年，太歲在星紀的位置，秦國趁機策劃入侵，發兵前來。這是北方天運的安排，是命中註定的。大秦的天王，他的道與歷代聖王相契合，他的德澤惠及千年之後，處理政務遊刃有餘，弘揚佛法終日不倦，是季世百姓所仰賴的，是釋迦牟尼（Śākyamuni）遺法所依靠的。』當時，他召集了五百多位精通義學的沙門（śrāmaṇa）在逍遙園，親自拿著秦國的文字，與鳩摩羅什（Kumārajīva）一起參詳審定方等經典。他所開創的事業，難道只是爲了當時的利益嗎？這是累世的津樑啊！我因為才疏學淺，曾經參與過這場盛會，認為這是聽到高深玄妙的道理的開端。既然如此，聖人的智慧幽深微妙，難以測度。無相無名，不是言語形象所能表達的。我嘗試著揣摩聖人的心懷，用狂妄的言語來表達，哪裡能說可以辨明聖人的心意呢！試著論述如下： 《放光般若經》（Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）說：『般若（Prajñā）沒有所有相，沒有生滅相。』《道行般若經》（Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）說：『般若（Prajñā）無所知、無所見。』這辨析的是智慧觀照的作用，卻說無相、無知，這是為什麼呢？確實存在無相的知、不知的照，這是很明顯的。為什麼呢？因為有所知，就有所不知。聖人的心因為無知，所以無所不知。這種不知的知，才叫做一切知。所以經書上說：『聖人的心無所知，無所不知。』確實如此！因此聖人虛空他的心而充實他的觀照，終日知曉卻好像從未知曉一樣。所以能夠默默地發光，隱藏光芒，虛空心懷，玄妙地觀照，閉塞智慧和聽覺而獨自覺悟于冥冥之中。既然如此，智慧有窮盡幽深的鑑察能力卻沒有知，精神有應和世事的功用卻沒有思慮。精神沒有思慮，所以能夠獨自稱王於世俗之外；智慧沒有知，所以能夠玄妙地觀照於事物之外。智慧雖然在事物之外，卻未嘗脫離事物；精神雖然在世俗之外，卻終日存在於世俗之中。所以能夠俯仰順應變化，應接無窮，沒有幽深之處不能察覺，卻沒有觀照的功勞。這就是無知所知，是聖神所會合的。然而它作為一種事物，真實而不佔有。
【English Translation】 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 (釋迦牟尼).』 At that time, he gathered more than five hundred śrāmaṇas (沙門) who were proficient in the study of meaning at Xiaoyao Garden, personally holding the Qin texts, and together with Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什) 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 (《放光般若經》) says: 'Prajñā (般若) has no all-possessing form, no arising and ceasing form.' The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (《道行般若經》) 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.
、虛而不無。存而不可論者，其唯聖智乎。何者？欲言其有，無狀無名；欲言其無，聖以之靈。聖以之靈，故虛不失照；無狀無名，故照不失虛。照不失虛，故混而不渝；虛不失照，故動以接粗。是以聖智之用，未始暫廢；求之形相，未暫可得。故《寶積》曰：「以無心意而現行。」《放光》云：「不動等覺而建立諸法。」所以聖蹟萬端，其致一而已矣。是以般若可虛而照，真諦可亡而知，萬動可即而靜，聖應可無而為。斯則不知而自知，不為而自為矣！復何知哉？復何為哉？
難曰：夫聖人真心獨朗，物物斯照；應接無方，動與事會。物物斯照，故知無所遺；動與事會，故會不失機。會不失機，故必有會於可會；知無所遺，故必有知于可知。必有知于可知，故聖不虛知；必有會於可會；故聖不虛會。既知既會，而曰無知無會者。何耶？若夫忘知遺會者，則是聖人無私于知會，以成其私耳。斯可謂不自有其知，安得無知哉？
答曰：夫聖人功高二儀而不仁，明逾日月而彌昏，豈曰木石瞽其懷？其于無知而已哉。誠以異於人者神明，故不可以事相求之耳。子意欲令聖人不自有其知，而聖人未嘗不有知，無乃乖于聖心、失於文旨者乎！何者？經云：「真般若者，清凈如虛空，無知無見，無作無緣。」斯則知自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：虛空卻又並非一無所有。存在卻又無法用言語來描述的，大概只有聖人的智慧了吧。為什麼這麼說呢？想說它有，卻沒有任何形狀和名稱可以指代；想說它沒有，聖人卻憑藉它而具有靈性。聖人憑藉它而具有靈性，所以虛空卻不會失去照亮萬物的能力；沒有任何形狀和名稱可以指代，所以照亮萬物的能力也不會失去其虛空的本質。照亮萬物的能力不失去其虛空的本質，所以能夠混同于萬物卻不會改變自身；虛空不失去照亮萬物的能力，所以能夠通過運動來接觸粗糙的事物。因此，聖人智慧的運用，從未曾有片刻的停止；但如果想從外在的形相上尋找它，卻從未曾能夠找到。《寶積經》說：『以無心意而顯現行為。』《放光經》說：『不動搖的等同覺悟而建立一切諸法。』所以聖人的事蹟千變萬化，但其最終的歸宿卻只有一個。因此，般若（Prajna，智慧）可以虛空卻又能照亮萬物，真諦（Paramārtha，最高真理）可以忘卻卻又能被認知，萬物的運動可以即刻轉化為靜止，聖人的應化可以無所作為卻又無所不為。這就是不知卻又能自然而然地知曉，不作為卻又能自然而然地作為！還需要知道什麼呢？還需要做什麼呢？
有人反駁說：聖人的真心獨自明亮，照耀著萬物；應付各種情況沒有固定的方式，行動與事物的發展相契合。照耀著萬物，所以知曉沒有遺漏；行動與事物的發展相契合，所以把握機會不會失去時機。把握機會不會失去時機，所以一定能夠把握住可以把握的機會；知曉沒有遺漏，所以一定能夠知曉可以知曉的事物。一定能夠知曉可以知曉的事物，所以聖人的知曉不是虛假的；一定能夠把握住可以把握的機會，所以聖人的把握不是虛假的。既然知曉又能夠把握，卻說聖人無知無會，這是為什麼呢？如果說是忘記了知曉，遺忘了把握，那就是聖人對於知曉和把握沒有私心，從而成就了他的無私罷了。這可以說是沒有將知曉據爲己有，又怎麼能說是無知呢？
回答說：聖人的功德高於天地卻不自以為有恩德，光明勝過日月卻更加顯得暗淡，難道是說聖人如同木頭石頭一樣沒有感覺嗎？只是因為聖人達到了無知的境界罷了。實在是因為聖人異於常人的地方在於他的神明，所以不能用世俗的事相來要求他。你的意思是想讓聖人不要將知曉據爲己有，但聖人卻未嘗沒有知曉，這難道不是違背了聖人的本心，曲解了經文的旨意嗎？為什麼這麼說呢？經書上說：『真正的般若（Prajna，智慧），清凈如同虛空，無知無見，無作無緣。』這就是知曉的本
【English Translation】 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.
無知矣，豈待返照然後無知哉？若有知性空而稱凈者，則不辨于惑智，三毒四倒亦皆清凈，有何獨尊于般若？若以所知美般若，所知非般若，所知自常凈，故般若未嘗凈，亦無緣致凈嘆于般若。然經云「般若清凈」者，將無以般若體性真凈，本無惑取之知。本無惑取之知，不可以知名哉。豈唯無知名無知，知自無知矣！是以聖人以無知之般若，照彼無相之真諦。真諦無兔馬之遺，般若無不窮之鑑，所以會而不差、當而無是。寂怕、無知，而無不知者矣。
難曰：夫物無以自通，故立名以通物。物雖非名，果有可名之物當於此名矣。是以即名求物，物不能隱。而論云「聖心無知」，又云「無所不知」。意謂無知未嘗知，知未嘗無知。斯則名教之所通，立言之本意也。然論者欲一于聖心，異於文旨。尋文求實，未見其當。何者？若知得於聖心，無知無所辨；若無知得於聖心，知亦無所辨；若二都無得，無所復論哉！
答曰：經云：「般若義者，無名無說，非有非無，非實非虛。」虛不失照，照不失虛，斯則無名之法，故非言所能言也。言雖不能言，然非言無以傳，是以聖人終日言而未嘗言也。今試為子狂言辨之。夫聖心者，微妙無相，不可為有；用之彌勤，不可為無。不可為無，故聖智存焉；不可為有，故名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：真是糊塗啊，難道要等到反過來觀察之後才知道自己無知嗎？如果有人認為知性是空性的，並稱之為清凈，那就無法分辨迷惑和智慧，三毒（貪嗔癡）和四倒（常樂我凈的顛倒）也都是清凈的，那般若（prajna，智慧）又有什麼獨特的尊貴之處呢？如果用所知來讚美般若，那麼所知就不是般若，所知本身就是常凈的，所以般若從未清凈過，也沒有任何因緣可以使它變得清凈，從而讚歎般若。然而經書上說『般若清凈』，這難道不是因為般若的體性是真實清凈的，本來就沒有迷惑和執取的知嗎？本來就沒有迷惑和執取的知，難道可以用知來命名嗎？豈止是沒有知可以命名，沒有知可以認知，知本身就是無知的啊！因此，聖人以無知的般若，照耀那無相的真諦（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）。真諦沒有兔角馬毛的遺蹟，般若沒有無窮無盡的鑑照，所以能夠契合而不差錯，恰當而沒有偏頗。寂靜、空曠、無知，卻又無所不知啊！ 有人提問說：事物不能自己溝通，所以設立名稱來溝通事物。事物雖然不是名稱本身，但確實有可以被命名的事物對應于這個名稱。因此，根據名稱來尋找事物，事物就無法隱藏。而您的理論說『聖心無知』，又說『無所不知』。意思是說無知從未真正知，知也從未真正無知。這正是名教（指儒家）所要溝通的，也是立言的根本用意啊。然而，您的理論想要統一于聖心，卻背離了經文的旨意。按照經文來尋求實際，我沒有看到它的合理之處。為什麼呢？如果知是從聖心中獲得的，那麼無知就無法分辨；如果無知是從聖心中獲得的，那麼知也無法分辨；如果知和無知都無法從聖心中獲得，那還有什麼可以討論的呢？ 回答說：經書上說：『般若的意義，是無名無說，非有非無，非實非虛。』空虛不失去照耀，照耀不失去空虛，這就是無名的法，所以不是言語所能表達的。言語雖然不能完全表達，但沒有言語就無法傳達，所以聖人整天都在說話，卻從未真正說過什麼。現在我嘗試用瘋狂的言語來為您辯解。聖心，微妙而無相，不可認為是存在；運用它越是勤奮，越不可認為是虛無。不可認為是虛無，所以聖智存在於其中；不可認為是存在，所以稱之為無知。
【English Translation】 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.
教絕焉。是以言知不為知，欲以通其鑒；不知非不知，欲以辨其相。辨相，不為無；通鑑，不為有。非有，故知而無知；非無；故無知而知。是以知即無知，無知即知。無以言異而異於聖心也。
難曰：夫真諦深玄，非智不測。聖智之能，在茲而顯。故經云：「不得般若，不見真諦。」真諦，則般若之緣也。以緣求智，智則知矣。
答曰：以緣求智，智非知也。何者？放光云：「不緣色生識，是名不見色。」又云：「五陰清凈故，般若清凈。」般若即能知也，五陰即所知也。所知，即緣也。夫知與所知，相與而有、相與而無。相與而無，故物莫之有；相與而有，故物莫之無。物莫之無，故為緣之所起；物莫之有，故則緣所不能生。緣所不能生，故照緣而非知；為緣之所起，故知、緣相因而生。是以知與無知，生於所知矣。何者？夫智以知所知，取相故名知。真諦自無相，真智何由知？所以然者，夫所知非所知，所知生於知；所知既生知，知亦生所知。所、知既相生，相生即緣法，緣法故非真。非真，故非真諦也。故《中觀》云：「物從因緣有，故不真。不從因緣有，故即真。」今真諦曰真，真則非緣。真非緣，故無物從緣而生也。故經云：「不見有法無緣而生。」是以真智觀真諦，未嘗取所知。智不取所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：教化止息了。因此，（聖人）說知道不是真正的知道，是爲了能夠通達事物的本性；不知道不是真正的不知道，是爲了能夠辨別事物的表象。辨別事物的表象，不是虛無；通達事物的本性，不是實有。不是實有，所以知道也等於無知；不是虛無，所以無知也等於知道。因此，知道就是無知，無知就是知道。沒有什麼可以用言語來區分，而能不同於聖人的心境。
有人提問：真諦（Paramārtha-satya，終極真理）深奧玄妙，不用智慧無法測度。聖人的智慧能力，正是在這裡顯現。所以佛經上說：『不得般若（Prajñā，智慧），不見真諦。』真諦，就是般若的所緣。通過所緣來求得智慧，智慧就能認識真諦了。
回答說：通過所緣來求得的智慧，不是真正的智慧。為什麼呢？《放光經》上說：『不緣於色（Rūpa，物質）而生起識（Vijñāna，意識），這叫做不見色。』又說：『五陰（Pañca-skandha，五蘊）清凈的緣故，般若也就清凈。』般若就是能知，五陰就是所知。所知，就是所緣。能知與所知，相互依存而存在，相互依存而消亡。相互依存而消亡，所以萬物沒有實在的自性；相互依存而存在，所以萬物沒有完全的虛無。萬物沒有完全的虛無，所以是因緣所生起；萬物沒有實在的自性，所以不是因緣所能生。不是因緣所能生，所以照見因緣而不是真正的知；是因緣所生起，所以知與因緣相互依存而生。因此，知與無知，都生於所知。為什麼呢？智慧通過認識所知而產生，因為取了事物的表象所以叫做知。真諦本身沒有表象，真正的智慧又怎麼能認識它呢？之所以這樣說，是因為所知不是真正的所知，所知是由於知而產生的；所知既然產生了知，知也產生了所知。所知與知既然相互產生，相互產生就是緣法，是緣法就不是真。不是真，所以不是真諦。所以《中觀論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）上說：『事物從因緣而有，所以不是真實的。不從因緣而有，那就是真實的。』現在說真諦是真，真就不是因緣。真不是因緣，所以沒有事物是從因緣而生的。所以佛經上說：『沒有不依靠因緣而產生的法。』因此，真正的智慧觀察真諦，從來不取所知。
【English Translation】 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.
知，此智何由知？然智非無知，但真諦非所知，故真智亦非知。而子欲以緣求智，故以智為知。緣自非緣，於何而求知？
難曰：論云「不取」者，為無知故不取？為知然後不取耶？若無知故不取，聖人則冥若夜遊，不辨緇素之異耶！若知然後不取，知則異於不取矣！
答曰：非無知，故不取；又非知，然後不取。知即不取，故能不取而知。
難曰：論云「不取」者，誠以聖心不物於物，故無惑取也。無取則無是，無是則無當。誰當聖心，而云聖心無所不知耶？
答曰：然。無是、無當者。夫無當，則物無不當；無是；則物無不是。物無不是，故是而無是；物無不當，故當而無當。故經云：「盡見諸法而無所見。」
難曰：聖心非不能是，誠以無是可是。雖無是可是，故當是于無是矣。是以經云「真諦無相故般若無知」者，誠以般若無有有相之知。若以無相為無相，有何累于真諦耶？
答曰：聖人無無相也。何者？若以無相為無相，無相即為相。舍有而之無，譬猶逃峰而赴壑，俱不免於患矣。是以至人處有而不有，居無而不無。雖不取于有無，然亦不捨于有無。所以和光塵勞，周旋五趣，寂然而往，怕爾而來，恬淡無為而無不為。
難曰：聖心雖無知，然其應會之道不差
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：你所說的『知』，是通過什麼來了解的呢？然而智慧並非沒有知覺，只是真諦並非可以被認知的事物，所以真正的智慧也不是一種認知。而你想要通過因緣來尋求智慧，所以把智慧當成了認知。因緣本身就不是因緣，又從何處去尋求認知呢？
提問者說：經論中說『不取』，是因為沒有知覺所以不取嗎？還是因為知道之後才不取呢？如果因為沒有知覺所以不取，那麼聖人就如同在黑夜中行走，無法分辨黑色和白色之間的區別了！如果知道之後才不取，那麼知道就和不取是不同的了！
回答者說：不是因為沒有知覺，所以不取；也不是因為知道，然後才不取。知道就是不取，所以能夠不取而知。
提問者說：經論中說『不取』，確實是因為聖人的心不被外物所束縛，所以沒有迷惑和執取。沒有執取就沒有『是』，沒有『是』就沒有『當』。誰能評判聖人的心，而說聖人的心無所不知呢？
回答者說：是的。沒有『是』，沒有『當』。沒有『當』，那麼萬物沒有不合適的；沒有『是』，那麼萬物沒有不是的。萬物沒有不是的，所以是而無是；萬物沒有不合適的，所以當而無當。所以經書上說：『完全看見諸法卻沒有任何看見。』
提問者說：聖人的心不是不能說是，確實是因為沒有『是』可以去說是。即使沒有『是』可以去說是，所以應當說是沒有『是』。因此經書上說『真諦沒有相，所以般若沒有知』，確實是因為般若沒有具有有相的知。如果把沒有相當作沒有相，對真諦有什麼損害呢？
回答者說：聖人沒有沒有相。為什麼呢？如果把沒有相當作沒有相，沒有相就成了相。捨棄有而趨向無，好比逃離山峰卻跳入深谷，都不能免除禍患。因此，達到極高境界的人，處於有而不執著于有，處於無而不執著于無。雖然不執取于有無，然而也不捨棄有無。所以和光同塵，周旋於五道輪迴，寂靜地離去，忽然地到來，恬淡無為卻無所不為。
提問者說：聖人的心雖然沒有知，然而它應合世間萬物的道理不會有差錯
【English Translation】 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.
。是以可應者應之，不可應者存之。然則聖心有時而生、有時而滅。可得然乎？
答曰：生滅者，生滅心也。聖人無心，生滅焉起？然非無心，但是無心心耳；又非不應，但是不應應耳。是以聖人應會之道，則信若四時之質。直以虛無為體，斯不可得而生、不可得而滅也。
難曰：聖智之無、惑智之無，俱無生滅。何以異之？
答曰：聖智之無者，無知；惑智之無者，知無。其無雖同，所以無者，異也。何者？夫聖心虛靜，無知可無，可曰無知，非謂知無。惑智有知，故有知可無，可謂知無，非曰無知也。無知，即般若之無也；知無，即真諦之無也。是以般若之與真諦，言用，即同而異；言寂，即異而同。同，故無心於彼此；異，故不失於照功。是以辨同者同於異，辨異者異於同，斯則不可得而異、不可得而同也。何者？內有獨鑒之明，外有萬法之實。萬法雖實，然非照不得。內外相與以成其照功，此則聖所不能同；用也。內雖照而無知，外雖實而無相。內外寂然，相與俱無，此則聖所不能異；寂也。是以經云「諸法不異」者，豈曰續鳧截鶴、夷岳盈壑，然後無異哉？誠以不異於異，故雖異而不異也。故經云：「甚奇，世尊！于無異法中而說諸法異。」又云：「般若與諸法，亦不一相，亦不異相。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所以，應該回應的就回應，不應該回應的就保持沉默。那麼，聖人的心有時產生，有時消滅。可以這樣認為嗎？
回答說：產生和消滅的是產生和消滅的心。聖人沒有（分別）心，產生和消滅從哪裡產生呢？然而，並非沒有心，只是沒有執著的心罷了；又不是不迴應，只是不以有心的方式迴應罷了。因此，聖人應付世事的方法，就像四季的執行一樣自然。直接以虛無作為本體，這樣就無法產生，也無法消滅。
提問說：聖人的智慧之『無』，迷惑者的智慧之『無』，都沒有產生和消滅。有什麼區別呢？
回答說：聖人智慧的『無』，是『無知』（沒有分別的智慧）；迷惑者智慧的『無』，是『知無』（知道萬法皆空）。它們的『無』雖然相同，但導致『無』的原因不同。為什麼呢？因為聖人的心虛空寂靜，沒有（具體的）知識可以去除，所以可以稱為『無知』，而不是說『知道萬法皆空』。迷惑者的智慧有（具體的）知識，所以有（具體的）知識可以去除，可以稱為『知無』，而不是說『無知』。『無知』，就是般若（prajna，智慧）的『無』；『知無』，就是真諦（paramārtha，第一義諦）的『無』。因此，般若與真諦，從作用上說，相同而不同；從寂靜上說，不同而相同。相同，所以心中沒有彼此的分別；不同，所以不會失去照見萬法的功用。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，這樣就無法說它們是不同，也無法說它們是相同。為什麼呢？因為內心有獨自照見的明性，外在有萬法的實相。萬法雖然是實相，但如果不能被照見，也就無法顯現。內外相互作用，成就了照見的功用，這是聖人所不能等同的，這是從作用上來說的。內心雖然照見，卻沒有分別的知見；外在雖然是實相，卻沒有固定的相狀。內外寂然不動，相互之間都歸於空無，這是聖人所不能區分的，這是從寂靜上來說的。因此，經書上說『諸法不異』，難道是說把野鴨的腿接長，把鶴的腿截短，剷平高山，填滿深谷，然後才沒有差異嗎？真正的不異，是在差異中看到不異，所以雖然有差異，但本質上是不異的。所以經書上說：『非常奇妙，世尊（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼佛）！在沒有差異的法中，卻宣說了諸法的差異。』又說：『般若與諸法，也不是完全相同，也不是完全不同。』
【English Translation】 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。
難曰：論云「言用則異，言寂則同。」未詳般若之內，則有用寂之異乎？
答曰：用即寂、寂即用，用寂體一，同出而異名；更無無用之寂而主于用也。是以智彌昧，照逾明；神彌靜，應逾動。豈曰明昧動靜之異哉？故《成具》云：「不為而過為。」《寶積》曰：「無心無識，無不覺知。」斯則窮神盡智，極像外之談也。即之明文，聖心可知矣。
般若無知論(終)
劉遺民書問附
遺民和南：頃餐徽聞，有懷遙佇。歲未寒嚴，體中如何？音寄壅隔，增用抱蘊。弟子沉痾草澤，常有弊瘵耳。因慧明道人北遊，裁通其情。古人不以形疏致淡，悟涉則親。是以雖復江山悠邈，不面當年，至於企懷風味，鏡心象跡，佇悅之勤，良以深矣。緬然無因，瞻霞永嘆，順時愛敬。冀因行李，數有承問。伏願彼大眾康和！外國法師休納！上人以悟發之器而遘茲淵對，想開究之功，足以盡過半之思。故以每惟乖闊，憤愧何深。此山僧清常，道戒彌勵，禪隱之餘則惟研惟講。恂恂穆穆，故可樂矣。弟子既以遂宿心，而睹茲上軌，感寄之誠，日月銘至。遠法師頃恒履宜，思業精詣，幹幹宵夕。自非道用潛流，理為神御，孰以過順之年，湛氣若茲之勤？所以憑慰既深，仰謝逾絕。
去年夏末，
【現代漢語翻譯】 信矣。
難曰：論云『言用則異，言寂則同。』未詳般若（Prajna，智慧）之內，則有用寂之異乎？
答曰：用即寂、寂即用，用寂體一，同出而異名；更無無用之寂而主于用也。是以智彌昧，照逾明；神彌靜，應逾動。豈曰明昧動靜之異哉？故《成具》云：『不為而過為。』《寶積》曰：『無心無識，無不覺知。』斯則窮神盡智，極像外之談也。即之明文，聖心可知矣。
般若無知論(終)
劉遺民書問附
遺民和南：頃餐徽聞，有懷遙佇。歲未寒嚴，體中如何？音寄壅隔，增用抱蘊。弟子沉痾草澤，常有弊瘵耳。因慧明道人北遊，裁通其情。古人不以形疏致淡，悟涉則親。是以雖復江山悠邈，不面當年，至於企懷風味，鏡心象跡，佇悅之勤，良以深矣。緬然無因，瞻霞永嘆，順時愛敬。冀因行李，數有承問。伏願彼大眾康和！外國法師休納！上人以悟發之器而遘茲淵對，想開究之功，足以盡過半之思。故以每惟乖闊，憤愧何深。此山僧清常，道戒彌勵，禪隱之餘則惟研惟講。恂恂穆穆，故可樂矣。弟子既以遂宿心，而睹茲上軌，感寄之誠，日月銘至。遠法師頃恒履宜，思業精詣，幹幹宵夕。自非道用潛流，理為神御，孰以過順之年，湛氣若茲之勤？所以憑慰既深，仰謝逾絕。
去年夏末，
【English Translation】 Indeed.
Question: The treatise says, 'When speaking of function, they are different; when speaking of stillness, they are the same.' I don't understand, within Prajna (Wisdom), are there differences between function and stillness?
Answer: Function is stillness, and stillness is function. Function and stillness are one in essence, originating from the same source but with different names; there is no stillness without function that governs function. Therefore, the more obscured the wisdom, the brighter the illumination; the more tranquil the spirit, the more responsive the action. How can one speak of differences between brightness and obscurity, stillness and movement? Thus, the Samadhi-nirdeśa Sutra says, 'Not acting, yet accomplishing more than acting.' The Ratnakuta Sutra says, 'Without mind, without consciousness, there is nothing that is not known.' This is to exhaust the spirit and intelligence, reaching the ultimate discussion beyond phenomena. From these clear statements, the sage's mind can be understood.
Treatise on Prajna's Non-Knowing (End)
Attached: Letter from Liu Yimin
Yimin bows in respect: I have long admired your esteemed reputation and have been longing to see you from afar. As the year is not yet severely cold, how is your health? Letters are difficult to send, increasing my feelings of longing. This disciple is ill and living in the countryside, often suffering from ailments. I am sending Huiming, a Daoist priest, on a journey north to convey my feelings. The ancients did not let physical distance lead to indifference; understanding brings closeness. Therefore, although the mountains and rivers are vast and we have not met in person for years, my admiration for your character and teachings, reflecting your image in my mind, and the diligence of my longing for joy are truly profound. Sadly, there is no opportunity to meet, and I can only sigh towards the clouds, offering my respect in accordance with the seasons. I hope to inquire about you through travelers. I sincerely wish that the community there is healthy and harmonious! May the foreign Dharma masters find peace! You, as a vessel of enlightened wisdom, have encountered such profound teachings. I imagine that the merit of your exploration is sufficient to resolve more than half of your thoughts. Therefore, I am deeply ashamed of our long separation. The monks on this mountain are pure and disciplined, diligently upholding the precepts, and spending their time in meditation and study. They are gentle and respectful, making this a joyful place. As I have fulfilled my long-held wish and witnessed your noble example, my feelings of gratitude are etched in my heart like the sun and moon. Dharma Master Yuan has always acted appropriately, diligently pursuing his studies day and night. If it were not for the subtle flow of the Dharma and the guidance of reason, who could maintain such diligence and tranquility in their declining years? Therefore, my comfort is deep, and my gratitude is beyond expression.
Last summer,
始見生上人示《無知論》。才運清俊，旨中沈允，推涉聖文，婉而有歸。披味慇勤，不能釋手。直可謂浴心方等之淵，而悟懷絕冥之肆者矣！若令此辨遂通，則般若眾流，殆不言而會。可不欣乎！可不欣乎！夫理微者辭險，唱獨者應希。茍非絕言象之表者，將以存象而致乖乎？意謂，答以緣求智之章，婉轉窮盡，極為精巧，無所間然矣。但暗者難以頓曉，猶有餘疑一兩，今輒題之如別。想從容之暇，復能粗為釋之。
論序云：「般若之體，非有非無。虛不失照，照不失虛。故曰不動等覺而建立諸法。」下章云：「異乎人者神明，故不可以事相求之耳。」又云：「用即寂、寂即用。神彌靜，應逾動。」夫聖心冥寂，理極同無。不疾而疾，不徐而徐。是以知不廢寂、寂不廢知，未始不寂、未始不知。故其運物，成功化世之道。雖處有名之中，而遠與無名同。斯理之玄，固常所彌昧者矣。但今談者，所疑于高論之旨，欲求聖心之異：為謂窮靈極數妙盡冥符耶？為將心體自然靈怕獨感耶？若窮靈極數妙盡冥符，則寂照之名，故是定慧之體耳。若心體自然靈怕獨感，則群數之應，固以幾乎息矣。夫心數既玄而孤運其照，神淳化表而慧明獨存。當有深證，可試為辨之。疑者當以撫會應機睹變之知，不可謂之不有矣。而論旨云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 最初見到生上人展示《無知論》。他的文采清新俊逸，主旨深刻含蓄，推究涉及聖人的文章，委婉而有歸宿。我慇勤地閱讀品味，愛不釋手。真可以說是用方等（Vipulya，廣大的）經典的深淵來洗滌心靈，而領悟到超越冥昧的境界！如果能使這種辯論得以通行，那麼般若（Prajna，智慧）的眾多流派，大概不用言說就能融會貫通。這難道不令人欣喜嗎！這難道不令人欣喜嗎！理致精微的言辭必然險峻，獨自倡導的人響應者稀少。如果不是超越了言語形象的表達，那麼將以儲存形象而導致乖謬嗎？我的意思是，用緣起求智的文章來回答，委婉曲折地窮盡其理，極為精巧，無可挑剔。但愚昧的人難以立刻明白，仍然還有一兩處疑惑，現在姑且題寫下來作為告別。希望在您從容閑暇的時候，能夠再次粗略地為我解釋一下。 《無知論》的序言中說：『般若的本體，非有非無。虛空不失去照用，照用不失去虛空。所以說不動的等覺而建立諸法。』下面的章節說：『不同於一般人的是神明，所以不可以用事相來尋求它。』又說：『用就是寂靜，寂靜就是用。精神越是安靜，感應就越是靈動。』聖人的心境深遠寂靜，道理達到極致就是同於虛無。不快也不慢，不急也不緩。因此知道不廢棄寂靜，寂靜不廢棄知道，未曾不是寂靜，未曾不是知道。所以他運用事物，成就教化世人的方法。雖然處於有名之中，而遠遠地與無名相同。這種道理的玄妙，本來就是我常常感到迷惑的。但現在談論的人，所疑惑于您的高論的旨意，想要探求聖人內心的不同之處：是認為窮盡靈性、極盡數術，巧妙地達到與冥昧相符嗎？還是認為心體的自然靈性獨自感應呢？如果認為窮盡靈性、極盡數術，巧妙地達到與冥昧相符，那麼寂照的名稱，本來就是定慧的本體啊。如果認為心體的自然靈性獨自感應，那麼對於眾多事物的感應，本來就已經幾乎停止了。心數既然玄妙而獨自執行其照用，精神純粹而變化顯現於外，而智慧光明獨自存在。這其中應當有深刻的證悟，可以試著為我辨析一下。疑惑的人認為撫慰、會合、應機、觀察變化的知，不可以認為它不存在啊。而論旨說
【English Translation】 English version: I first saw Venerable Sheng showing his 『Treatise on No-Knowing』. His talent was fresh and elegant, his main points profound and subtle, his investigation involved the writings of sages, gentle and with a destination. I read and savored it diligently, unable to put it down. It can truly be said that he used the depths of the Vipulya (extensive) sutras to cleanse his mind, and realized a state beyond darkness! If this debate could be made accessible, then the many streams of Prajna (wisdom) would probably converge without needing to be spoken of. Isn't this delightful! Isn't this delightful! Words that are subtle in principle are necessarily dangerous, and those who advocate alone have few respondents. If it is not an expression that transcends words and images, then will preserving the image lead to contradiction? My intention is to answer with a chapter on seeking wisdom through dependent origination, exhaustively and ingeniously, without any flaws. But the ignorant find it difficult to understand immediately, and there are still one or two doubts remaining, which I now write down as a farewell. I hope that in your leisure time, you can roughly explain them to me again. The preface to the 『Treatise on No-Knowing』 says: 『The essence of Prajna is neither existent nor non-existent. Emptiness does not lose its illumination, and illumination does not lose its emptiness. Therefore, it is said that the unmoving equanimity establishes all dharmas.』 The following chapter says: 『What differs from ordinary people is spiritual intelligence, so it cannot be sought through phenomena.』 It also says: 『Function is stillness, and stillness is function. The more tranquil the spirit, the more responsive it is.』 The mind of a sage is profound and still, and the principle reaches its limit in being the same as nothingness. Neither fast nor slow, neither hurried nor leisurely. Therefore, knowing does not abandon stillness, and stillness does not abandon knowing; it is never not still, and never not knowing. Therefore, he uses things to accomplish the way of teaching and transforming the world. Although he is in the midst of the named, he is far the same as the unnamed. The mystery of this principle is what I have always been confused about. But now, those who discuss it are doubtful of the meaning of your high discourse, wanting to explore the difference in the heart of a sage: Is it that he exhausts spirituality, exhausts numerology, and skillfully achieves conformity with darkness? Or is it that the natural spirituality of the mind-essence responds alone? If it is thought that he exhausts spirituality, exhausts numerology, and skillfully achieves conformity with darkness, then the names of stillness and illumination are originally the essence of Samadhi (concentration) and Prajna (wisdom). If it is thought that the natural spirituality of the mind-essence responds alone, then the response to numerous things has already almost ceased. Since the mind-numbers are mysterious and operate their illumination alone, and the spirit is pure and its transformations manifest outwardly, while the light of wisdom exists alone, there should be profound realization in this, which you can try to explain to me. Those who doubt believe that the knowledge of comforting, uniting, responding to opportunities, and observing changes cannot be said to not exist. And the treatise says
「本無惑取之知」，而未釋所以不取之理。謂宜先定聖心所以應會之道，為當唯照無相耶？為當咸睹其變耶？若睹其變，則異乎無相；若唯照無相，則無會可撫。既無會可撫，而有撫會之功。意有未悟，幸復誨之。論云「無當，則物無不當；無是，則物無不是。物無不是，故是而無是；物無不當，故當而無當。」夫無當而物無不當，乃所以為至當；無是而物無不是，乃所以為真是。豈有真是而非是、至當而非當，而云當而無當、是而無是耶？若謂至當非常當，真是非常是，此蓋悟、惑之言本異耳，固論旨所以不明也。愿復重喻，以祛其惑矣。
論至日，即與遠法師詳省之，法師亦好相領得意。但標位似各有本，或當不必理盡同矣。頃兼以班諸有懷，屢有擊其節者，而恨不得與斯人同時也。
答劉遺民書
不面在昔，佇想用勞。慧明道人至，得去年十二月疏並問。披尋返覆，欣若暫對。涼風屆節，頃常如何？貪道勞疾，多不住耳。信南返不悉。八月十五日。釋僧肇疏答。
服像雖殊，妙期不二；江山雖緬，理契則鄰。所以望途致想，虛襟有寄。君既遂嘉遁之志，標越俗之美，獨恬事外，歡足方寸。每一言集，何嘗不遠喻林下之雅詠，高致悠然。清散未期，厚自保愛。每因行李，數有承問。愿彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
您說『本來沒有迷惑而獲取的知識』，卻沒有解釋為什麼不獲取的道理。我認為應該先確定聖人的心應該領會的道，是應當只照見無相呢？還是應當全部看到它的變化呢？如果看到它的變化，那就不同於無相；如果只照見無相，那就沒有可以依憑的領會。既然沒有可以依憑的領會，卻有依憑領會的作用。我理解上還有沒領悟的地方，希望您再次教誨我。論中說：『沒有執著，那麼萬物沒有不恰當的；沒有肯定，那麼萬物沒有不是的。萬物沒有不是的，所以肯定而無肯定；萬物沒有不恰當的，所以恰當而無恰當。』沒有執著而萬物沒有不恰當的，這才是最恰當；沒有肯定而萬物沒有不是的，這才是最真實。難道有真實卻不是肯定，最恰當卻不是恰當，而說恰當而無恰當、肯定而無肯定嗎？如果說最恰當不是通常的恰當，最真實不是通常的肯定，這大概是領悟和迷惑的說法本來就不同，這正是論旨不明確的原因啊。希望您再次用比喻來說明，以消除我的疑惑。 到了那天，就和遠法師（指慧遠大師）詳細地審查它，法師也很喜歡並且領會了其中的意思。但是標立的位次好像各有依據，或許應當不必在道理上完全相同。不久也把它分發給有心求道的人，屢次有人擊節讚歎，只可惜不能和這些人同時見面啊。 答劉遺民書 過去沒有見面，只能通過想像來表達我的思念。慧明道人到了，收到了去年十二月的來信和問題。打開反覆閱讀，高興得好像暫時見面一樣。涼風吹來的季節，您近來怎麼樣？我貪求佛道，身體多病，經常不在家。送信人南返，不多說了。八月十五日。釋僧肇（指僧肇法師）回覆。 服飾形象雖然不同，追求的妙理卻是一樣的；江山雖然遙遠，道理相合就如同鄰居。所以遙望遠方表達我的思念，虛心有所寄託。您既然實現了隱居的志向，展現了超越世俗的美德，獨自安於世外，內心的快樂就足夠了。每當收到您的來信，總能聯想到您在山林下的高雅吟唱，高尚的情致悠遠綿長。清靜閑散的日子還沒有到來，請多多保重身體。每次遇到送信的人，都多次托他們向您問候。希望您...
【English Translation】 English version:
You say, 'Originally there is no knowledge obtained through delusion,' but you have not explained the reason for not obtaining it. I think we should first determine the Way that the sage's mind should comprehend. Should it only illuminate the absence of form (Wu Xiang) or should it fully perceive its changes? If it perceives its changes, then it is different from the absence of form. If it only illuminates the absence of form, then there is no comprehension to rely on. Since there is no comprehension to rely on, yet there is the function of relying on comprehension, I still have some unenlightened points. I hope you will instruct me again. The treatise says, 'Without attachment, then nothing is inappropriate; without affirmation, then nothing is not so. Since nothing is not so, it is affirmation without affirmation; since nothing is inappropriate, it is appropriateness without appropriateness.' Without attachment, yet nothing is inappropriate, that is the ultimate appropriateness. Without affirmation, yet nothing is not so, that is the ultimate truth. How can there be truth that is not affirmation, ultimate appropriateness that is not appropriateness, and then say appropriateness without appropriateness, affirmation without affirmation? If you say that ultimate appropriateness is not ordinary appropriateness, ultimate truth is not ordinary affirmation, this is probably because the words of enlightenment and delusion are fundamentally different. This is precisely why the meaning of the treatise is unclear. I hope you will use metaphors again to explain and dispel my doubts. On that day, I examined it in detail with Dharma Master Yuan (referring to Master Huiyuan), and the Dharma Master also liked it and understood its meaning. However, the established positions seem to have their own basis, and perhaps it is not necessary for them to be completely the same in principle. Soon, I also distributed it to those who have aspirations for the Way, and many people repeatedly praised it, but I regret that I cannot meet these people at the same time. Reply to Liu Yimin We have not met in the past, so I can only express my thoughts through imagination. The Daoist Huiming has arrived, and I received your letter and questions from last December. Opening and reading it repeatedly, I am as happy as if we were temporarily meeting. In this season of cool breezes, how have you been lately? I am greedy for the Buddhist path and often ill, often not at home. The messenger is returning south, I will not say more. August 15th. Reply from Monk Zhao (referring to Dharma Master Sengzhao). Although the clothing and appearance are different, the wonderful goal pursued is the same; although the rivers and mountains are far away, if the principles are in harmony, then it is like being neighbors. Therefore, I look to the distance to express my thoughts, and my heart is open to entrust them. Since you have fulfilled your aspiration to live in seclusion and displayed the beauty of transcending the mundane, being content alone outside of worldly affairs, the joy in your heart is sufficient. Every time I receive your letter, I always think of your elegant chants in the forests and mountains, and your noble sentiments are long and lasting. The days of tranquility and leisure have not yet arrived, please take good care of yourself. Every time I meet a messenger, I repeatedly ask them to send my regards to you. I hope you...
山僧無恙，道俗通佳。承遠法師之勝常，以為欣慰。雖未清承，然服膺高軌。企佇之勤，為日久矣。公以過順之年，湛氣彌厲，養徒幽巖，抱一衝谷，遐邇仰詠，何美如之！每亦翹想一隅，懸庇霄岸。無由寫敬，致慨良深！君清對終日，快有悟心之歡也。即此大眾尋常，什法師如宜。秦王道性自然，天機邁俗，城塹三寶，弘道是務。由使異典、勝僧方遠而至，靈鷲之風萃于茲土。領公遠舉，乃千載之津樑也。于西域還，得方等新經二百餘部，請大乘禪師一人、三藏法師一人、毗婆沙法師二人。什法師于大石寺出新至諸經，法藏淵曠，日有異聞。禪師于瓦官寺教習禪道，門徒數百，夙夜匪懈，邕邕蕭蕭，致可欣樂。三藏法師于中寺出律藏，本末精悉，若睹初制。毗婆沙法師于石羊寺出《舍利弗阿毗曇》胡本，雖未及譯，時問中事，發言新奇。貧道一生，猥參嘉運，遇茲盛化。自恨不睹釋迦祇桓之集，余復何恨？而慨不得與清勝君子同斯法集耳。生上人頃在此同止數年，至於言話之際，常相稱詠。中途還南，君得與相見。未更近問，惘悒何言！威道人至，得君《唸佛三昧詠》，並得遠法師《三昧詠》及〈序〉。此作興寄既高，辭致清婉。能文之士，率稱其美。可謂游涉聖門，扣玄關之唱也。君與法師當數有文集，因來何少
【現代漢語翻譯】 山僧一切安好，道俗各界人士也都安好。聽說遠法師的盛名，我感到非常欣慰。雖然未能親自拜見，但我一直敬佩他的高尚品德。仰慕之情，已經很久了。您以年過花甲之年，精神更加旺盛，在幽靜的山巖中教導弟子，在空曠的山谷中修身養性，遠近的人都仰慕歌頌，這是多麼美好的事情啊！我也常常翹首遙望，希望得到您的庇護。沒有機會表達敬意，深感遺憾！您整日清靜地思考，一定有很多領悟的喜悅吧。這裡的大眾一切如常，鳩摩羅什法師一切都好。秦王天性崇尚佛法，天資超凡脫俗，他守護三寶，弘揚佛法是他的職責。因此，使得外國的經典和高僧從遙遠的地方來到這裡，靈鷲山的風範匯聚在這片土地上。您能遠道而來，真是千載難逢的機緣。從西域回來，得到了《方等經》的新經書二百多部，還請來了一位大乘禪師、一位三藏法師、兩位毗婆沙法師。鳩摩羅什法師在大石寺翻譯新到的各種經書，他的佛學知識淵博深廣，每天都有新的見聞。禪師在瓦官寺教習禪法，門徒數百人，早晚勤奮不懈，和諧而肅穆，令人欣慰。三藏法師在中寺翻譯律藏，從頭到尾都非常精通，就像親眼看到最初的制定一樣。毗婆沙法師在石羊寺翻譯《舍利弗阿毗曇》（Sariputra Abhidhamma）的胡文字，雖然還沒有翻譯完成，但偶爾提問其中的內容，他的發言新穎奇特。我這一生，有幸參與到這美好的時代，遇到這興盛的佛教事業。我遺憾的是沒有親眼見到釋迦牟尼佛在祇樹給孤獨園的集會，除此之外，我還有什麼遺憾呢？只是慨嘆不能和您這樣清高賢勝的君子一同參與這樣的法會。生上人（僧人的名字）之前在這裡一起住了幾年，我們談話的時候，常常互相稱讚。他中途返回南方，您有機會和他相見。沒有進一步詢問他的情況，心中茫然不知說什麼好！威道人（僧人的名字）來的時候，帶來了您的《唸佛三昧詠》，以及遠法師的《三昧詠》和〈序〉。這些作品立意高遠，文辭清麗婉轉。能寫文章的人，都稱讚它們的美好。可以說是遊歷聖人之門，叩響玄妙之關的歌唱啊。您和遠法師應該有很多文集，為什麼這次帶來的這麼少呢？
【English Translation】 The mountain monk is well, and all in the religious and secular communities are doing fine. I am delighted to hear of the eminence of Dharma Master Yuan (a monk's name). Although I have not had the honor of meeting him in person, I deeply admire his noble character. My longing for him has been for a long time. You, in your advanced years, are even more vigorous in spirit, teaching disciples in secluded mountain rocks, and cultivating yourself in open valleys. People far and near admire and praise you. How wonderful this is! I also often look up and hope to receive your protection. Having no way to express my respect, I feel deeply regretful! You spend your days in quiet contemplation, surely experiencing the joy of enlightenment. The community here is as usual, and Dharma Master Kumarajiva (a famous translator) is well. King Qin (referring to a ruler) naturally reveres the Dharma, and his talent is extraordinary. He protects the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), and promoting the Dharma is his duty. Because of this, foreign scriptures and eminent monks come from afar, and the spirit of Vulture Peak (a mountain in India where Buddha preached) gathers in this land. Your coming from afar is truly a bridge for a thousand years. Returning from the Western Regions, I obtained over two hundred new scriptures of the Vaipulya Sutras (Mahayana sutras), and also invited a Mahayana meditation master, a Tripitaka master, and two Vibhasha masters. Dharma Master Kumarajiva is translating newly arrived scriptures at the Great Stone Temple, his knowledge of Buddhism is vast and profound, and there are new insights every day. The meditation master is teaching meditation at the Waguan Temple, with hundreds of disciples, diligent day and night, harmonious and solemn, which is delightful. The Tripitaka master is translating the Vinaya Pitaka (monastic rules) at the Central Temple, with thorough knowledge from beginning to end, as if witnessing the original establishment. The Vibhasha masters are translating the Hu (non-Chinese) version of the Sariputra Abhidhamma (a Buddhist text) at the Stone Sheep Temple. Although it has not yet been fully translated, when they occasionally ask about its content, their statements are novel and unique. In my life, I am fortunate to participate in this auspicious era and encounter this flourishing Buddhist undertaking. My regret is that I did not witness the assembly of Shakyamuni Buddha at Jetavana Monastery, but what else could I regret? I only lament that I cannot participate in such a Dharma assembly with noble and virtuous gentlemen like you. The Venerable Sheng (a monk's name) stayed here with me for several years, and we often praised each other in our conversations. He returned to the South midway, and you had the opportunity to meet him. I have not inquired further about his situation, and I am at a loss for words! When Dao Ren Wei (a monk's name) came, he brought your 'Ode to the Samadhi of Buddha Recitation,' as well as Dharma Master Yuan's 'Ode to Samadhi' and its 'Preface.' These works have lofty intentions and elegant language. Scholars praise their beauty. They can be said to be songs of wandering through the gate of the saints and knocking on the gate of the mysterious. You and Dharma Master Yuan should have many collections of writings, why did you bring so few this time?
？什法師以午年出《維摩經》，貧道時預聽次；參承之暇，輒復條記成言，以為註解。辭雖不文，然義承有本。今因信持一本往南。君閑詳，試可取看。
來問婉切，難為郢人。貧道思不關微，兼拙於筆語。且至趣無言，言必乖趣。云云不已，竟何所辨？聊以狂言，示酬來旨耳。
疏云「稱聖心冥寂，理極同無。雖處有名之中，而遠與無名同。」斯理之玄，固常彌昧者。以此為懷，自可忘言內得，取定方寸。復何足以人情之所異，而求聖心之異乎。
疏曰「談者謂窮靈極數妙盡冥符，別寂照之名，故是定慧之體耳。若心體自然靈怕獨感，則群數之應固以幾乎息矣。」意謂，妙盡冥符，不可以定慧為名；靈怕獨感；不可稱群數以息。兩言雖殊，妙用常一。跡我而乘，在聖不殊也。何者？夫聖人玄心默照，理極同無。既曰為同，同無不極。何有同無之極，而有定慧之名？定慧之名，非同外之稱也。若稱生同內，有稱非同；若稱生同外，稱非我也。又聖心虛微，妙絕常境。感無不應，會無不通。冥機潛運，其用不勤。群數之應，亦何為而息耶？且夫心之有也，以其有有。有不自有，故聖心不有有。不有有，故有無有。有無有，故則無無。無無，故聖人不有不無。不有不無，其神乃虛。何者？夫有也、無也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 什法師在午年寫了《維摩經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）的註解，貧道當時也參與了聽講；在參學之餘，便記錄下他的言論，作為註解的參考。文辭雖然不夠華麗，但義理是有根據的。現在因為有人要帶一本去南方，您有空可以看看。
來信問得很懇切，實在難以拒絕。貧道思慮不夠深刻，又不擅長文字表達。況且最高的道理是無法用語言表達的，一旦說了出來，必然會偏離本意。這樣說來說去，又能辨明什麼呢？姑且用一些狂妄的言語，來回應您的旨意罷了。
疏文中說：『稱頌聖人的心境是冥寂的，道理達到了與「無」相同的極致。雖然身處「有名」的世界之中，卻遠離並與「無名」相同。』這種玄妙的道理，本來就常常讓人感到迷惑。如果能以此爲念，自然可以達到忘言而內心領悟，從而確定自己的心意。又何必因為與常人的想法不同，而去追求與聖人的心意相同呢？
疏文中說：『談論的人認為，窮盡了靈妙的極數，巧妙地達到了與冥寂相符的境界，從而區分了寂照（Samatha-vipassana）的名稱，所以這就是定慧（Samadhi-prajna）的本體。如果心體自然靈妙，能夠獨立地感知，那麼各種現象的應現自然就會停止了。』我的意思是，妙盡冥符，不能用定慧來命名；靈怕獨感，不能說各種現象的應現已經停止。這兩句話雖然說法不同，但其妙用卻始終是一樣的。凡夫通過依附於『我』而行動，聖人也是如此，並沒有什麼不同。為什麼呢？因為聖人的玄妙之心默默地照亮一切，道理達到了與『無』相同的極致。既然說是相同，那就是與『無』相同到了極點。既然與『無』相同到了極點，又怎麼會有定慧的名稱呢？定慧的名稱，並不是在『同』之外的稱謂。如果說它產生於『同』之內，那麼這種稱謂就不是『同』；如果說它產生於『同』之外，那麼這種稱謂就不是『我』。而且聖人的心境虛空而微妙，超越了尋常的境界。感知一切而無所不應，會通一切而無所不通。冥冥之中，機能自然運轉，其作用並不費力。各種現象的應現，又怎麼會停止呢？況且，心的存在，是因為它有所存在。而『有』的存在不是它自身所能決定的，所以聖人的心境不會執著于『有』。不執著于『有』，所以『有』也就沒有了。『有』都沒有了，所以也就沒有『無』了。沒有『無』，所以聖人不會執著于『不無』。不執著于『不無』，他的精神才是虛空的。為什麼呢？因為『有』和『無』啊。
【English Translation】 English version: Master Shi wrote the 《Vimalakirti Sutra》 (維摩經) commentary in the Wu year, and I, a humble monk, attended the lectures at that time; in my spare time, I recorded his words and used them as a reference for my own annotations. Although the writing is not elegant, the meaning is based on solid principles. Now, someone is taking a copy to the South, so if you have time, you can take a look.
Your letter asks so earnestly that it is difficult to refuse. I, a humble monk, do not have profound thoughts and am not good at writing. Moreover, the highest truth is beyond words; once spoken, it inevitably deviates from the original meaning. After all this talk, what can be clarified? I will just use some wild words to respond to your request.
The commentary says: 'Praising the sage's mind as being in a state of profound stillness (冥寂), the principle reaches the ultimate sameness with 'non-being' (無). Although situated in the world of 'having names' (有名), it is far removed from and the same as 'having no name' (無名).' This profound principle is often confusing. If one can keep this in mind, one can naturally achieve inner understanding without words, thereby settling one's mind. Why seek to be different from the sage's mind simply because it differs from ordinary people's thoughts?
The commentary says: 'Those who discuss it say that by exhausting the spiritual and numerical extremes, and subtly reaching the state of perfect accord with the mysterious, one distinguishes the names of Samatha-vipassana (寂照), so this is the substance of Samadhi-prajna (定慧). If the mind-essence is naturally spiritual and uniquely sensitive, then the responses of all phenomena will naturally cease.' My meaning is that the subtle exhaustion of the mysterious accord cannot be named Samadhi-prajna; the spiritual and unique sensitivity cannot be said to have ceased the responses of all phenomena. Although the two statements are different, their subtle function is always the same. Ordinary people act by clinging to 'self' (我), and sages do the same, without any difference. Why? Because the sage's profound mind silently illuminates everything, and the principle reaches the ultimate sameness with 'non-being'. Since it is said to be the same, it is the ultimate sameness with 'non-being'. Since it is the ultimate sameness with 'non-being', how can there be the name of Samadhi-prajna? The name of Samadhi-prajna is not a term outside of 'sameness'. If it is said to arise within 'sameness', then this term is not 'sameness'; if it is said to arise outside of 'sameness', then this term is not 'self'. Moreover, the sage's mind is empty and subtle, transcending ordinary realms. It perceives everything and responds to everything, connects with everything and penetrates everything. In the darkness, the mechanism operates naturally, and its function is effortless. How can the responses of all phenomena cease? Furthermore, the existence of the mind is because it has something that exists. But the existence of 'being' is not determined by itself, so the sage's mind does not cling to 'being'. Not clinging to 'being', therefore 'being' ceases to exist. When 'being' ceases to exist, then 'non-being' also ceases to exist. When 'non-being' ceases to exist, then the sage does not cling to 'not non-being'. Not clinging to 'not non-being', his spirit is empty. Why? Because of 'being' and 'non-being'.
，心之影響也。言也、象也，影響之所攀緣也。有無既廢，則心無影響。影響既淪，則言象莫測。言象莫測，則道絕群方。道絕群方，故能窮靈極數。窮靈極數，乃曰妙盡。妙盡之道，本乎無寄。夫無寄在乎冥寂，冥絕故虛以通之；妙盡存乎極數，極數故數以應之。數以應之，故動與事會；虛以通之，故道超名外。道超名外，因謂之無；動與事會，因謂之有。因謂之有者，應夫真有，強謂之然耳。彼何然哉？故經云：「聖智無知而無所不知，無為而無所不為。」此無言無相寂滅之道。豈曰有而為有、無而為無？動而乖靜、靜而廢用耶？而今談者多即言以定旨，尋大方而徴隅，懷前識以標玄，存所存之必當。是以聞聖有知，謂之有心；聞聖無知；謂等大虛。有無之境，邊見所存，豈是處中莫二之道乎！何者？萬物雖殊，然性本常一；不可而物，然非不物。可物於物，則名相異陳；不物於物，則物而即真。是以聖人不物於物、不非物於物。不物於物，物非有也；不非物於物，物非無也。非有，所以不取；非無，所以不捨。不捨，故妙存即真；不取，故名相靡因。名相靡因，非有知也；妙存即真，非無知也。故經云：「般若於諸法，無取無舍，無知無不知。」此攀緣之外、絕心之域，而欲以有無詰者，不亦遠乎！請詰夫陳有
無者。夫智之生也，極于相內。法本無相，聖智何知？世稱無知者，謂等木石、太虛、無情之流。靈鑒幽燭，形於未兆，道無隱機，寧曰無知？且無知生於無知，無無知也，無有知也。無有知也，謂之非有；無無知也，謂之非無。所以虛不失照、照不失虛，怕然永寂，靡執靡拘。孰能動之令有、靜之使無耶？故經云：「真般若者，非有非無，無起無滅，不可說示於人。」何則？言其非有者，言其非是有，非謂是非有；言其非無者，言其非是無，非謂是非無。非有，非非有；非無，非非無。是以須菩提終日說般若，而云無所說。此絕言之道，知何以傳？庶參玄君子，有以會之耳！
又云「宜先定聖心所以應會之道，為當唯照無相耶？為當咸睹其變耶？」談者似謂無相與變，其旨不一，睹變則異乎無相，照無相則失於撫會。然則即真之義，或有滯也。經云：「色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。」若如來旨，觀色空時，應一心見色、一心見空。若一心見色，則唯色非空；若一心見空，則唯空非色。然則空色兩陳，莫定其本也。是以經云「非色」者，誠以非色於色，不非色于非色。若非色于非色，太虛則非色，非色何所明？若以非色於色，即非色不異色。非色不異色，色即為非色。故知變即無相，無相即變。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『無』的含義。智慧的產生，窮盡于對事物內在本質的觀察。法的本質本無表相，聖人的智慧又如何能認知？世俗所說的『無知』，是指等同於木石、太虛、沒有情感的事物。但真正的靈性之光能夠照亮幽深之處，在事物顯現徵兆之前就能預知，道的執行沒有隱藏的玄機，怎麼能說是無知呢？況且，無知產生於無知，不存在沒有無知的情況，也不存在沒有知的情況。所謂『無有知』，是指它不是『有』；所謂『無無知』，是指它不是『無』。因此，虛空不會失去照亮萬物的能力，照亮萬物的能力也不會失去虛空的本質，達到一種寂靜永恒的狀態，沒有任何執著和束縛。誰能夠使它從無到有，又使它從有到無呢？所以經書上說：『真正的般若智慧，非有非無，無生無滅，無法用語言向人展示。』為什麼呢？說它『非有』，是說它不是一般的『有』，不是說它根本就不是『有』；說它『非無』，是說它不是一般的『無』，不是說它根本就不是『無』。既非『有』，也非『非有』；既非『無』，也非『非無』。因此，須菩提整天都在講說般若，卻說自己什麼也沒說。這種超越言語的道，又如何能夠傳達呢？希望參悟玄機的君子，能夠有所領會！
又有人說：『應該首先確定聖人的心如何與道相應相合，是僅僅照見萬物的無相本質呢？還是應該全部觀察到萬物的變化呢？』提出這種問題的人似乎認為無相和變化，它們的旨意並不相同，觀察變化就不同於觀察無相，觀察無相就會失去對事物的體察和領會。如果這樣，那麼對『即真』的理解，可能就有所滯礙了。經書上說：『色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色。』如果按照如來的旨意，觀察色和空的時候，應該一心一意地只看到色，或者一心一意地只看到空。如果一心一意地只看到色，那麼就只有色而沒有空；如果一心一意地只看到空，那麼就只有空而沒有色。這樣一來，色和空就成了兩種並列的事物，無法確定它們的根本。所以經書上說『非色』，確實是因為在色中看到非色，而不是在非色中看到非色。如果在非色中看到非色，那麼太虛就成了非色，那麼非色又有什麼可以說明的呢？如果以在色中看到非色，那麼非色就不異於色。非色不異於色，色即為非色。所以要知道，變化就是無相，無相就是變化。
【English Translation】 English version: On the meaning of 'non-being' (無, Wú). The arising of wisdom is exhausted in the observation of the inner essence of things. The nature of Dharma is originally without form (相, xiàng), so how can the wisdom of a sage know it? What the world calls 'ignorance' (無知, Wúzhī) refers to things equivalent to wood, stone, the great void, and insentient beings. But the true spiritual light can illuminate the depths, foreseeing things before they manifest signs. The operation of the Dao has no hidden mechanisms, so how can it be called ignorance? Moreover, ignorance arises from ignorance; there is no such thing as the absence of ignorance, nor is there the absence of knowledge. The so-called 'absence of knowledge' (無有知, wú yǒu zhī) means that it is not 'being' (有, yǒu); the so-called 'absence of non-knowledge' (無無知, wú wú zhī) means that it is not 'non-being' (無, wú). Therefore, emptiness does not lose its ability to illuminate, and the ability to illuminate does not lose the essence of emptiness, reaching a state of eternal stillness, without any attachment or constraint. Who can move it from non-being to being, or from being to non-being? Therefore, the scriptures say: 'True Prajna wisdom is neither being nor non-being, without arising or ceasing, and cannot be shown to people through language.' Why? Saying it is 'not being' means it is not ordinary 'being,' not that it is fundamentally not 'being.' Saying it is 'not non-being' means it is not ordinary 'non-being,' not that it is fundamentally not 'non-being.' It is neither 'being' nor 'not-being'; it is neither 'non-being' nor 'not-non-being.' Therefore, Subhuti speaks of Prajna all day long, yet says he has said nothing. How can this path beyond words be conveyed? May those who contemplate the mysteries have some understanding!
Furthermore, some say: 'One should first determine how the heart of a sage corresponds and unites with the Dao. Is it merely to perceive the formless essence of all things, or should one fully observe the changes of all things?' Those who raise this question seem to think that formlessness and change have different meanings. Observing change is different from observing formlessness, and observing formlessness will lose the ability to understand and comprehend things. If so, then the understanding of 'is truth' (即真, jí zhēn) may be hindered. The scriptures say: 'Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form, form is emptiness, emptiness is form.' If according to the Buddha's intention, when observing form and emptiness, one should wholeheartedly see only form, or wholeheartedly see only emptiness. If one wholeheartedly sees only form, then there is only form and no emptiness; if one wholeheartedly sees only emptiness, then there is only emptiness and no form. In this way, form and emptiness become two parallel things, and their root cannot be determined. Therefore, the scriptures say 'not form' (非色, fēi sè), truly because one sees non-form in form, not because one sees non-form in non-form. If one sees non-form in non-form, then the great void becomes non-form, so what can non-form explain? If one sees non-form in form, then non-form is not different from form. Non-form is not different from form, form is non-form. Therefore, know that change is formlessness, and formlessness is change.
群情不同，故教跡有異耳。考之玄籍，本之聖意，豈復真偽殊心、空有異照耶！是以照無相，不失撫會之功；睹變動，不乖無相之旨。造有，不異無；造無，不異有。未嘗不有，未嘗不無，故曰「不動等覺而建立諸法」。以此而推，寂用何妨！如之何謂睹變之知，異無相之照乎，恐談者脫謂空有兩心，靜躁殊用，故言睹變之知，不可謂之不有耳。若能捨已心於封內，尋玄機於事外，齊萬有於一虛，曉至虛之非無者，當言至人終日應會，與物推移，乘運撫化，未始為有也。聖心若此，何有可取而曰「未釋不取之理」。
又云「無是乃所以為真是，無當乃所以為至當。」亦可如來言耳。若能無心於為是，而是于無是，無心於為當，而當於無當者，則終日是，不乖于無是；終日當，不乖于無當。但恐有是于無是、有當于無當，所以為患耳。何者？若真是可是、至當可當，則名相以形，美惡是生。生生奔競，孰與止之？是以聖人空洞其懷，無識無知。然居動用之域，而止無為之境，處有名之內，而宅絕言之鄉。寂寥虛曠，莫可以形名得，若斯而已矣。乃曰真是可是、至當可當，未喻雅旨也。恐是當之生，物謂之然，彼自不然，何足以然耳。夫言跡之興，異途之所由生也。而言有所不言，跡有所不跡。是以善言言者，求言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 眾生的根器不同，所以佛陀教化的方式也各有差異。但如果考察佛經的精義，探求佛陀的本意，哪裡會有真偽之分，空有之別呢！因此，體悟無相的真理，並不會妨礙利益眾生的方便法門；觀察世間的變動，也不會違背無相的宗旨。證悟『有』，並不異於『無』；證悟『無』，也不異於『有』。不是不『有』，也不是不『無』，所以說『在不動的真如本性上建立一切諸法』。由此推論，寂靜和妙用又有什麼妨礙呢！怎麼能說觀察變動的智慧，就不同於體悟無相的真理呢？恐怕論者錯誤地認為空和有是兩種不同的心，靜和動是兩種不同的作用，所以才說觀察變動的智慧，不能說它不存在。如果能夠放下自己的主觀執念，在現象之外尋求玄妙的真機，把萬有都看作是虛幻的，明白至虛的境界並非什麼都沒有，那麼就應該說，聖人整天都在應機說法，隨著事物變化，順應時勢教化眾生，從來沒有執著于『有』。聖人的心境是這樣的，哪裡還有什麼可以執取的，而說『沒有解釋不執取的道理』呢？
又說：『無是』才是真正的『是』，『無當』才是真正的『當』。這也可以說是如來的教誨。如果能夠不執著于『是』，而以『無是』為『是』，不執著于『當』，而以『無當』為『當』，那麼整天都是『是』，也不會違背『無是』；整天都是『當』，也不會違背『無當』。只是擔心執著于『是』而否定『無是』，執著于『當』而否定『無當』，這才是問題的根源。為什麼呢？如果認為『真』是可以肯定的，『至當』是可以執著的，那麼就會產生名相的束縛，美和醜的分別就會產生。在生滅輪迴中奔波追逐，誰能停止呢？因此，聖人虛懷若谷，沒有分別的意識和知識。雖然身處動盪的世界，卻安住在無為的境界；雖然處在有名的世界，卻安住在超越言語的境界。寂靜空曠，無法用語言和名相來描述，只能如此而已。如果說『真』是可以肯定的，『至當』是可以執著的，那就是沒有領悟佛法的精妙之處。恐怕『是』和『當』的產生，人們認為是正確的，但別人卻不認為是正確的，又怎麼能說是正確的呢？言語的產生，是由於不同的途徑所導致的。而言語有所表達，也有所不表達；行為有所作為，也有所不作為。因此，善於運用言語的人，會探求言語背後的真意。
【English Translation】 English version: Sentient beings have different dispositions, hence the Buddha's teachings vary accordingly. But if we examine the profound scriptures and seek the Buddha's true intention, how can there be distinctions of truth and falsehood, emptiness and existence! Therefore, realizing the truth of non-duality does not hinder the expedient means of benefiting sentient beings; observing the changes of the world does not contradict the principle of non-duality. Realizing 'existence' is not different from 'non-existence'; realizing 'non-existence' is not different from 'existence'. It is not not 'existence', nor is it not 'non-existence', hence it is said, 'Upon the immovable equal awareness, all dharmas are established.' From this, what harm is there in stillness and wondrous function! How can it be said that the wisdom of observing change is different from the illumination of non-duality? I fear that the debaters mistakenly think that emptiness and existence are two different minds, stillness and movement are two different functions, so they say that the wisdom of observing change cannot be said to not exist. If one can relinquish one's subjective attachments, seek the profound mechanism beyond phenomena, equate all existence with one emptiness, and understand that the ultimate emptiness is not nothingness, then it should be said that the sage is constantly responding to opportunities, changing with things, adapting to the times, and transforming sentient beings, never clinging to 'existence'. The sage's mind is like this, what is there to grasp and say 'the principle of non-grasping has not been explained'?
Furthermore, it is said, 'Non-is is the reason for being truly is, non-fitting is the reason for being perfectly fitting.' This can also be said to be the teaching of the Tathagata. If one can be without mind in being is, and is in non-is, without mind in being fitting, and fitting in non-fitting, then all day long is, without deviating from non-is; all day long fitting, without deviating from non-fitting. But I fear that there is is in non-is, there is fitting in non-fitting, so it is a problem. Why? If true is affirmable, perfect fitting is graspable, then names and forms will take shape, and good and evil will arise. Running and competing in the cycle of birth and death, who can stop it? Therefore, the sage empties his mind, without discrimination or knowledge. However, residing in the realm of activity, he dwells in the realm of non-action; being within the realm of name, he dwells in the realm beyond words. Silent and vast, it cannot be obtained by name and form, only like this. Then it is said that true is affirmable, perfect fitting is graspable, which is not understanding the elegant meaning. I fear that the birth of is and fitting, people think it is right, but others do not think it is right, how can it be right? The rise of words is due to different paths. And words have what is said, and what is not said; actions have what is done, and what is not done. Therefore, those who are good at using words will seek the true meaning behind the words.
所不能言；善跡跡者，尋跡所不能跡。至理虛玄，擬心已差，況乃有言，恐所示轉遠。庶通心君子，有以相期于文外耳。
涅槃無名論第四
表上秦主姚興
僧肇言：肇聞天得一以清，地得一以寧，君王得一以治天下。伏惟陛下！睿哲欽明，道與神會；妙契環中，理無不統；遊刃萬機，弘道終日；威被蒼生，垂文作則。所以域中有四大，而王居一焉。涅槃之道，蓋是三乘之所歸，方等之淵府。渺漭希夷，絕視聽之域；幽致虛玄，殆非群情之所測。肇以人微，猥蒙國恩，得閑居學肆，在什公門下十有餘載。雖眾經殊致，勝趣非一，然涅槃一義，常以聽習為先。但肇才識闇短，雖屢蒙誨喻，猶懷疑漠漠。為竭愚不已，亦如似有解。然未經高勝先唱，不敢自決。不幸什公去世，咨參無所，以為永慨。而陛下聖德不孤，獨與什公神契，目擊道存，快盡其中方寸，故能振彼玄風以啟末俗。一日遇蒙〈答安城候姚嵩書問無為宗極〉：「何者？夫眾生所以久流轉生死者，皆由著欲故也。若欲止於心，即無復于生死。既無生死，潛神玄默，與虛空合其德，是名涅槃矣。既曰涅槃，復何容有名于其間哉！」斯乃窮微言之美，極像外之談者也。自非道參文殊、德慈侔氏，孰能宣揚玄道、為法城塹，使夫大教卷而復舒，幽
【現代漢語翻譯】 所不能言；善跡跡者，尋跡所不能跡。至理虛玄，擬心已差，況乃有言，恐所示轉遠。庶通心君子，有以相期于文外耳。 現代漢語譯本： （有些道理）是無法用言語表達的；善於追尋事物軌跡的人，也無法追尋到（真理的）軌跡。最高的道理虛無而玄妙，用心去揣測就已經偏離了，更何況用言語來表達，恐怕（用言語）所表達的反而會越來越遠。希望通達心性的君子，能夠在文字之外有所領悟。
涅槃無名論第四
表上秦主姚興
僧肇（Seng Zhao，人名）說：我聽說天得到『一』而清明，地得到『一』而安寧，君王得到『一』而治理天下。我恭敬地認為陛下您！英明睿智，您的道與神相契合；精妙地契合于圓融的中心，道理沒有不被您統攝的；運用自如地處理各種事務，弘揚佛道終日不倦；您的威望覆蓋天下百姓，您的文章成為法則。所以天地之間有四大（地、水、火、風），而君王是其中之一。涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫）之道，是三乘（Three Vehicles，指聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）所歸宿的地方，是方等經（Vaipulya Sutras，大乘佛教經典）的淵源所在。它渺茫無際，難以捉摸，超越了視聽的範圍；它的幽深玄妙，大概不是一般人所能理解的。我因為才識淺薄，有幸蒙受國家的恩惠，得以空閑地學習，在鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva，人名）門下已經有十多年了。雖然眾多佛經的旨趣各不相同，殊勝之處也不一樣，但我常常把聽聞和學習涅槃的義理放在首位。只是我才識愚鈍，雖然多次蒙受教誨，仍然疑惑重重。爲了竭盡我的愚笨，也好像有了一些理解。但是沒有經過高明的人率先倡導，不敢自己下結論。不幸的是，鳩摩羅什去世了，沒有可以請教的人，我對此感到長久的遺憾。而陛下您的聖德並不孤單，您獨自與鳩摩羅什在精神上相契合，親眼見到（他所傳的）道就存在，充分領會了其中的精髓，所以能夠振興玄遠的佛法，來開啟末世的民俗。有一天，我蒙受了〈答安城候姚嵩書問無為宗極〉的開示：『什麼是（無為宗極）呢？眾生之所以長久地在生死中流轉，都是因為執著于慾望的緣故。如果慾望止息于內心，就沒有生死輪迴了。既然沒有生死，精神潛藏於玄妙的寂靜之中，與虛空融為一體，這就叫做涅槃了。既然叫做涅槃，又怎麼能容許有名稱存在於其中呢！』這實在是窮盡了精微言論的美妙之處，是超越了具體形象的談論啊。如果不是在道上可以與文殊菩薩（Manjusri，佛教菩薩）相比，在德行上可以與維摩詰（Vimalakirti，佛教居士）相比的人，誰能夠宣揚玄妙的佛道，成為佛法的堅固堡壘，使得偉大的佛法教義能夠舒捲自如，幽深
【English Translation】 That which cannot be spoken; the skilled in tracing, cannot trace the untraceable. The ultimate truth is empty and profound; to conceive it with the mind is already a deviation, let alone to express it in words, fearing that what is shown will become increasingly distant. I hope that those gentlemen who understand the mind will find something to anticipate beyond the words. English version:
Nirvana Nameless Treatise - Fourth
Memorial to Lord Yao Xing of the Qin Dynasty
Seng Zhao (name) said: I have heard that Heaven attains clarity through 'Oneness,' Earth attains tranquility through 'Oneness,' and the ruler attains 'Oneness' to govern the world. I humbly believe that Your Majesty! is wise and discerning, your Dao (the Way) resonates with the divine; you are subtly attuned to the center of the circle, and there is no principle that you do not comprehend; you handle myriad affairs with ease, promoting the Dao all day long; your majesty covers all living beings, and your writings become the standard. Therefore, there are four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) within the realm, and the king is one of them. The path of Nirvana (Buddhist term for liberation) is the destination of the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana), and the source of the Vaipulya Sutras (Mahayana Buddhist scriptures). It is vast and elusive, beyond the realm of sight and hearing; its profound subtlety is probably not something that ordinary people can comprehend. Because of my limited talent, I have been fortunate to receive the grace of the state, allowing me to study in leisure, and I have been under Kumarajiva's (name) tutelage for more than ten years. Although the meanings of the many sutras are different, and the sublime interests are not the same, I have always given priority to hearing and learning the meaning of Nirvana. However, because I am foolish and ignorant, although I have received many teachings, I am still full of doubts. In order to exhaust my foolishness, it seems that I have some understanding. But without the prior advocacy of a superior person, I dare not make my own conclusions. Unfortunately, Kumarajiva passed away, and there is no one to consult, which I deeply regret. But Your Majesty's holy virtue is not alone, you alone are spiritually in tune with Kumarajiva, you have seen with your own eyes that the Dao (the Way) he transmitted exists, and you have fully understood its essence, so you are able to revitalize the profound Buddhist teachings to enlighten the customs of the degenerate age. One day, I received the enlightenment of
旨淪而更顯。尋玩慇勤，不能暫舍。欣悟交懷，手舞弗暇。豈直當時之勝軌，方乃累劫之津樑矣。然聖旨淵玄，理微言約。可以匠彼先進、拯拔高士；懼言題之流，或未盡上意。庶擬孔易十翼之作，豈貪豐文，圖以弘顯幽旨。輒作《涅槃無名論》，論有九折十演，博採眾經，托證成喻。以仰述陛下無名之致，豈曰關詣神心，窮究遠當。聊以擬議玄門，班喻學徒耳。論末章云：「諸家通第一義諦，皆云廓然空寂，無有聖人。吾常以為太甚逕庭、不近人情。若無聖人，知無者誰？」實如明詔！實如明詔！夫道，恍惚窈冥，其中有精。若無聖人，誰與道游？頃諸學徒，莫不躊躇道門，怏怏此旨，懷疑終日，莫之能正。幸遭高判，宗徒𢄶然；扣關之儔，蔚登玄室。真可謂法輪再轉于閻浮，道光重映于千載者矣。今演論之作旨，曲辨涅槃無名之體，寂彼廓然排方外之談。條牒如左，謹以仰呈。若少參聖旨，愿敕存記；如其有差，伏承指授。僧肇言。泥曰、泥洹、涅槃，此三名前後異出，蓋是楚夏不同耳。云涅槃，音正也。
九折十演者
開宗第一
無名曰：經稱有餘涅槃、無餘涅槃者，秦言無為，亦名滅度。無為者，取乎虛無寂寞，妙絕於有為。滅度者，言其大患永滅，超度四流。斯蓋是映象之所歸，絕
稱之幽宅也。而曰有餘、無餘者，良是出處之異號，應物之假名耳。余嘗試言之。夫涅槃之為道也，寂寥虛矌，不可以形名得；微妙無相，不可以有心知。超群有以幽升，量太虛而永久，隨之弗得其蹤，迎之罔眺其首，六趣不能攝其生，力負無以化其體。潢漭惚恍，若存若往，五目不睹其容，二聽不聞其響。冥冥窈窅，誰見誰曉？彌綸靡所不在，而獨曳于有無之表。然則言之者失其真，知之者反其愚，有之者乖其性，無之者傷其軀。所以釋迦掩室于摩竭，凈名杜口于毗耶，須菩提唱無說以顯道，釋梵絕聽而雨華；斯皆理為神御，故口以之而默，豈曰無辯？辯所不能言也。經云：「真解脫者，離於言數，寂滅永安，無始無終，不晦不明，不寒不暑，湛若虛空，無名無說。」論曰：「涅槃非有，亦復非無。言語道斷，心行處滅。」尋夫經論之作，豈虛構哉？果有其所以不有，故不可得而有；有其所以不無，故不可得而無耳。何者？本之有境，則五陰永滅；推之無鄉，而幽靈不竭。幽靈不竭，則抱一湛然；五陰永滅，則萬累都捐。萬累都捐，故與道通洞；抱一湛然，故神而無功。神而無功，故至功常存；與道通洞，故沖而不改。沖而不改，故不可為有；至功常存，故不可為無。然則有無絕於內，稱謂淪於外，視聽之所不暨，
四空之所昏昧，恬焉而夷，怕焉而泰，九流於是乎交歸，眾聖於是乎冥會。斯乃希夷之境、太玄之鄉。而欲以有無題榜，標其方域而語其神道者，不亦邈哉！
核體第二
有名曰：夫名號不虛生，稱謂不自起。經稱有餘涅槃、無餘涅槃者，蓋是返本之真名，神道之妙稱者也。請試陳之。有餘者，謂如來大覺始興，法身初建，澡八解之清流，憩七覺之茂林，積萬善於曠劫，蕩無始之遺塵，三明鏡于內，神光照于外，結僧那於始心，終大悲以赴難。仰攀玄根，俯提弱喪，超邁三域，獨蹈大方。啟八正之平路，坦眾庶之夷途，騁六通之神驥，乘五衍之安車。至能出生入死，與物推移，道無不洽，德無不施。窮化母之始物，極玄樞之妙用，廓虛宇于無疆，耀薩云于幽燭，將絕朕於九止，永淪太虛，而有餘緣不盡，余跡不泯。業報猶魂，聖智尚存。此有餘涅槃也。經曰：「陶治塵滓，如煉真金。萬累都盡，而靈覺獨存。」無餘者，謂至人教緣都訖，靈照永滅，廓爾無朕，故曰無餘。何則？夫大患莫若於有身，故滅身以歸無；勞勤莫先於有智，故絕智以淪虛。然則智以形倦，形以智勞，輪轉修途，疲而弗已。經曰：「智為雜毒，形為桎梏。淵默以之而遼，患難以之而起。」所以至人灰身滅智，捐形絕慮。內無機照之勤
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 四空定（指非想非非想處定）所帶來的昏昧不明，達到恬靜平和的境界，又好像安寧泰然的狀態。各種思想流派（九流）在這裡交匯歸一，眾多聖賢在這裡默默領會。這實在是虛無縹緲的境界，深奧玄妙的家鄉。如果想要用『有』和『無』來題寫標榜，標明它的方位區域，談論它的神奇道理，不是太渺遠了嗎！
核體第二
有人問道：名號不會憑空產生，稱謂不會自己出現。《涅槃經》中提到的『有餘涅槃』和『無餘涅槃』，大概是迴歸本源的真實名稱，是神妙之道的精妙稱謂吧。請嘗試解釋一下。『有餘』，是指如來大覺開始興起，法身初步建立，在八解脫的清澈水流中沐浴，在七覺支的茂盛樹林中休憩，在漫長的劫數中積累無數善行，盪滌無始以來的遺留塵垢，內在像明鏡一樣清澈，神光向外照耀，在最初的發心時就結下僧那（鎧甲），最終以大悲心去救助苦難。向上攀援玄妙的根本，向下提攜弱小衰敗的眾生，超越三界，獨自走上大道。開闢八正道的平坦道路，開闢通往眾生的平坦道路，馳騁六神通的神駿之馬，乘坐五衍（大乘）的安穩車輛。達到能夠出生入死，與萬物一起變化的境界，道無所不通，德無所不施。窮盡化生萬物的本始，達到玄妙樞機的妙用，在無邊無際的虛空中擴充套件，在幽暗之處照耀薩云（智慧之光），將要斷絕九種止息（九次第定）的痕跡，永遠沉淪於太虛之中，但還有剩餘的因緣沒有完結，剩餘的軌跡沒有泯滅。業報如同魂魄一樣存在，聖人的智慧仍然存在。這就是有餘涅槃。經中說：『陶冶塵土雜質，如同冶煉真金。各種牽累都已斷盡，而靈明的覺性獨自存在。』『無餘』，是指至人教化的因緣全部結束，靈明的照耀永遠熄滅，空曠寂靜沒有痕跡，所以叫做無餘。為什麼呢？最大的禍患莫過於有身體，所以要滅除身體以歸於無；最勞累的事情莫過於有智慧，所以要斷絕智慧以沉淪於虛無。然而智慧因為形體而疲倦，形體因為智慧而勞累，在輪迴的道路上輾轉，疲憊而不能停止。《經》中說：『智慧是各種毒藥的混合，形體是枷鎖。深沉寂靜因此而遙遠，禍患災難因此而產生。』所以至人灰身滅智，捨棄形體斷絕思慮。內心沒有機巧觀照的勞累
【English Translation】 English version: The obscurity brought about by the Four Empty Abodes (referring to the state of neither perception nor non-perception) reaches a state of tranquility and peace, resembling a state of serenity and ease. Various schools of thought (the Nine Schools) converge and return to oneness here, and numerous sages silently comprehend. This is truly a realm of ethereal nothingness, a home of profound mystery. If one were to attempt to inscribe and label it with 'existence' and 'non-existence,' to define its boundaries and speak of its divine principles, wouldn't that be too far-fetched!
Chapter Two: Examining the Essence
Someone asked: Names do not arise from emptiness, and appellations do not originate by themselves. The 'Nirvana Sutra' mentions 'Nirvana with Remainder' and 'Nirvana without Remainder,' which are probably the true names of returning to the origin, the exquisite appellations of the divine path. Please try to explain them. 'With Remainder' refers to the initial arising of the Tathagata's great enlightenment, the initial establishment of the Dharma body, bathing in the clear streams of the Eight Liberations, resting in the lush forests of the Seven Factors of Enlightenment, accumulating countless good deeds over vast kalpas, sweeping away the residual dust from beginningless time, the inner being like a clear mirror, the divine light shining outward, forming the Samnah (armor) at the initial aspiration, and ultimately going to the aid of suffering with great compassion. Climbing upward to grasp the profound root, reaching downward to uplift the weak and declining beings, transcending the Three Realms, and walking alone on the Great Path. Opening up the level road of the Eightfold Path, opening up the smooth path for all beings, galloping on the divine steeds of the Six Supernatural Powers, riding in the secure vehicle of the Five Yanas (Mahayana). Reaching the state of being able to be born into life and die into death, changing with all things, the Dao being all-pervasive, and virtue being bestowed on all. Exhausting the origin of the mother of transformation, reaching the wondrous function of the mysterious pivot, expanding the empty universe to infinity, illuminating the Sāgara-megha (light of wisdom) in the darkness, about to sever the traces of the Nine Cessations (Nine Successive Absorptions), and eternally sinking into the Great Void, but there are still remaining conditions that have not been completed, and remaining traces that have not been extinguished. Karmic retribution exists like a soul, and the wisdom of the sage still exists. This is Nirvana with Remainder. The sutra says: 'Refining the impurities of dust, like smelting true gold. All entanglements are exhausted, and the luminous awareness alone remains.' 'Without Remainder' refers to the complete cessation of the teaching conditions of the perfect person, the eternal extinction of luminous illumination, vast and silent without traces, hence it is called Nirvana without Remainder. Why is this so? The greatest affliction is having a body, so one must extinguish the body to return to nothingness; the most laborious thing is having wisdom, so one must sever wisdom to sink into emptiness. However, wisdom is fatigued by the body, and the body is wearied by wisdom, revolving on the path of cultivation, tired and unable to stop. The sutra says: 'Wisdom is a mixture of various poisons, and the body is a shackle. Profound silence is therefore distant, and calamities and difficulties arise from it.' Therefore, the perfect person reduces the body to ashes and extinguishes wisdom, abandoning the body and severing thoughts. The inner being has no labor of skillful contemplation.
，外息大患之本，超然與群有永分，渾爾與太虛同體。寂焉無聞，怕爾無兆，冥冥長往，莫知所之。其猶燈盡火滅，膏明俱竭。此無餘涅槃也。經云：「五陰永盡，譬如燈滅。」然則有餘可以有稱，無餘可以無名。無名立，則宗虛者欣尚于沖默；有稱生，則懷德者彌仰于聖功。斯乃誥典之所垂文，先聖之所軌轍。而曰有無絕於內，稱謂淪於外，視聽之所不暨，四空之所昏昧。使夫懷德者自絕，宗虛者靡托。無異杜耳目于胎殼，掩玄象于雲霄外，而責宮商之異，辯玄素之殊者也。子徒知遠推至人于有無之表，高韻絕唱于形名之外，而論旨竟莫知所歸，幽途故自蘊而未顯。靜思幽尋，寄懷無所，豈所謂朗大明于冥室，奏玄響于無聞者哉！
位體第三
無名曰：有餘、無餘者，蓋是涅槃之外稱，應物之假名耳；而存稱謂者封名，志器象者耽形。名也極于題目，形也盡于方圓；方圓有所不寫，題目有所不傳。焉可以名于無名，而形於無形者哉。難序云：「有餘、無餘者，信是權寂致教之本意，亦是如來隱顯之誠跡也。但未是玄寂絕言之幽致，又非至人環中之妙術耳。」子獨不聞正觀之說歟？維摩詰言：「我觀如來無始無終，六入已過、三界已出，不在方、不離方，非有為、非無為，不可以識識、不可以智知，無言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：斷絕對外在煩惱的根源，超脫於世俗群體，永遠分離，與廣闊的太虛融為一體。寂靜無聲，沒有絲毫預兆，在冥冥之中長久地逝去，沒有人知道它去了哪裡。這就像燈油耗盡，火焰熄滅，燈芯和光明都完全消失。這就是無餘涅槃。經書中說：『五陰（panchaskandha）永遠消盡，就像燈火熄滅一樣。』如此說來，有餘涅槃還可以有所稱謂，無餘涅槃則無法命名。無名之說成立，那麼崇尚虛無的人就會欣喜于空寂；有稱之說產生，那麼懷有德行的人就會更加仰慕聖人的功德。這正是經典所記載的，先聖所遵循的道路。然而，如果說有和無都斷絕於內心，稱謂都消失於外在，視聽無法觸及，四空（catuh-skandha）也無法理解，那麼就會使懷有德行的人自我斷絕，崇尚虛無的人無所依託。這無異於在胎兒時期就封閉了耳目，在雲霄之外遮蔽了玄妙的景象，卻還要責備宮商音調的差異，辨別玄色和素色的不同。您只是知道將至人遠遠地推到有無之外，將高妙的韻致和絕唱置於形名之外，但論述的宗旨最終卻不知道歸向何處，幽深的道路仍然是蘊藏著而沒有顯現出來。靜靜地思考，幽深地探尋，寄託情懷卻無處可去，這難道就是所謂的在黑暗的房間里照亮光明，在寂靜無聲的地方演奏玄妙的樂聲嗎！
位體第三
無名反駁說：有餘涅槃、無餘涅槃，這都是涅槃之外的稱謂，是應事物而產生的假名罷了；而執著于稱謂的人就會被名所束縛，執著于器物形象的人就會沉溺於形體。名稱也只能窮盡于題目，形體也只能窮盡于方圓；方圓有無法描繪的地方，題目有無法傳達的內容。怎麼可以用名稱來稱呼無名，用形體來描繪無形呢？《難序》中說：『有餘涅槃、無餘涅槃，確實是權巧寂滅、引導教化的根本用意，也是如來隱現的真實事蹟。但這還不是玄妙寂靜、言語斷絕的幽深境界，也不是至人處於圓環中心的微妙法術。』您難道沒有聽過正觀的說法嗎？維摩詰（Vimalakirti）說：『我觀察如來無始無終，六入（sadayatana）已經超越，三界（trayo dhatavah）已經超出，不在方內，也不離方外，不是有為法，也不是無為法，不能用識來認識，不能用智來了解，無法用言語
【English Translation】 English version: Cutting off the root of external afflictions, transcending the mundane crowd, eternally separated, and merging into the vast emptiness. Silent and without sound, without the slightest sign, passing away into the darkness for a long time, with no one knowing where it has gone. This is like the lamp oil being exhausted, the flame extinguished, and the wick and light completely disappearing. This is Nirvana without remainder (nirupadhisesa-nirvana). The sutra says: 'The five skandhas (panchaskandha) are forever exhausted, just like a lamp extinguished.' Thus, Nirvana with remainder (sopadhisesa-nirvana) can still have a designation, while Nirvana without remainder cannot be named. If the doctrine of no-name is established, then those who admire emptiness will rejoice in tranquility; if the doctrine of designation arises, then those who cherish virtue will admire the merits of the sage even more. This is precisely what the classics record and the path that the ancient sages followed. However, if it is said that existence and non-existence are cut off within, and designations disappear externally, that sight and hearing cannot reach it, and that the four emptinesses (catuh-skandha) cannot understand it, then it will cause those who cherish virtue to cut themselves off, and those who admire emptiness to have nothing to rely on. This is no different from closing off the ears and eyes in the womb, obscuring the mysterious phenomena beyond the clouds, and yet blaming the differences in musical notes and distinguishing the differences between black and white. You only know to push the Perfected One (arhat) far beyond existence and non-existence, and to place the sublime rhymes and unsurpassed songs beyond form and name, but the purpose of the discussion ultimately does not know where to return, and the profound path remains hidden and unrevealed. Quietly contemplating, deeply searching, entrusting feelings but having nowhere to go, is this what is meant by illuminating the darkness in a dark room and playing mysterious music in a silent place!
Chapter 3: Position and Substance
The Nameless One retorted: Nirvana with remainder and Nirvana without remainder are merely designations outside of Nirvana, false names that arise in response to things; those who cling to designations will be bound by names, and those who cling to the images of objects will be immersed in form. Names can only exhaust themselves in titles, and forms can only exhaust themselves in squares and circles; squares and circles have places that cannot be depicted, and titles have content that cannot be conveyed. How can one use names to name the nameless, and use forms to depict the formless? The Preface to the Difficulties says: 'Nirvana with remainder and Nirvana without remainder are indeed the fundamental intention of expedient quiescence and guiding teaching, and also the true traces of the Tathagata's (Tathagata) hidden and manifest appearances. But this is not yet the profound realm of mysterious silence and the cessation of words, nor is it the subtle art of the Perfected One being in the center of the circle.' Have you not heard the doctrine of Right Contemplation? Vimalakirti (Vimalakirti) said: 'I observe the Tathagata without beginning or end, the six entrances (sadayatana) have already been transcended, the three realms (trayo dhatavah) have already been surpassed, not within the square, nor outside the square, not conditioned, nor unconditioned, cannot be known by consciousness, cannot be understood by wisdom, cannot be expressed in words.'
無說，心行處滅。以此觀者，乃名正觀；以他觀者。非見佛也。」《放光》云：「佛如虛空，無去無來，應緣而現，無有方所。」然則聖人之在天下也，寂莫虛無，無執無競，導而弗先，感而後應。譬猶幽谷之響、明鏡之像，對之弗知其所以來，隨之因識其所以往。恍焉而有，總焉而亡；動而逾寂，隱而彌彰；出幽入冥，變化無常。其為稱也，因應而作：顯跡為生，息跡為滅；生名有餘，滅名無餘。然則有無之稱本乎無名，無名之道於何不名？是以至人居方而方，止圓而圓，在天而天，處人而人。原夫能天能人者，豈天人之所能哉！果以非天非人，故能天能人耳。其為治也，故應而不為，因而不施。因而不施，故施莫之廣；應而不為，故為莫之大。為莫之大，故乃返于小成；施莫之廣，故乃歸乎無名。經曰：「菩提之道，不可圖度。高而無上，廣不可極；淵而無下，深不可測；大包天地，細入無間。」故謂之道。然則涅槃之道，不可以有無得之，明矣。而惑者睹神變，因謂之有；見滅度，便謂之無。有無之境，妄想之域，豈足以標榜玄道而語聖心者乎？意謂，至人寂怕無兆，隱顯同源，存不為有，亡不為無。何則？佛言：「吾無生不生，雖生不生；無形不形，雖形不形。」以知存不為有。經云：「菩薩入無盡三昧，盡
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無說，是說當心念和行為都止息的時候。用這種方式來觀察，才叫做正確的觀察；用其他方式來觀察，就不能見到佛。《放光經》說：『佛就像虛空一樣，沒有來也沒有去，隨著因緣而顯現，沒有固定的處所。』如此說來，聖人在天下，是寂靜虛無的，沒有執著也沒有爭鬥，引導眾人卻不搶先，感知到情況之後才回應。好比幽深山谷中的迴響、明亮鏡子中的影像，面對它卻不知道它從哪裡來，跟隨它才能知道它往哪裡去。恍惚間好像存在，總括起來又好像消失；動起來反而更加寂靜，隱藏起來反而更加彰顯；從幽暗處出來又進入黑暗中，變化沒有常態。它之所以被稱呼，是因為因應情況而產生作用：顯現軌跡就叫做生，停止軌跡就叫做滅；生可以叫做有餘，滅可以叫做無餘。如此說來，有和無的稱謂本來就源於無名，無名的道又有什麼不能稱呼的呢？因此，得道之人居住在方正的地方就隨之方正，停留在圓的地方就隨之圓融，在天界就如同天人，在人間就如同凡人。探究那能夠像天人一樣，又能夠像凡人一樣的人，難道是天人和凡人所能做到的嗎！正是因為他既不像天人，也不像凡人，所以才能夠像天人一樣，又能夠像凡人一樣。他治理天下，所以應和萬物卻不妄為，順應自然卻不強加干涉。順應自然而不強加干涉，所以他的恩施沒有比這更廣大的了；應和萬物卻不妄為，所以他的作為沒有比這更偉大的了。作為沒有比這更偉大的了，所以最終迴歸到小的成就；恩施沒有比這更廣大的了，所以最終歸於無名。《經》中說：『菩提之道，是無法衡量和揣度的。高而沒有比它更高的，廣闊而沒有邊際；深邃而沒有底下的，深而不可測量；大到包容天地，細到進入沒有間隙的地方。』所以稱之為道。如此說來，涅槃之道，是不可以用有和無來得到的，這很明顯了。而迷惑的人看到神變，就認為它是存在的；看到滅度，就認為它是不存在的。有和無的境界，是虛妄的想像領域，怎麼能夠用來標榜玄妙的道，談論聖人的心境呢？我的意思是說，得道之人寂靜無聲沒有預兆，隱藏和顯現同出一源，存在不認為是存在，消失不認為是消失。為什麼呢？佛說：『我沒有生而不生，雖然生了卻像沒有生一樣；沒有形體而不現形體，雖然現了形體卻像沒有形體一樣。』由此可知存在不認為是存在。《經》中說：『菩薩進入無盡三昧（Samadhi，一種冥想狀態），窮盡 盡
【English Translation】 English version: 'No speaking' means when the mind's activities and actions cease. Observing in this way is called right observation; observing in other ways is not seeing the Buddha. The Fangguang Jing (放光經, Sutra of the Exceeding Light) says, 'The Buddha is like empty space, without coming or going, appearing according to conditions, without a fixed location.' Thus, the sage in the world is silent and empty, without attachment or contention, guiding but not leading, responding after being sensed. It is like the echo in a deep valley, the image in a bright mirror; facing it, one does not know where it comes from, following it, one then knows where it goes. Vaguely it seems to exist, comprehensively it seems to vanish; moving it becomes even more silent, hidden it becomes even more manifest; emerging from darkness and entering darkness, its changes are impermanent. Its being named arises from responding to conditions: manifesting traces is called birth, ceasing traces is called extinction; birth can be called having remainder, extinction can be called having no remainder. Thus, the names of having and not having originate from no name, what is there that the way of no name cannot name? Therefore, the perfected person dwells in a square place and is square, stops in a round place and is round, is in heaven and is like a deva (天人, heavenly being), is among people and is like a person. Investigating the one who can be like a deva and can be like a person, how could that be what a deva or a person can do! Precisely because they are neither a deva nor a person, they can be like a deva and like a person. Their governing is therefore responding without acting, following without imposing. Following without imposing, therefore their giving is unsurpassed in its breadth; responding without acting, therefore their action is unsurpassed in its greatness. Action unsurpassed in its greatness, therefore it returns to small accomplishment; giving unsurpassed in its breadth, therefore it returns to no name. The sutra says, 'The way of Bodhi (菩提之道, the path to enlightenment) cannot be measured or fathomed. High without anything above it, broad without limit; deep without anything below it, profound and immeasurable; large encompassing heaven and earth, small entering where there is no space.' Therefore it is called the Way. Thus, the way of Nirvana (涅槃之道, the path to liberation) cannot be attained through having or not having, this is clear. But those who are deluded see miraculous transformations and therefore say it exists; seeing extinction, they then say it does not exist. The realm of having and not having is the domain of deluded thoughts, how can it be sufficient to proclaim the profound Way and speak of the sage's mind? The meaning is that the perfected person is silent and without signs, hidden and manifest share the same source, existence is not considered existence, disappearance is not considered disappearance. Why? The Buddha said, 'I have no birth that is not birth, though born, it is as if not born; I have no form that is not form, though formed, it is as if not formed.' From this we know that existence is not considered existence. The sutra says, 'The Bodhisattva (菩薩, enlightened being) enters the Samadhi (三昧, a meditative state) of endlessness, exhausting
見過去滅度諸佛。」又云：「入于涅槃而不般涅槃。」以知亡不為無。亡不為無，雖無而有；存不為有，雖有而無。雖有而無，故所謂非有；雖無而有，故所謂非無。然則涅槃之道，果出有無之域，絕言象之徑。斷矣！子乃云：「聖人患于有身，故滅身以歸無；勞勤莫先於有智，故絕智以淪虛。」無乃乖乎神極、傷于玄旨者也。經曰：「法身無象，應物而形；般若無知，對緣而照。」萬機頓赴而不撓其神，千難殊對而不幹其慮，動若行雲，止猶穀神。豈有心於彼此、情繫于動靜者乎？既無心於動靜，亦無象于去來。去來不以象，故無器而不形；動靜不以心，故無感而不應。然則心生於有心，像出於有象。像非我出，故金石流而不燋；心非我生，故日用而不動。紜紜自彼，於我何為？所以智周萬物而不勞，形充八極而無患，益不可盈、損不可虧，寧復痾癘中逵，壽極雙樹，靈竭天棺，體盡焚燎者哉！而惑者居見聞之境，尋殊應之跡，秉執規矩而擬大方。欲以智勞至人、形患大聖，謂舍有入無，因以名之。豈謂采微言于聽表，拔玄根于虛壤者哉？
徴出第四
有名曰：夫渾元剖判，萬有參分。有既有矣，不得不無。無自不無，必因於有。所以高下相傾、有無相生，此乃自然之數，數極於是。以此而觀，化母所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『見到過去已經滅度的諸佛。』又說：『進入涅槃，但並非完全的斷滅。』由此可知，死亡並非等於虛無。死亡並非虛無，即使看似沒有，實則存在；生存並非等於存在，即使看似存在，實則虛幻。雖然存在卻又虛幻，所以才說是『非有』；雖然看似沒有卻又存在，所以才說是『非無』。如此說來，涅槃的道路，果真超出了有和無的範疇，斷絕了言語和形象的途徑。這已經很明確了！您卻說：『聖人擔憂有身體的束縛，所以滅除身體以歸於虛無；勞苦莫過於擁有智慧，所以斷絕智慧以沉淪於空虛。』這難道不是違背了精神的極致，傷害了玄妙的宗旨嗎？經典上說：『法身沒有固定的形象，爲了適應外物而顯現各種形態；般若沒有分別的知覺，面對因緣而照見一切。』萬種機緣同時到來，也不會擾亂他的精神，千種難題同時出現，也不會干擾他的思慮，行動起來像流動的雲彩，靜止下來像空曠的山谷。哪裡會有執著于彼此的心，被動靜所牽絆的情感呢？既然心中沒有動靜的分別，也就沒有來去的形象。來去不被形象所束縛，所以沒有哪種器物不能容納他的形體；動靜不被心所左右，所以沒有哪種事物不能被他所感應。如此說來，心產生於有心的狀態，形象顯現於有形象的狀態。形象不是我所創造的，所以金石融化也不會燒焦；心不是我所產生的，所以每天都在運用卻不會動搖。紛紛擾擾都來自外界，與我有什麼關係呢？所以智慧遍及萬物卻不感到勞累，形體充滿整個宇宙卻沒有任何憂患，增加不了什麼，減少不了什麼，又怎麼會生病倒在路旁，壽命終結于雙樹之下，精神耗盡于棺材之中，身體被焚燒殆盡呢！而那些迷惑的人，侷限於見聞的境界，尋找特殊應驗的跡象，秉持著固定的規則來衡量廣大的事物。想要用智慧來勞役至人，用形體來困擾大聖，認為捨棄有而進入無，因此而給涅槃命名。這難道能說是從言語之外採摘到精微的道理，從虛無的土壤中拔出玄妙的根基嗎？ 征出第四 有名的人說：『渾沌之氣剖開，萬物分為三部分。有了有，就不得不有無。無之所以存在，必定是由於有。所以高下相互傾斜，有無相互產生，這是自然的規律，規律的極致就在這裡。』以此來看，化育萬物的根源所……
【English Translation】 English version: 'Seeing all the Buddhas who have passed into extinction.' It is also said: 'Entering Nirvana, but not completely ceasing to exist.' From this, it is known that death is not equivalent to nothingness. Death is not nothingness; though it appears to be absent, it actually exists. Existence is not equivalent to being; though it appears to be present, it is actually illusory. Though existing, it is illusory, therefore it is called 'non-being'; though appearing to be absent, it actually exists, therefore it is called 'non-non-being.' Thus, the path of Nirvana truly transcends the realm of being and non-being, cutting off the path of words and images. This is already clear! Yet you say: 'Sages worry about having a body, so they extinguish the body to return to nothingness; no toil is greater than having wisdom, so they sever wisdom to sink into emptiness.' Is this not contrary to the ultimate of spirit, and harmful to the profound essence? The sutra says: 'The Dharmakaya (Dharma body) has no fixed form, manifesting various forms to adapt to external things; Prajna (wisdom) has no discriminating knowledge, illuminating everything in response to conditions.' Ten thousand opportunities arrive simultaneously without disturbing his spirit, a thousand difficulties appear simultaneously without interfering with his thoughts, acting like flowing clouds, still like an empty valley. How could there be a mind attached to self and other, emotions bound by movement and stillness? Since there is no distinction between movement and stillness in the mind, there is also no image of coming and going. Coming and going are not bound by images, so there is no vessel that cannot contain his form; movement and stillness are not governed by the mind, so there is nothing that cannot be responded to. Thus, the mind arises from a state of having a mind, and the image appears from a state of having an image. The image is not created by me, so gold and stone melt without being scorched; the mind is not produced by me, so it is used daily without being shaken. The turmoil all comes from the outside, what does it have to do with me? Therefore, wisdom pervades all things without feeling tired, the body fills the entire universe without any worries, nothing can be added, nothing can be taken away, how could one fall ill by the roadside, life end under the twin Sala trees, the spirit be exhausted in the coffin, and the body be completely burned! But those who are deluded are confined to the realm of seeing and hearing, seeking traces of special responses, holding onto fixed rules to measure vast things. They want to use wisdom to toil the perfect man, use the body to trouble the great sage, thinking that they are abandoning being and entering non-being, and therefore naming it Nirvana. Can this be said to be picking up subtle words from beyond hearing, and pulling out profound roots from the empty soil? Chapter 4: Refutation Someone named said: 'When the primordial chaos was split open, all things were divided into three parts. Once there is being, there must be non-being. The reason why non-being exists must be due to being. Therefore, high and low incline towards each other, being and non-being arise from each other, this is the law of nature, and the ultimate of the law is here.' From this perspective, the origin of nurturing all things...
育理無幽顯，恢恑憰怪無非有也。有化而無，無非無也。然則有無之境，理無不統。經曰：「有無二法，攝一切法。」又稱三無為者，虛空、數緣盡、非數緣盡。數緣盡者，即涅槃也。而論云：「有無之表，別有妙道，妙于有無，謂之涅槃。」請核妙道之本。果若有也，雖妙非無；雖妙非無，即入有境。果若無也，無即無差；無而無差，即入無境。總而括之、即而究之，無有異有而非無，無有異無而非有者。明矣。而曰「有無之外別有妙道，非有非無謂之涅槃。」吾聞其語，未即於心也。
超境第五
無名曰：有無之數，誠以法無不該、理無不統。然其所統，俗諦而已。經曰：「真諦何耶？涅槃道是。俗諦何耶？有無法是。」何則？有者有于無，無者無于有。有無所以稱有，無有所以稱無。然則有生於無、無生於有，離有無無、離無無有。有無相生。其猶高下相傾，有高必有下，有下必有高矣。然則有無雖殊，俱未免於有也。此乃言象之所以形，是非之所以生。豈是以統夫幽極、擬夫神道者乎！是以論稱出有無者，良以有無之數止乎六境之內，六境之內非涅槃之宅，故借出以祛之。庶悕道之流，彷彿幽途，托情絕域，得意忘言，體其非有非無。豈曰有無之外，別有一有而可稱哉？經曰「三無為」者，蓋是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 道理的闡述沒有隱晦和明顯之分，所有奇異怪誕的現象都不過是『有』的表現。『有』變化成『無』，『無』也並非真正的『無』。既然如此，『有』和『無』的境界，道理無不統攝。《經》中說：『有和無這兩種法，涵蓋了一切法。』又說有三種『無為』，即虛空、數緣盡（通過修行達到滅盡煩惱的狀態）、非數緣盡（不通過修行自然達到的滅盡煩惱的狀態）。數緣盡，就是涅槃。而《論》中說：『在『有』和『無』之外，另有微妙的道，這種微妙超越了『有』和『無』，就叫做涅槃。』請考察這微妙道的本質。如果它真的是『有』，即使再微妙也不是『無』；即使再微妙不是『無』，也就進入了『有』的境界。如果它是『無』，『無』就是沒有差別；『無』而沒有差別，也就進入了『無』的境界。總而言之，無論是從整體上把握還是從細節上探究，沒有不同於『有』卻不是『無』的，也沒有不同於『無』卻不是『有』的。這道理是很明顯的。而說『在『有』和『無』之外另有微妙的道，既不是『有』也不是『無』，叫做涅槃』，我聽了這話，還沒有真正理解。
超越境界 第五
無名反駁道：『有』和『無』的範疇，確實是法無不包，理無不統。然而它所統攝的，只是世俗諦而已。《經》中說：『真諦是什麼？涅槃道就是。俗諦是什麼？『有』和『無』的法就是。』為什麼這麼說呢？『有』存在於『無』中，『無』存在於『有』中。因為『有』，所以才稱之為『有』；因為沒有『有』，所以才稱之為『無』。既然如此，『有』產生於『無』，『無』產生於『有』，離開『有』就沒有『無』，離開『無』就沒有『有』。『有』和『無』相互依存，就像高和下相互傾斜一樣，有高就一定有下，有下就一定有高。既然如此，『有』和『無』雖然不同，但都無法擺脫『有』的範疇。這只是言語和形象產生的原因，是非對錯產生的根源，怎麼能用它來統攝那幽深玄妙的境界，比擬那神奇的道呢！因此，《論》中說超出『有』和『無』，正是因為『有』和『無』的範疇只存在於六境之內，六境之內不是涅槃的居所，所以才借用『超出』來排除它。希望求道的人，能夠彷彿看到那幽深的道路，將情感寄託于那絕妙的境界，領悟到得意忘言的真諦，體會到那非『有』非『無』的境界。難道說在『有』和『無』之外，另有一個『有』可以稱道嗎？《經》中說的『三無為』，大概是……』
【English Translation】 English version: The exposition of reason has no distinction between the hidden and the obvious; all strange and bizarre phenomena are nothing but manifestations of 'existence' (有). 'Existence' transforms into 'non-existence' (無), and 'non-existence' is not truly 'non-existence'. In that case, the realms of 'existence' and 'non-existence' are all encompassed by reason. The Sutra says: 'The two dharmas of existence and non-existence encompass all dharmas.' It also speaks of the three 'unconditioned' (無為): namely, space (虛空), cessation through wisdom (數緣盡, shu yuan jin - cessation attained through cultivation), and cessation without wisdom (非數緣盡, fei shu yuan jin - cessation attained without cultivation). Cessation through wisdom is none other than Nirvana (涅槃, Nirvana). And the Treatise says: 'Beyond existence and non-existence, there is a wondrous path; this wondrous path transcends existence and non-existence, and is called Nirvana.' Please examine the essence of this wondrous path. If it is truly 'existence', then even if it is wondrous, it is not 'non-existence'; and if it is wondrous but not 'non-existence', then it enters the realm of 'existence'. If it is 'non-existence', then 'non-existence' is without differentiation; and if 'non-existence' is without differentiation, then it enters the realm of 'non-existence'. In summary, whether grasped as a whole or investigated in detail, there is nothing that differs from 'existence' and is not 'non-existence', and there is nothing that differs from 'non-existence' and is not 'existence'. This is clear. But to say that 'beyond existence and non-existence there is a wondrous path, which is neither existence nor non-existence, and is called Nirvana,' I have heard these words, but have not yet truly understood them.
Transcending Realms - Fifth
Wuming refutes: The categories of 'existence' and 'non-existence' do indeed encompass all dharmas and are governed by reason. However, what they govern is only conventional truth (俗諦, su di). The Sutra says: 'What is ultimate truth (真諦, zhen di)? It is the path of Nirvana. What is conventional truth? It is the dharma of existence and non-existence.' Why is this so? 'Existence' exists within 'non-existence', and 'non-existence' exists within 'existence'. Because of 'existence', it is called 'existence'; because there is no 'existence', it is called 'non-existence'. In that case, 'existence' arises from 'non-existence', and 'non-existence' arises from 'existence'; apart from 'existence' there is no 'non-existence', and apart from 'non-existence' there is no 'existence'. 'Existence' and 'non-existence' are mutually dependent, like high and low leaning on each other; where there is high, there must be low, and where there is low, there must be high. In that case, although 'existence' and 'non-existence' are different, both are unable to escape the category of 'existence'. This is merely the cause of the arising of words and images, the root of the arising of right and wrong; how can it be used to encompass that profound and mysterious realm, to compare to that wondrous path! Therefore, the Treatise speaks of going beyond 'existence' and 'non-existence', precisely because the categories of 'existence' and 'non-existence' exist only within the six realms; within the six realms is not the abode of Nirvana, so it borrows 'going beyond' to exclude it. It is hoped that those who seek the path can vaguely see that profound road, entrust their emotions to that exquisite realm, realize the truth of forgetting words upon attaining meaning, and experience that state of neither 'existence' nor 'non-existence'. Can it be said that beyond 'existence' and 'non-existence', there is another 'existence' that can be praised? The 'three unconditioned' mentioned in the Sutra are probably...'
群生紛繞，生乎篤患；篤患之尤，莫先於有；絕有之稱，莫先於無，故借無以明其非有。明其非有，非謂無也。
搜玄第六
有名曰：論自云「涅槃既不出有無，又不在有無。」不在有無，則不可於有無得之矣；不出有無，則不可離有無求之矣。求之無所，便應都無。然復不無其道。其道不無，則幽途可尋。所以千聖同轍，未嘗虛返者也。其道既存，而曰不出不在，必有異旨。可得聞乎？
妙存第七
無名曰：夫言由名起，名以相生。相因可相，無相無名；無名無說，無說無聞。經曰：「涅槃非法、非非法。無聞無說，非心所知。」吾何敢言之？而子欲聞之耶！雖然，善吉有言：「眾人若能以無心而受、無聽而聽者，吾當以無言言之。」庶述其言，亦可以言。凈名曰：「不離煩惱而得涅槃。」天女曰：「不出魔界而入佛界。」然則玄道在於妙悟，妙悟在於即真，即真即有無齊觀，齊觀即彼己莫二。所以天地與我同根，萬物與我一體。同我則非復有無，異我則乖于會通。所以不出不在而道存乎其間矣。何則？夫至人虛心冥照，理無不統。懷六合于胸中而靈鑒有餘，鏡萬有于方寸而其神常虛。至能拔玄根于未始，即群動以靜心。恬淡淵默，妙契自然。所以處有不有，居無不無。居無不無，故不無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 眾生紛繁擾亂，皆因深重的憂患而生；而深重憂患中，沒有比執著于『有』更甚的了；要徹底消除對『有』的執著，沒有比迴歸『無』更好的方法，所以借用『無』來闡明它並非實有。闡明它並非實有，並不是說它就是『無』。
搜玄第六
有名者問道：您自己說『涅槃既不屬於有，也不屬於無，』既然不屬於有無，那麼就不能從有無中獲得；既然不超出有無，那麼就不能脫離有無去尋求。如果尋求也無所得，那麼就應該什麼都沒有。然而，涅槃的道路並非完全不存在。這條道路如果存在，那麼幽深的途徑就可以尋找到。所以歷代聖賢都遵循著同一條道路，沒有徒勞而返的。這條道路既然存在，卻又說不屬於有無，必定有不同的含義。我可以聽您講講嗎？
妙存第七
無名者回答說：言語由名相而起，名相又相互依存而生。相互依存才能顯現，沒有名相就沒有顯現；沒有名相就沒有言說，沒有言說就沒有聽聞。經書上說：『涅槃非有法，也非非法。無聽聞，無言說，不是心所能瞭解的。』我怎麼敢說呢？而您卻想聽我說！雖然如此，善吉曾說過：『眾人如果能以無心來接受，以無聽來聽聞，我就用無言來告訴他們。』或許可以借用他的話，勉強說說。維摩詰經上說：『不離開煩惱而證得涅槃。』天女說：『不超出魔界而進入佛界。』如此說來，玄妙的道理在於精妙的領悟，精妙的領悟在於迴歸真如，迴歸真如就是對有和無平等看待，平等看待就是你和我沒有分別。所以天地與我同根同源，萬物與我本為一體。與我相同，就不是有和無的對立；與我相異，就違背了融會貫通的道理。所以說不屬於有無，而道卻存在於其中。為什麼呢？因為達到極高境界的人虛懷若谷，以空明之心照亮一切，沒有什麼不能統攝。將天地萬物包容於胸中，而靈明的覺照還有剩餘；在方寸心中映照萬有，而精神始終保持虛靜。能夠從事物未開始時就拔除玄妙的根源，在萬物的變動中保持內心的平靜。恬淡虛靜，與自然融為一體。所以處於『有』的境界而不執著于『有』，處於『無』的境界而不執著于『無』。處於『無』的境界而不執著于『無』，所以並非什麼都沒有。
【English Translation】 English version: Sentient beings are caught in a web of confusion, arising from deep-seated suffering; and among deep-seated sufferings, none is greater than attachment to 'existence' (有, yǒu). To completely eliminate attachment to 'existence', there is no better method than returning to 'non-existence' (無, wú), so we borrow 'non-existence' to clarify that it is not truly existent. Clarifying that it is not truly existent does not mean that it is 'non-existence'.
Chapter 6: Searching the Profound
Someone named Youming (有名, Yǒumíng, 'Having Name') asked: You yourself said, 'Nirvana neither belongs to existence nor non-existence.' Since it does not belong to existence or non-existence, then it cannot be obtained from existence or non-existence; since it does not go beyond existence or non-existence, then it cannot be sought apart from existence or non-existence. If seeking yields nothing, then there should be nothing at all. However, the path to Nirvana is not completely non-existent. If this path exists, then the profound way can be found. Therefore, all sages have followed the same path, without returning in vain. Since this path exists, yet it is said not to belong to existence or non-existence, there must be a different meaning. May I hear you explain it?
Chapter 7: Subtle Existence
Someone named Wuming (無名, Wúmíng, 'Without Name') replied: Speech arises from names, and names arise from mutual dependence. Through mutual dependence, things can be manifested; without manifestations, there are no names; without names, there is no speech; without speech, there is no hearing. The sutra says: 'Nirvana is neither Dharma nor non-Dharma. Without hearing, without speech, it is not knowable by the mind.' How dare I speak of it? Yet you wish to hear me speak! Nevertheless, Shanjiyou (善吉有) once said: 'If the multitude can receive with a mind of non-attachment and listen with a hearing of non-attachment, then I will tell them with words of non-speaking.' Perhaps I can borrow his words to speak reluctantly. The Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'Without leaving afflictions, one attains Nirvana.' The goddess said: 'Without going beyond the realm of demons, one enters the realm of Buddhas.' Thus, the profound truth lies in subtle realization, and subtle realization lies in returning to Suchness (真如, Zhēnrú). Returning to Suchness is to regard existence and non-existence equally, and regarding them equally is to see that self and other are not two. Therefore, heaven and earth share the same root with me, and all things are one with me. Being the same as me, it is no longer the opposition of existence and non-existence; being different from me, it violates the principle of harmonious understanding. Therefore, it is said not to belong to existence or non-existence, yet the Tao exists within it. Why? Because those who have attained the highest state have an empty mind and illuminate everything with profound wisdom, and there is nothing that they cannot encompass. They hold the universe in their hearts, and their spiritual awareness is abundant; they reflect all things in their minds, and their spirit always remains empty. They are able to uproot the mysterious root before things begin, and maintain inner peace amidst the movements of all things. Tranquil and silent, they subtly merge with nature. Therefore, they dwell in 'existence' without being attached to 'existence', and they dwell in 'non-existence' without being attached to 'non-existence'. Dwelling in 'non-existence' without being attached to 'non-existence', therefore it is not that there is nothing.
于無；處有不有，故不有于有。故能不出有無而不在有無者也。然則法無有無之相，聖無有無之知。聖無有無之知，則無心於內；法無有無之相，則無數于外。于外無數、于內無心，彼此寂滅，物我冥一，怕爾無朕，乃曰涅槃。涅槃若此，圖度絕矣。豈容可責之於有無之內，又可徴之有無之外耶？
難差第八
有名曰：涅槃既絕圖度之域，則超六境之外，不出不在而玄道獨存。斯則窮理盡性究竟之道，妙一無差。理其然矣。而《放光》云：「三乘之道，皆因無為而有差別。」佛言：「我昔為菩薩時，名曰儒童。于然燈佛所，已入涅槃。」儒童菩薩時於七住初獲無生忍，進修三位。若涅槃一也，則不應有三；如其有三，則非究竟。究竟之道，而有升降之殊。眾經異說，何以取中耶？
辯差第九
無名曰：然究竟之道，理無差也。《法華經》云：「第一大道無有兩正，吾以方便為怠慢者，於一乘道分別說三。」三車出火宅，即其事也。以俱出生死，故同稱無為；所乘不一，故有三名。統其會歸，一而已矣。而難云「三乘之道，皆因無為而有差別。」此以人三，三于無為，非無為有三也。故《放光》云：「涅槃有差別耶？答曰：無差別。」但如來結習都盡，聲聞結習不盡耳。請以近喻，以況遠旨。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 對於『無』：處於『有』的狀態，卻又不是真的『有』，所以說不是存在於『有』之中。因此，能夠不超出『有無』的範圍，也不存在於『有無』之中。如此，佛法沒有『有無』的表象，聖人沒有『有無』的認知。聖人沒有『有無』的認知，那麼內心就沒有執念；佛法沒有『有無』的表象，那麼對外就沒有分別。對外沒有分別，對內沒有執念，彼此寂靜消滅，物與我融為一體，恍惚之間沒有絲毫痕跡，這就叫做涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫）。涅槃如果是這樣，那麼任何思慮揣測都無法觸及。怎麼能用『有無』的範疇來衡量它，又怎麼能從『有無』之外去尋求它呢？
難差第八
有人提出：涅槃既然超越了思慮揣測的領域，那麼就超脫了六境（指色、聲、香、味、觸、法六種境界）之外，既不超出也不存在於任何地方，只有玄妙的道獨自存在。這才是窮究真理、徹底瞭解本性的究竟之道，精妙唯一，沒有差別。道理確實如此。但是《放光經》（Fang Guang Jing，佛教經典）中說：『三乘（指聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的道路，都是因為無為（指不造作，不執著）而產生差別。』佛說：『我過去做菩薩的時候，名叫儒童（Ru Tong）。在燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha）那裡，就已經進入了涅槃。』儒童菩薩在七住位（指菩薩修行過程中的一個階段）最初獲得了無生法忍（指對一切法不生不滅的證悟），並進一步修習了三個位次。如果涅槃是唯一的，那麼就不應該有三乘；如果確實有三乘，那麼就不是究竟。究竟之道，卻有高低之分。眾多經典說法不一，應該如何取捨呢？
辯差第九
無名氏回答說：確實，究竟之道，從道理上來說是沒有差別的。《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）中說：『第一大道沒有兩種正道，我因為方便的緣故，對於懈怠的人，在一乘道（指唯一的成佛之道）中分別說了三乘。』用三車引誘孩子們出火宅（出自《法華經》的比喻，指用不同的方法引導眾生脫離苦海），就是這個意思。因為都脫離了生死，所以都稱為無為；所乘坐的工具不一樣，所以有三乘的名稱。總而言之，最終都歸於一乘。而你所說的『三乘的道路，都是因為無為而產生差別』，這是因為人的根器有三種，才在無為法上顯現出差別，而不是無為法本身有三種差別。所以《放光經》中說：『涅槃有差別嗎？』回答說：『沒有差別。』只是如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）的習氣都斷盡了，而聲聞（Sravaka，指聽聞佛法而修行的弟子）的習氣還沒有斷盡罷了。請允許我用一個近處的比喻，來比擬深遠的道理。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'non-being': it exists in the state of 'being,' yet it is not truly 'being,' so it is said not to exist within 'being.' Therefore, it can neither exceed the scope of 'being and non-being' nor exist within 'being and non-being.' Thus, the Dharma has no appearance of 'being and non-being,' and the sage has no knowledge of 'being and non-being.' If the sage has no knowledge of 'being and non-being,' then there is no attachment within; if the Dharma has no appearance of 'being and non-being,' then there is no discrimination without. Without discrimination without, without attachment within, both become tranquil and extinguished, the self and things merge into one, vaguely without any trace, and this is called Nirvana (Nirvana, a Buddhist term referring to liberation). If Nirvana is like this, then any speculation is cut off. How can it be measured within the scope of 'being and non-being,' and how can it be sought outside of 'being and non-being'?
Difficulty in Differentiation, Chapter 8
Someone asks: Since Nirvana transcends the realm of speculation, then it is beyond the six realms (referring to the six sense objects: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma), neither exceeding nor existing anywhere, only the profound Dao exists alone. This is the ultimate path of thoroughly investigating truth and completely understanding one's nature, subtle and unique, without difference. The principle is indeed so. However, the Fang Guang Jing (Fang Guang Jing, a Buddhist scripture) says: 'The paths of the Three Vehicles (referring to the Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and Bodhisattva Vehicle) all have differences because of non-action (referring to non-fabrication, non-attachment).' The Buddha said: 'In the past, when I was a Bodhisattva, my name was Ru Tong (Ru Tong). At Dipamkara Buddha's (Dipamkara Buddha) place, I had already entered Nirvana.' The Ru Tong Bodhisattva initially attained the non-origination forbearance (referring to the realization that all dharmas are neither born nor extinguished) at the seventh stage (referring to a stage in the Bodhisattva's practice) and further cultivated three stages. If Nirvana is one, then there should not be three vehicles; if there are indeed three vehicles, then it is not ultimate. The ultimate path has differences in levels. Many scriptures have different sayings, how should we choose?
Distinguishing Differences, Chapter 9
The nameless one replies: Indeed, the ultimate path, in principle, has no difference. The Lotus Sutra (Lotus Sutra) says: 'The first great path has no two correct paths, I, for the sake of convenience, for those who are lazy, separately spoke of the Three Vehicles within the One Vehicle (referring to the only path to Buddhahood).' Using three carts to lure children out of the burning house (a metaphor from the Lotus Sutra, referring to using different methods to guide sentient beings out of the sea of suffering) is the meaning of this. Because they all escape from birth and death, they are all called non-action; because the vehicles they ride are different, they have the names of the Three Vehicles. In summary, they all ultimately return to the One Vehicle. And what you said, 'The paths of the Three Vehicles all have differences because of non-action,' this is because people have three different capacities, which manifest differences in non-action, not that non-action itself has three differences. Therefore, the Fang Guang Jing says: 'Does Nirvana have differences?' The answer is: 'No difference.' It is only that the Tathagata's (Tathagata, an epithet of the Buddha) habitual tendencies are completely exhausted, while the Sravaka's (Sravaka, referring to disciples who practice by listening to the Buddha's teachings) habitual tendencies are not yet exhausted. Please allow me to use a nearby analogy to compare to the profound principle.
如人斬木，去尺無尺，去寸無寸。修短在於尺寸，不在無也。夫以群生萬端，識根不一，智鑒有淺深，德行有厚薄，所以俱之彼岸，而升降不同。彼岸豈異？異自我耳。然則眾經殊辯，其致不乖。
責異第十
有名曰：俱出火宅，則無患一也。同出生死，則無為一也。而云「彼岸無異，異自我耳。」彼岸，則無為岸也；我，則體無為者也。請問我與無為，為一？為異？若我即無為，無為亦即我。不得言無為無異，異自我也。若我異無為，我則非無為。無為自無為，我自常有為。冥會之致，又滯而不通。然則我與無為，一亦無三，異亦無三。三乘之名，何由而生也？
會異第十一
無名曰：夫止此而此、適彼而彼，所以同於得者，得亦得之；同於失者，失亦失之。我適無為，我即無為。無為雖一，何乖不一耶！譬猶三鳥出網，同適無患之域。無患雖同，而鳥鳥各異。不可以鳥鳥各異，謂無患亦異。又不可以無患既一，而一于眾鳥也。然則鳥即無患，無患即鳥。無患豈異？異自鳥耳。如是三乘眾生，俱越妄想之樊，同適無為之境。無為雖同，而乘乘各異。不可以乘乘各異，謂無為亦異。又不可以無為既一，而一於三乘也。然則我即無為，無為即我。無為豈異？異自我耳。所以無患雖同，而升虛有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如同人砍伐木頭，每次去掉一尺，不能說沒有去掉；每次去掉一寸，也不能說沒有去掉。長短的區別在於尺寸的積累，而不是說沒有減少。眾生萬象，認知根源各不相同，智慧見解有深有淺，德行修養有厚有薄，所以都能到達彼岸（涅槃的境界），但提升和下降的程度卻不同。彼岸（涅槃）本身難道有什麼不同嗎？不同之處在於我們自身罷了。既然如此，各種經典的論述雖然不同，但最終的歸宿卻是一致的。
第十品 責難
有人提出疑問：既然都脫離了火宅（充滿煩惱的世間），那就沒有憂患的差別了。既然都脫離了生死輪迴，那就達到了無為（涅槃）的同一境界了。但你卻說『彼岸（涅槃）沒有不同，不同之處在於我們自身』。彼岸（涅槃），就是無為的境界；我，就是體驗無為的主體。請問，『我』與『無為』，是一體的？還是不同的？如果『我』就是『無為』，『無為』也就是『我』。那就不能說『無為』沒有不同，不同之處在於我們自身了。如果『我』與『無為』是不同的，那麼『我』就不是『無為』。『無為』自在『無為』，『我』則常常處於有為的狀態。這樣勉強地解釋，反而更加滯澀不通。既然如此，『我』與『無為』，說一體也沒有三種，說不同也沒有三種。那麼三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的說法，又是從何而來的呢？
第十一品 會通
無名回答說：停留在『此』而就是『此』，適應『彼』而就是『彼』，所以與獲得相同的人，就獲得了；與失去相同的人，就失去了。我適應無為，我就是無為。無為雖然是同一的，為什麼不能統一呢？譬如三隻鳥從網中飛出，一同到達沒有憂患的境地。沒有憂患雖然是相同的，但鳥與鳥之間各有不同。不能因為鳥與鳥之間各有不同，就說沒有憂患的境地也不同。也不能因為沒有憂患的境地是同一的，就說它與所有的鳥都是同一的。既然如此，鳥就是沒有憂患的境地，沒有憂患的境地就是鳥。沒有憂患的境地難道有什麼不同嗎？不同之處在於鳥自身罷了。就像這樣，三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的眾生，都超越了妄想的束縛，一同到達無為的境界。無為的境界雖然是相同的，但乘與乘之間各有不同。不能因為乘與乘之間各有不同，就說無為的境界也不同。也不能因為無為的境界是同一的，就說它與三乘都是同一的。既然如此，我就是無為，無為就是我。無為難道有什麼不同嗎？不同之處在於我自身罷了。所以沒有憂患的境地雖然是相同的，但升入虛空卻有
【English Translation】 English version: It is like a person cutting wood; removing a foot, it cannot be said that nothing has been removed; removing an inch, it cannot be said that nothing has been removed. The difference in length lies in the accumulation of feet and inches, not in saying that there is no reduction. Living beings are myriad, the roots of their understanding are not the same, their wisdom and insight are shallow or deep, their virtuous conduct is thick or thin, so they all reach the other shore (Nirvana), but their ascent and descent are different. Is the other shore (Nirvana) itself different? The difference lies in ourselves. Therefore, the various scriptures have different arguments, but their ultimate destination is the same.
Chapter Ten: Questioning Differences
Someone asks: Since all have escaped the burning house (the world full of afflictions), then there is no difference in suffering. Since all have escaped the cycle of birth and death, then the same state of non-action (Nirvana) has been reached. But you say, 'The other shore (Nirvana) is not different, the difference lies in ourselves.' The other shore (Nirvana) is the state of non-action; 'I' is the subject that experiences non-action. Please tell me, are 'I' and 'non-action' one? Or are they different? If 'I' is non-action, and non-action is 'I', then it cannot be said that 'non-action' is not different, and that the difference lies in ourselves. If 'I' and 'non-action' are different, then 'I' is not 'non-action'. 'Non-action' is naturally 'non-action', and 'I' am always in a state of action. Such a forced explanation only becomes more stagnant and incomprehensible. Therefore, 'I' and 'non-action', saying they are one does not have three, saying they are different does not have three. Then from where do the names of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) arise?
Chapter Eleven: Harmonizing Differences
Anonymously replies: Staying at 'this' and it is 'this', adapting to 'that' and it is 'that', so those who are the same in gaining, gain; those who are the same in losing, lose. I adapt to non-action, I am non-action. Although non-action is the same, why can't it be unified? For example, three birds fly out of a net, together reaching a place without suffering. Although the absence of suffering is the same, the birds are different from each other. One cannot say that because the birds are different from each other, the place without suffering is also different. Nor can one say that because the place without suffering is the same, it is the same as all the birds. Therefore, the bird is the place without suffering, and the place without suffering is the bird. Is the place without suffering different? The difference lies in the bird itself. Just like this, sentient beings of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) all transcend the bonds of delusion and together reach the state of non-action. Although the state of non-action is the same, the vehicles are different from each other. One cannot say that because the vehicles are different from each other, the state of non-action is also different. Nor can one say that because the state of non-action is the same, it is the same as the Three Vehicles. Therefore, I am non-action, and non-action is I. Is non-action different? The difference lies in myself. Therefore, although the state without suffering is the same, ascending into emptiness has
遠近；無為雖一，而幽鑒有淺深。無為即乘也，乘即無為也。此非我異無為，以未盡無為故有三耳。
詰漸第十二
有名曰：萬累滋彰，本于妄想；妄想既祛，則萬累都息。二乘得盡智、菩薩得無生智，是時妄想都盡，結縛永除；結縛既除，則心無為；心既無為，理無餘翳。經曰：「是諸聖智，不相違背。不出不在，其實俱空。」又曰：「無為大道，平等不二。」既曰無二，則不容心異。不體則已，體應窮微。而曰「體而未盡」，是所未悟也。
明漸第十三
無名曰：無為無二，則已然矣。結是重惑，可謂頓盡，亦所未喻。經曰：「三箭中的，三獸渡河。」中渡無異，而有淺深之殊者，為力不同故也。三乘眾生，俱濟緣起之津，同鑒四諦之的，絕偽即真，同升無為。然則所乘不一者，亦以智力不同故也。夫群有雖眾，然其量有涯。正使智猶身子、辯若滿愿，窮才極慮，莫窺其畔。況乎虛無之數、重玄之域，其道無涯，欲之頓盡耶？書不云乎：「為學者日益，為道者日損。」為道者，為于無為者也。為于無為而曰日損，此豈頓得之謂？要損之又損之，以至於無損耳。經喻螢日，智用可知矣！
譏動第十四
有名曰：經稱「法身已上，入無為境。心不可以智知，形不可以像測。體絕
陰入，心智寂滅。」而復云「進修三位，積德彌廣。」夫進修本於好尚，積德生於涉求。好尚則取捨情現，涉求則損益交陳。既以取捨為心、損益為體，而曰體絕陰入，心智寂滅。此文乖致殊，而會之一人，無異指南為北，以曉迷夫。
動寂第十五
無名曰：經稱「聖人無為而無所不為。」無為，故雖動而常寂；無所不為，故雖寂而常動。雖寂而常動，故物莫能一；雖動而常寂，故物莫能二。物莫能二，故逾動逾寂；物莫能一，故逾寂逾動。所以為即無為、無為即為，動寂雖殊而莫之可異也。《道行》曰：「心亦不有亦不無。」不有者，不若有心之有；不無者，不若無心之無。何者？有心，則眾庶是也；無心，則太虛是也。眾庶止於妄想，太虛絕於靈照；豈可止於妄想、絕於靈照，標其神道而語聖心者乎？是以聖心不有，不可謂之無；聖心不無，不可謂之有。不有，故心想都滅；不無；故理無不契。理無不契，故萬德斯弘；心想都滅，故功成非我。所以應化無方，未嘗有為；寂然不動，未嘗不為。經曰：「心無所行，無所不行。」信矣。儒僮曰：「昔我于無數劫，國財身命施人無數；以妄想心施，非為施也。今以無生心，五華施佛，始名施耳。」又空行菩薩入空解脫門，方言「今是行時，非為證時。」然
則心彌虛，行彌廣；終日行，不乖于無行者也。是以《賢劫》稱無舍之檀，《成具》美不為之為，禪典唱無緣之慈，《思益》演不知之知。聖旨虛玄，殊文同辯；豈可以有為便有為、無為便無為哉？菩薩住盡不盡平等法門，不盡有為、不住無為。即其事也。而以南北為喻，殊非領會之唱。
窮源第十六
有名曰：非眾生無以御三乘，非三乘無以成涅槃。然必先有眾生，後有涅槃。是則涅槃有始，有始必有終。而經云：「涅槃無始無終，湛若虛空。」則涅槃先有，非復學而後成者也。
通古第十七
無名曰：夫至人空洞無象，而萬物無非我造。會萬物以成已者，其唯聖人乎！何則？非理不聖，非聖不理；理而為聖者，聖不異理也。故天帝曰：「般若當於何求？」善吉曰：「般若不可於色中求，亦不離色中求。」又曰：「見緣起為見法，見法為見佛。」斯則物我不異之效也。所以至人戢玄機于未兆，藏冥運于即化，總六合以鏡心，一去來以成體。古今通，始終同，窮本極末，莫之與二，浩然大均，乃曰涅槃。經曰：「不離諸法而得涅槃。」又曰：「諸法無邊，故菩提無邊。」以知涅槃之道，存乎妙契；妙契之致，本乎冥一。然則物不異我、我不異物，物我玄會，歸乎無極。進之弗先，退之弗后，
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：心中越是空明，行為就越是廣闊；整天都在行動，卻不違背那無為的境界。因此，《賢劫經》（指《賢劫經》，佛教經典）讚揚不求回報的佈施，《成具經》（指《成具光明定經》，佛教經典）讚美不刻意而為的行為，禪宗經典歌頌無緣大慈（指不附加任何條件的慈悲），《思益經》（指《思益梵天所問經》，佛教經典）闡述不知之知（指超越知識的智慧）。聖人的教誨虛無玄妙，不同的文字表達相同的道理；難道可以因為有為就執著于有為，因為無為就執著于無為嗎？菩薩安住於盡與不盡的平等法門，不捨棄有為，也不執著于無為。這就是事情的真相。而用南北來比喻，實在是不理解佛法的說法。
窮源第十六
有名者問：如果沒有眾生，就無法引導他們進入聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘（三乘，佛教中三種不同的修行道路）；如果沒有三乘，就無法成就涅槃（Nirvana，佛教中解脫生死輪迴的境界）。這樣看來，一定是先有眾生，後有涅槃。那麼涅槃就有開始，有開始就必定有終結。可是佛經上說：『涅槃無始無終，清澈如虛空。』那麼涅槃是本來就有的，不是通過學習才能成就的。
通古第十七
無名者答：達到最高境界的人，內心空明，沒有固定的形象，而萬物沒有不是我所創造的。能夠融合萬物來成就自己的人，大概只有聖人吧！為什麼呢？沒有真理就沒有聖人，沒有聖人就沒有真理；真理成就了聖人，聖人與真理沒有分別。所以天帝釋（Devanam Indra，佛教護法神）問：『般若（Prajna，佛教智慧）應當在哪裡求？』善吉菩薩回答：『般若不可在色（Rupa，物質現象）中求，也不可離開色中求。』又說：『見到緣起（Pratityasamutpada，佛教關於事物相互依存的理論）就是見到法（Dharma，佛教真理），見到法就是見到佛（Buddha，覺悟者）。』這就是物我不二的體現。所以達到最高境界的人，將玄妙的機能隱藏在未顯現之時，將冥冥中的執行藏於變化之中，用整個宇宙來映照內心，將過去和未來融合成一體。古代和現在相通，開始和終結相同，窮盡根本和末端，沒有兩樣，浩瀚廣大而均平，就叫做涅槃。佛經上說：『不離開一切諸法（Dharmas，一切事物和現象）而得到涅槃。』又說：『諸法沒有邊際，所以菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）也沒有邊際。』由此可知，通往涅槃的道路，在於微妙的契合；微妙契合的關鍵，在於與道的冥合為一。既然如此，萬物與我沒有分別，我與萬物沒有分別，萬物與我玄妙地融合，迴歸到無極的境界。前進沒有在前，後退沒有在後，
【English Translation】 English version: The more empty the mind, the broader the actions; acting all day long, yet not deviating from non-action. Therefore, the Avatamsaka Sutra praises selfless giving, the Sarva-sattvādhimokṣa Sutra extols doing without doing, the Chan classics sing of impartial compassion, and the Vimalakirti Sutra expounds knowing without knowing. The teachings of the sages are profound and mysterious, with different words expressing the same truth; how can one cling to action because of action, or cling to non-action because of non-action? Bodhisattvas abide in the equal Dharma gate of exhaustion and non-exhaustion, not abandoning action, nor clinging to non-action. This is the truth of the matter. But using north and south as an analogy is truly a statement of non-understanding.
Chapter Sixteen: Exhausting the Source
Someone asked: Without sentient beings, there is no way to guide them into the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna, three different paths of practice in Buddhism); without the Three Vehicles, there is no way to achieve Nirvana (Nirvana, the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death in Buddhism). It seems that there must be sentient beings first, and then Nirvana. Then Nirvana has a beginning, and what has a beginning must have an end. But the scriptures say: 'Nirvana has no beginning and no end, clear like empty space.' Then Nirvana is originally there, not something that can be achieved through learning.
Chapter Seventeen: Connecting with the Ancient
Someone answered: The person who has reached the highest state is empty and without fixed form, and there is nothing that is not created by me. The one who can integrate all things to achieve himself is probably only the sage! Why? Without truth, there is no sage, without a sage, there is no truth; truth achieves the sage, the sage is not different from truth. Therefore, Devendra (Devanam Indra, a protector deity in Buddhism) asked: 'Where should Prajna (Prajna, Buddhist wisdom) be sought?' Bodhisattva Subhuti replied: 'Prajna cannot be sought in form (Rupa, material phenomena), nor can it be sought apart from form.' It is also said: 'Seeing dependent origination (Pratityasamutpada, the Buddhist theory of interdependence) is seeing the Dharma (Dharma, Buddhist truth), seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha (Buddha, the enlightened one).' This is the manifestation of the non-duality of things and self. Therefore, the person who has reached the highest state hides the subtle mechanism in the unmanifested, hides the hidden operation in the midst of transformation, uses the entire universe to reflect the mind, and integrates the past and the future into one body. Ancient and present are connected, beginning and end are the same, exhausting the root and the end, there is no difference, vast and equal, is called Nirvana. The scriptures say: 'One attains Nirvana without leaving all Dharmas (Dharmas, all things and phenomena).' It also says: 'Dharmas are boundless, therefore Bodhi (Bodhi, enlightenment) is boundless.' From this, it can be known that the path to Nirvana lies in subtle harmony; the key to subtle harmony lies in merging with the Tao into one. Since this is the case, all things are not different from me, I am not different from all things, all things and I are mysteriously integrated, returning to the realm of infinity. Advancing is not in front, retreating is not behind,
豈容終始於其間哉？天女曰：「耆年解脫亦如何久。」
考得第十八
有名曰：經云：「眾生之性，極於五陰之內。」又云：「得涅槃者，五陰都盡，譬猶燈滅。」然則眾生之性，頓盡於五陰之內；涅槃之道，獨建於三有之外。貌然殊域，非復眾生得涅槃也。果若有得，則眾生之性不止於五陰；必若止於五陰，則五陰不都盡。五陰若都盡，誰復得涅槃耶？
玄得第十九
無名曰：夫真由離起，偽因著生；著故有得，離故無名。是以則真者同真，法偽者同偽。子以有得為得，故求于有得耳。吾以無得為得，故得在於無得也。且談論之作，必先定其本。既論涅槃，不可離涅槃而語涅槃也。若即涅槃以興言，誰獨非涅槃而欲得之耶？何者？夫涅槃之道，妙盡常數，融治二儀，盪滌萬有，均天人，同一異。內視不已見，返聽不我聞；未嘗有得，未嘗無得。經曰：「涅槃非眾生，亦不異眾生。」維摩詰言：「若彌勒得滅度者，一切眾生亦當滅度。所以者何？一切眾生本性常滅，不復更滅。」此名滅度，在於無滅者也。然則眾生非眾生，誰為得之者？涅槃非涅槃，誰為可得者？《放光》云：「菩提從有得耶？答曰：不也。從無得耶？答曰：不也。從有無得耶？答曰：不也。離有無得耶？答曰：不也。然則
【現代漢語翻譯】 天女說：『難道解脫的終結和開始就在這期間嗎？』天女說：『耆年（指年長的修行者）的解脫，又是如何長久呢？』
考得（辯論者名）第十八
有名（辯論者名）說：經書上說：『眾生的本性，窮盡於五陰（色、受、想、行、識）之內。』又說：『得到涅槃（佛教術語，指解脫）的人，五陰全部消盡，譬如燈火熄滅。』如此說來，眾生的本性，完全窮盡於五陰之內；涅槃的道路，卻獨自建立在三有（欲有、色有、無色有）之外。表面上看來是不同的區域，不是眾生能夠得到涅槃。如果真的有人得到，那麼眾生的本性就不止於五陰；如果一定止於五陰，那麼五陰就不會全部消盡。五陰如果全部消盡，誰又能得到涅槃呢？』
玄得（辯論者名）第十九
無名（辯論者名）說：『真實是由遠離而產生的，虛偽是由於執著而產生的；因為執著所以有『得』，因為遠離所以沒有『名』。因此，真實的人與真實的人相同，虛偽的法與虛偽的法相同。你認為有『得』才是『得』，所以才追求有『得』。我認為沒有『得』才是『得』，所以『得』在於沒有『得』。而且談論的產生，必須先確定它的根本。既然談論涅槃，就不能離開涅槃來談論涅槃。如果從涅槃本身來展開言論，誰又不是涅槃而想要得到它呢？為什麼呢？因為涅槃的道路，精妙地窮盡了常數，融合治理天地，盪滌萬物，使天人和諧，使相同和不同歸一。向內看也看不到，反過來聽也聽不到自己；未曾有『得』，也未曾沒有『得』。經書上說：『涅槃不是眾生，也不異於眾生。』維摩詰（佛教人物）說：『如果彌勒（佛教人物，未來佛）得到滅度，那麼一切眾生也應當滅度。為什麼呢？因為一切眾生的本性本來就是常滅的，不再需要再次滅度。』這叫做滅度，在於沒有滅度之中。既然如此，眾生不是眾生，誰是得到它的人呢？涅槃不是涅槃，誰是可以得到它的人呢？《放光經》（佛教經典）上說：『菩提（佛教術語，指覺悟）是從有中得到的嗎？』回答說：『不是。』『是從無中得到的嗎？』回答說：『不是。』『是從有無中得到的嗎？』回答說：『不是。』『是從離開有無中得到的嗎？』回答說：『不是。』既然如此
【English Translation】 The celestial maiden said, 'Could the end and beginning of liberation be within this interval?' The celestial maiden said, 'How can the liberation of an elder (referring to an aged practitioner) be long-lasting?'
Kao De (name of a debater), the eighteenth.
You Ming (name of a debater) said: The scriptures say, 'The nature of sentient beings is exhausted within the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness).' It also says, 'Those who attain Nirvana (Buddhist term, referring to liberation) have all five skandhas extinguished, like a lamp going out.' Thus, the nature of sentient beings is completely exhausted within the five skandhas; the path to Nirvana, however, is established solely outside the three realms of existence (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). Superficially, they appear as different domains, and Nirvana is not attainable by sentient beings. If someone truly attains it, then the nature of sentient beings is not limited to the five skandhas; if it is definitely limited to the five skandhas, then the five skandhas will not be completely extinguished. If the five skandhas are completely extinguished, who can attain Nirvana?'
Xuan De (name of a debater), the nineteenth.
Wu Ming (name of a debater) said: 'Truth arises from detachment, falsehood arises from attachment; because of attachment, there is 'attainment'; because of detachment, there is no 'name'. Therefore, the true are the same as the true, and the false dharmas are the same as the false dharmas. You consider 'attainment' as attainment, so you seek attainment. I consider non-attainment as attainment, so attainment lies in non-attainment. Moreover, the creation of a discussion must first establish its foundation. Since we are discussing Nirvana, we cannot discuss Nirvana apart from Nirvana. If we speak from the perspective of Nirvana itself, who is not Nirvana and desires to attain it? Why? Because the path of Nirvana subtly exhausts the constant numbers, harmoniously governs the two realms (heaven and earth), washes away all things, harmonizes gods and humans, and unifies sameness and difference. Looking inward, one cannot see oneself; listening backward, one cannot hear oneself; there has never been attainment, and there has never been non-attainment. The scriptures say, 'Nirvana is not sentient beings, nor is it different from sentient beings.' Vimalakirti (Buddhist figure) said, 'If Maitreya (Buddhist figure, the future Buddha) attains extinction, then all sentient beings should also attain extinction. Why? Because the inherent nature of all sentient beings is originally always extinguished, and there is no need for further extinction.' This is called extinction, which lies in non-extinction. In that case, if sentient beings are not sentient beings, who is the one who attains it? If Nirvana is not Nirvana, who is the one who can attain it? The Fangguang Jing (Buddhist scripture) says, 'Is Bodhi (Buddhist term, referring to enlightenment) attained from existence?' The answer is: 'No.' 'Is it attained from non-existence?' The answer is: 'No.' 'Is it attained from both existence and non-existence?' The answer is: 'No.' 'Is it attained from being apart from existence and non-existence?' The answer is: 'No.' In that case,'
都無得耶？答曰：不也。是義云何？答曰：無所得故為得也，是故得無所得也。」無所得謂之得者，誰獨不然耶？然則玄道在於絕域，故不得以得之；妙智存乎物外，故不知以知之。大象隱於無形；故不見以見之；大音匿於希聲，故不聞以聞之。故能囊括終古導達群方，亭毒蒼生疏而不漏。汪哉洋哉，何莫由之哉！故梵志曰：「吾聞佛道，厥義弘深，汪洋無涯；靡不成就，靡不度生。」然則三乘之路開，真偽之途辯，賢聖之道存，無名之致顯矣！
涅槃無名論(終)
肇論(終)
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問道：『難道什麼都沒有得到嗎？』回答說：『不是的。』這其中的意義是什麼呢？回答說：『因為沒有執著于有所得，所以才是真正的得到，因此才是得到了無所得。』把無所得稱之為得到，誰不是這樣認為的呢？如此說來，玄妙的道存在於超越常理的境界，所以不能用通常的『得到』去獲得它；精妙的智慧存在於萬物之外，所以不能用通常的『知』去了解它。偉大的形象隱藏於無形之中，所以不能用通常的『見』去看見它；偉大的聲音隱藏於寂靜之中，所以不能用通常的『聞』去聽見它。』因此，（聖人）能夠包容從古至今的一切，引導通達所有方向，養育萬物，雖然看似疏遠卻不會遺漏任何事物。多麼廣闊深遠啊，沒有什麼不是由此而來的！』所以梵志（Brahmacarin，指修行者）說：『我聽說佛道，它的意義弘大深遠，廣闊無邊，沒有什麼不能成就，沒有什麼不能度化眾生。』如此說來，聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna，通過聽聞佛法而解脫的乘）、緣覺乘（Pratyekabuddhayāna，通過自身覺悟而解脫的乘）、菩薩乘（Bodhisattvayāna，通過修行菩薩道而成就佛果的乘）這三乘的道路得以開闢，真與偽的途徑得以分辨，賢人聖者的道路得以存在，無名之道的極致得以顯現啊！』 《涅槃無名論》（終） 《肇論》（終）
【English Translation】 English version: 'Is it that nothing is obtained?' The answer is: 'No.' What is the meaning of this? The answer is: 'Because there is no attachment to obtaining, therefore it is truly obtaining, and thus it is obtaining non-obtaining.' Who does not consider non-obtaining as obtaining? Thus, the profound Dao (道, the Way) exists in a realm beyond the ordinary, so it cannot be obtained through ordinary 'obtaining'; subtle wisdom exists beyond all things, so it cannot be understood through ordinary 'knowing'. The great form is hidden in the formless, so it cannot be seen through ordinary 'seeing'; the great sound is hidden in silence, so it cannot be heard through ordinary 'hearing'.' Therefore, (the sage) can encompass everything from beginning to end, guide and reach all directions, nurture all living beings, and though seemingly distant, nothing is missed. How vast and profound, everything comes from it!' Therefore, the Brahmacarin (梵志, a religious student) said: 'I have heard of the Buddha-dharma, its meaning is vast and profound, boundless and limitless; there is nothing that cannot be accomplished, nothing that cannot liberate sentient beings.' Thus, the paths of the Three Vehicles—Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘, the Vehicle of Hearers), Pratyekabuddhayāna (緣覺乘, the Vehicle of Solitary Buddhas), and Bodhisattvayāna (菩薩乘, the Vehicle of Bodhisattvas)—are opened, the paths of truth and falsehood are distinguished, the path of the wise and the holy exists, and the ultimate of the nameless Dao is revealed!' Nirvana is Nameless (End) The Zhao Treatise (End)