肇論 答劉遺民書
聖心若無知，如何又能照見萬變、回應眾生？僧肇的答覆不是在有知與無知之間另選一邊：凡夫的知攀相取境，木石的無知昏昧不覺；聖智離攀緣而靈鑒不息，所以虛不失照、照不失虛，冥寂而感無不應。非有，故不取；非無，故不捨；不把物固定成物，眼前之物才不被名相封死。照無相也不是避開萬變另守空寂，正如色空相即，變就是無相，無相就在變中；聖人終日應會、乘運撫化，卻未始把動用執成固定的有。即使說真是與至當，也須防它們再成可執的名相，否則美惡既生，奔競不止。於是，聖人居動用而止無為，處有名而宅絕言；言語如足跡，能引路卻不是所指本身。這封跨越江山的答書，最後把讀者送到同一處：不棄萬事而不住萬事，不廢言說而不執言說，在寂與照不二之中相期於文外。
If the sage's mind is without knowing, how can it illumine the myriad changes and respond to beings? Sengzhao's reply does not choose another side between knowing and not knowing. Ordinary knowing grasps marks and takes objects; the absence of knowing in wood and stone is benighted and unaware. Noble wisdom is free of object-grasping, yet its numinous illumination never ceases. Thus emptiness does not lose illumination, illumination does not lose emptiness, and in dark stillness there is nothing to which it fails to respond. Because it is not fixed existence, it does not grasp; because it is not annihilating non-being, it does not reject. Only when a thing is not fixed as a self-standing thing can it remain before us without being sealed inside names and forms. To illumine the signless is not to avoid the myriad changes and guard a separate emptiness. Just as form and emptiness are mutually identical, change is the signless, and the signless is present within change. All day long the sage meets conditions, takes up each occasion, and comforts and teaches, yet never grasps active function as fixed existence. Even true rightness and ultimate fittingness must not harden once more into graspable names, or distinctions of beautiful and ugly arise and contention never ends. The sage therefore dwells in the domain of activity while resting in the unconditioned; he lives within names while making his home where speech is cut off. Words are like footprints: they can guide, but they are not what they point toward. This reply, sent across rivers and mountains, finally brings the reader to the same place — not abandoning the myriad affairs yet not dwelling in them, not discarding speech yet not grasping it, meeting beyond the written word where stillness and illumination are not two.
《肇論》一卷〈答劉遺民書〉· 大正藏 T45n1858〔起 T45 0155b22〕。段/行首〔T45 …〕＝大正藏頁·欄·行錨。
〔T45 0155b22〕答劉遺民書 不面在昔，佇想用勞。慧明道人至，得去年十二月疏并問。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，理契則隣。所以望途致想，虛襟有寄。君既遂嘉遯之志，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。願彼山僧無恙，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，抱一沖谷，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，靈鷲之風萃於茲土。領公遠舉，乃千載之津梁也。於西域還，得方等新經二百餘部，請大乘禪師一人、三藏法師一人、毘婆沙法師二人。什法師於大石寺出新至諸經，法藏淵曠，日有異聞。禪師於瓦官寺教習禪道，門徒數百，夙夜匪懈，邕邕蕭蕭，致可欣樂。三藏法師於中寺出律藏，本末精悉，若覩初制。毘婆沙法師於石羊寺出《舍利弗阿毘曇》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。自恨不覩釋迦祇桓之集，餘復何恨？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《念佛三昧詠》，并得遠法師《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？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，以為注解。辭雖不文，然義承有本。今因信持一本往南。君閑詳，試可取看。 〔T45 0156a01〕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，示詶來旨耳。 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，則羣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；不可稱羣數以息。兩言雖殊，妙用常一。迹我而乘，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，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，尋大方而徵隅，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，無取無捨，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，極於相內。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？為當咸覩其變耶？」談者似謂無相與變，其旨不一，覩變則異乎無相，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，不非色於非色。若非色於非色，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。群情不同，故教迹有異耳。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；覩變動，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！如之何謂覩變之知，異無相之照乎，恐談者脫謂空有兩心，靜躁殊用，故言覩變之知，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，而是於無是，無心於為當，而當於無當者，則終日是，不乖於無是；終日當，不乖於無當。但恐有是於無是、有當於無當，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。夫言迹之興，異途之所由生也。而言有所不言，迹有所不迹。是以善言言者，求言所不能言；善迹迹者，尋迹所不能迹。至理虛玄，擬心已差，況乃有言，恐所示轉遠。庶通心君子，有以相期於文外耳。
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
一、展信問候：衣著雖異，所期不二
我們從前不曾見面，長久等候想望，實在辛苦。慧明道人來到這裡，我才收到你去年十二月寄來的信和問題。我反覆展讀，高興得像與你暫時相對。秋風已到這個時節，近來一切都好嗎？我因勤於求道而勞累生病，身體常不安穩。使者向南回去，來不及詳盡作答。八月十五日，釋僧肇寫信回覆。
我們一位出家、一位在家，服飾與形貌雖然不同，心中所期求的妙理卻沒有兩樣；江河山嶺雖使彼此相隔遙遠，只要契合理義，便如同近鄰。正因如此，我常向著路途的那一端懷想，空虛的胸懷也有了寄託。你已實現美好的隱居志願，顯出超越世俗的美德，獨自安然處在人事之外，心中自得而歡喜。每逢眾人聚談，你所說的話何嘗不是意旨深遠，像林下高士清雅的歌詠，情致高遠悠然。
清閑散適的日子還沒有期限，請多多保重愛護自己。每逢有人往來，我屢次得到你的消息。願山中僧眾沒有疾病，道俗大眾都平安。聽說慧遠法師的身心勝於平常，我深感欣慰。我雖未曾親自聆聽受教，卻一直敬服他的高尚行履，企望親承教誨已經很久。法師年過耳順，精神卻愈加澄湛剛健；他在幽深山巖中教養徒眾，在空曠山谷中守持一道，遠近之人都仰慕讚歎，還有什麼美事能與此相比？我也常向東南一方翹首想望，遙受那高如雲霄岸際的德蔭。無從親自表達敬意，心中的感慨確實很深。你每天都能清談相對，想來一定常有契悟於心的歡喜。
二、長安法集：異典勝僧，遠方而至
這裡的大眾一切如常，鳩摩羅什法師也安好。秦王姚興天性契道，心機超越世俗，以護持三寶為城牆壕塹，把弘揚佛道當作首要事務。因此，不同地方的經典與傑出的僧人，正從遙遠之處來到這裡，佛陀昔日在靈鷲山說法的風氣也匯聚在這片土地。
法領法師遠行西域再回來，實在是千年佛法的橋梁。他帶回二百多部方等新經，並請來一位大乘禪師、一位精通三藏的法師和兩位精通毘婆沙的法師。鳩摩羅什法師正在大石寺譯出新近到達的各部經典，法藏深廣，每天都有前所未聞的新義。禪師在瓦官寺教授禪法，門徒數百人，早晚都不懈怠，和樂整肅，十分令人欣喜。三藏法師在中寺譯出律藏，從開端到末後都精通詳悉，彷彿親眼看見佛陀最初制戒。毘婆沙法師在石羊寺整理《舍利弗阿毘曇》的西域原本，雖然還沒有來得及翻譯，但眾人不時詢問其中的事，他每次回答都有新奇的義旨。
我這一生，意外地參與了如此美好的時運，遇上這場盛大的教化。只遺憾自己沒有親眼見到釋迦牟尼佛在祇園的集會，除此之外還有什麼可遺憾的呢？然而，不能與你這位清雅高勝的君子同在這場法會，仍使我深感惋惜。
三、南北相聞：法友、念佛詠與《維摩》注
竺道生上人近來曾在此同住數年，每到交談時，常常稱讚吟詠你的德行。他中途回到南方，你應已能與他相見。此後一直沒有收到近來的消息，我心中的惘然鬱悶，實在難以言說。
威道人到來時，我收到你的《念佛三昧詠》，也收到慧遠法師的《三昧詠》和序。這些作品寄託高遠，文辭清雅柔美；善於文章的人，大多稱讚它們寫得好。可以說，這是遊歷聖門、叩擊幽玄關口的歌唱。你與法師應當常有文章結集，為何這次託人帶來的這麼少呢？
鳩摩羅什法師在午年譯出《維摩經》，我當時也依次參與聽講。承受教誨之餘，我隨手把可信的講說分條記下，寫成注解。文字雖不華美，義理卻有師承根據。如今託來人帶一部到南方，請你閑暇時仔細看看。
四、開始作答：至理本來不是言語能盡
你提出的問題委婉而切要，實在難以作出相稱的回答。我的思慮未能深入幽微，也不善於用文字表達。況且，最高的義趣本來無言，一落言說便難免偏離義趣；即使不斷說下去，最後又真正辨明了什麼呢？姑且用這些近乎狂妄的話，嘗試回應你信中的旨意。
你信中說，聖人的心冥然寂靜，所契的至理與『無』相同；聖人雖然處在有名稱的世界裡，卻遠與不可名的境地相合。這個道理本來幽深，常人確實更難明白。如果把它放在心中體會，自可忘掉言語而在內心領得，由自己的方寸之心加以確定。又何必拿常人情見中的種種差別，去追問聖心也必定有同樣的差別呢？
五、第一答：無知如何又無所不知？
你轉述談論者的意思說：若聖人已窮盡靈明與一切心數，妙用至極而暗合真理，那麼寂與照應當分別成為定與慧的體；若聖心本來靈明寂泊，只獨自感照，對眾多事物的回應幾乎就要止息了。
我的意思是：所謂妙用至極而暗合真理，不能在其中分立定、慧兩個名稱；所謂靈明寂泊而獨自感照，也不能因此說聖人對眾多事物的回應已經停止。兩句話雖然不同，所說的妙用始終是一件事。從我們看見的作用痕跡來說，似乎有動與靜的差別；在聖人自身，兩者並沒有不同。
為什麼？聖人的玄妙心智默然照見，與最究竟的『無』相合。既說是相同，就沒有不相合到極處的地方。既然已與『無』相合到極處，哪裡還能在這同一智慧中固定分出定與慧兩個名稱？若這兩個名稱生在相合之內，有了兩個分別名稱，便不再是全然相合；若名稱生在相合之外，那些名稱又不屬於聖心本身。
而且，聖心虛靜幽微，妙絕常人的境界；凡有所感，沒有不回應的，凡有相會，沒有不能通達的。幽微的契機暗中運行，它的作用並不勞苦；對眾多事物的回應又怎會停止？
凡夫的心之所以被說成『有』，是因為它把眼前的有固定看成有。然而，有並不是由自己成立的一個固定之有，所以聖心不把有執定為有。不把有執定為有，便看見有並非固定的有；有既非固定的有，也就不會反過來落入一個固定的無。因此，聖人不執有，也不執無；既不執有也不執無，心神才真正虛通。
有與無，是心中隨境而生的影子與回聲；言語與形象，又攀著這些影子和回聲而起。若有無的固定分別已經止息，心中便沒有可攀的影響；影響既然沉沒，言語與形象便無法測定聖心。言象不能測定，道便超出一切分類；正因超出分類，才能窮盡靈明與一切心數，這才稱為妙用至極。
妙用至極，根本在於心無所寄著。無所寄著，所以冥然寂靜而虛通；妙用至極，又在於能盡一切心數，所以能隨眾多事物而回應。能隨事回應，便在動中與事相會；虛通無寄，便超出一切名稱。因為超出名稱，勉強稱它為無；因為隨事相會，又勉強稱它為有。這個『有』只是順著認為有的人而暫時立名，聖心自身哪裡被這個名稱固定了呢？
所以經文說，聖智沒有攀緣分別的知，卻沒有不能照知的事；沒有造作，卻沒有不能成辦的事。這是無言、無相、寂滅的道，哪裡能說有便把它定成有，說無便把它定成無；說動便認為違背靜，說靜便認為廢棄作用？
六、離開有無兩邊：不取，也不捨
可是，現在許多談論者往往就著言詞固定義旨，沿著沒有角落的大方去追索一個角落，拿預先形成的認識標榜幽玄，又把自己心中所保存的看法認定為必然正確。因此，一聽見聖人有知，便說聖人有一顆分別心；一聽見聖人無知，又把聖心等同廣大虛空。有與無這兩種境界，都是邊見所保存的分別，哪裡是居於中道而不分成兩邊的道呢？
萬物雖然各不相同，它們的本性卻常常歸於一。不能把物固定看成實物，卻也不是把物否定掉。若把物固定成物，名稱與形相便各自排列；若不把物固定成物，當下之物便契入真實。因此，聖人不把物執成固定的物，也不把物否定成什麼都沒有。不把物執成固定的物，所以物並非固定的有；不把物否定，所以物也並非斷滅的無。因為不是固定的有，所以不取；因為不是斷滅的無，所以不捨。不捨，便能使眼前之物妙存而契真；不取，便沒有由來可以建立固定名相。名相無從建立，不是說有分別之知；眼前妙存而契真，也不是說全然無知。因此，般若對一切法無所取、無所捨，無所攀知，又沒有不能照知的事。這已在攀緣之外，是心念分別到不了的境地；若仍想用有無來詰難，豈不是離得太遠？
現在反問那些主張聖心是有或無的人：凡夫的智生起，只能到有形相的範圍為止。法本來沒有固定形相，聖智又能攀知什麼？世間所說的無知，通常指木石、太虛等沒有情識之物；聖智卻能靈明鑒照幽微，事情尚未顯露便已照見，道理沒有一絲隱藏的契機，怎能把這種無知等同木石？
所謂無知，是因為沒有一個可被攀知的對象而立名；聖智既沒有世間那種昏昧的無知，也沒有凡夫那種攀緣的有知。沒有攀緣之知，所以說它不是有；沒有昏昧無知，所以說它不是無。因此，虛靜不失照明，照明不失虛靜；它恬然長寂，沒有執取，也沒有拘束。誰能使它一動就變成固定的有，一靜就變成固定的無？
經文因此說，真般若不是有，也不是無；不起也不滅，不能用言說指示給人。說它非有，只是否定它是固定的有，並不是把它斷定成一個『非有』；說它非無，只是否定它是固定的無，也不是把它斷定成一個『非無』。所以，非有也不是可執的非有，非無也不是可執的非無。須菩提整天說般若，卻說自己無所說；這條斷絕言語的道，怎能只靠知解傳遞？但願能契入幽玄的君子，在言語之外與它相會。
七、第二答：照見無相，是否就看不見萬變？
你又問：應當先確定聖心回應事物的方法，它究竟只照見無相，還是也完全看見一切變動？談論者似乎把無相與萬變看成兩個不同的宗旨：若看見萬變，便與無相不同；若只照無相，便失去安撫眾生、隨事相會的作用。若這樣理解，對『當下即真』的意思或許還有阻滯。
經文說，色不異空，空不異色；色就是空，空就是色。如果依談論者的意思，觀察色與空時，就應當一個心先見色，另一個心再見空。若一心只見色，就只有色而沒有空；若一心只見空，就只有空而沒有色。如此一來，空與色分開陳列，便不知道哪一個才是根本。
所以，經文說『非色』，真意是在色上明白它不是固定的色，不是離開色另找一個非色。若只在非色之處說非色，廣大虛空本來就不是色，這又能說明什麼？若是在色上明白非色，便知道非色不異於色，色當下就是非色。因此，萬變就是無相，無相就是萬變。眾生的情見不同，所以教化留下的言說痕跡有異；若考察幽玄經籍，窮究聖人本意，真與俗哪裡是兩顆不同的心，空與有哪裡是兩種不同的照見？
正因如此，照見無相，不會失去安撫眾生、隨事相會的功用；看見萬物變動，也不會違背無相的宗旨。到達有，不異於無；到達無，也不異於有。從來沒有不見有，卻在見有時不把有固定成有；從來沒有不見無，卻在見無時不把無固定成無。所以經中說，不離平等覺而建立一切法。由此推論，寂與用怎會彼此妨礙？又怎能說看見萬變的知，與照見無相的智不同？
我只擔心談論者或許把空與有分成兩顆心，把寂靜與動用分成兩種作用，所以才說看見萬變的知不能說完全沒有。若能捨去自己封閉範圍內的成見，到事相之外尋求幽微的契機，把萬有齊觀於同一虛通，又明白最極虛通並不是斷滅的無，那麼便應說：至人整天回應眾緣，隨萬物推移，乘著時機安撫教化，卻從未把這些作用執成固定的有。聖心若是如此，哪裡有什麼可取，還要追問為何沒有解釋『不取』的道理？
八、第三答：真是與至當，會不會又成新的執取？
你又說，沒有固定的是，才是真正的是；沒有固定的當，才是最究竟的當。這也可以如你來信所說。只是必須真正做到：心不把某物固定成是，而在無所執是中隨事為是；心不把某物固定成當，而在無所執當中隨事為當。這樣即使整天判斷是，也不違背無所執是；整天應當，也不違背無所執當。
我所擔心的，只是有人又把一個『是』安立在無所執是之中，把一個『當』安立在無所執當之中，這才會成為過患。為什麼？若真正的是可以被固定為是，最究竟的當可以被固定為當，名稱與形相便顯現，美與惡的分別也隨之生起；分別不斷生起，彼此奔逐競爭，誰能使它停止？
所以，聖人使自己的胸懷空明洞徹，沒有執著的認識，也沒有攀緣的知。他雖居在一切活動與作用的範圍，心卻止於無為之境；雖處在有名稱的世界裡，卻安住於斷絕言說的地方。那裡寂寥、虛靜、空曠，不能用形相與名稱取得，如此而已。若又說真正的是可以固定為是、最究竟的當可以固定為當，我便還不能明白這高雅的宗旨。恐怕所謂是與當，只是眾人認定如此，聖心自身並不如此，又何必強說聖心如此？
九、結語：在文字之外相期
言語與痕跡一旦興起，各種不同的道路便由此產生。然而，言語總有不能說出的部分，痕跡也總有不能留下痕跡的地方。因此，善於用言語表達的人，會從言語去求言語不能說出的意旨；善於循著痕跡尋求的人，會從痕跡去找痕跡不能留下的本體。
至理虛靜幽玄，心才準備比擬便已偏差，何況再用言語，恐怕所指示的反而離它更遠。希望心能通達的君子，與我在文字之外彼此相期。
1. Opening the letter: though our garb differs, what we seek is not two
We had never met before. The long wait and longing have truly been hard. When the practitioner Huiming arrived here, I at last received the letter and questions you sent last twelfth month. I read them over and over, delighted as though we had briefly come face to face. The autumn wind has now reached this season. Has all been well with you of late? I have worn myself out in the pursuit of the Way and fallen ill; my health is often unsettled. The messenger is returning south, so there is no time for a fully detailed reply. On the fifteenth day of the eighth month, the monk Sengzhao writes in response.
One of us is ordained and the other a householder. Though our dress and outward appearance differ, there is no difference in the subtle principle our hearts seek. Rivers and mountain ranges may separate us over a great distance, yet when we accord with principle, we are as close as neighbours. For that very reason, I have often turned my thoughts toward the far end of the road, and my empty breast has found something in which to repose. You have fulfilled your noble wish for the reclusive life, manifesting a virtue that rises above the ordinary world. Dwelling alone beyond the affairs of men, you rest content and rejoice within yourself. Whenever people gather in conversation, are your words not always deep in purport, like the elegant songs of lofty recluses beneath the trees, their feeling distant and unhurried?
There is no set term to your quiet, unencumbered days; please take great care of yourself. Whenever travellers have passed between us, I have repeatedly received news of you. I hope the community of monks in the mountains is free from illness and that ordained and lay practitioners alike are at peace. I hear that Master Huiyuan's body and mind are better than usual, which gives me deep comfort. Although I have never personally heard his instruction, I have long revered his lofty conduct and wished to receive his teaching directly. The Master is past sixty, yet his spirit grows ever clearer and more vigorous. In the secluded cliffs he nurtures his disciples; in the open valleys he holds to the single Way. People near and far look up to him in admiration. What finer thing could compare with this? I too often lift my gaze toward the southeast and from afar receive the shelter of a virtue rising like the edge of the clouds. With no way to express my respect in person, the feeling in my heart is profound indeed. You are able to meet him in lucid conversation every day; surely you often know the joy of an understanding that accords within the heart.
2. The Dharma assembly at Chang'an: rare scriptures and eminent monks arriving from afar
Everyone here continues as usual, and Master Kumārajīva is also well. Yao Xing, ruler of Qin, accords with the Way by nature and has a mind that rises above the ordinary world. He takes the protection of the Three Jewels as his walls and moat, and the propagation of the Buddha's Way as his foremost charge. Thus scriptures from different regions and eminent monks are now arriving here from great distances, while the spirit of the Buddha's teaching assembly long ago at Vulture Peak is gathering in this land.
Master Faling has returned from his long journey through the Western Regions. He truly is a bridge for the Dharma across a thousand years. He brought back more than two hundred new Vaipulya scriptures and invited one Mahāyāna meditation master, one master learned in the Tripiṭaka, and two masters learned in the Vibhāṣā. Master Kumārajīva is translating the newly arrived scriptures at the Great Stone Monastery. The Dharma treasury is deep and vast; every day brings meanings never heard before. The meditation master teaches meditation at Waguansi, where several hundred disciples remain diligent morning and evening. Their harmonious discipline is a great delight. At the Central Monastery, the Tripiṭaka master is translating the Vinaya treasury. He knows it thoroughly from beginning to end, as though he had personally witnessed the Buddha first establish the precepts. At Shiyangsi, the Vibhāṣā master is putting in order a Western-Regions manuscript of the Śāriputra Abhidharma. Although there has not yet been time to translate it, people ask him about it from time to time, and each answer reveals a fresh and remarkable meaning.
In this life I have unexpectedly taken part in so fortunate a time and encountered so great a work of teaching. My only regret is that I did not personally see Śākyamuni Buddha's assembly at Jetavana. Apart from that, what is left to regret? Yet that I cannot share this Dharma assembly with so refined and eminent a gentleman as you remains a deep sorrow.
3. News between north and south: Dharma friends, hymns on buddha-recollection, and notes on the Vimalakīrti
The venerable Zhu Daosheng stayed here with us for several years not long ago. Whenever we spoke, he often praised and celebrated your virtue. He later returned south midway through his travels, so by now you should have been able to meet him. Since then I have received no recent news, and the desolate heaviness in my heart is hard to put into words.
When the practitioner Wei arrived, I received your Hymn on the Samādhi of Buddha-Recollection, together with Master Huiyuan's hymn on samādhi and its preface. These works bear a lofty intent, and their language is elegant and gentle. Those skilled in composition generally praise them as finely written. They may be called songs that wander through the gate of the noble ones and knock upon the hidden pass. You and the Master must often gather writings together. Why, then, were so few sent by this messenger?
In the year of the Horse, Master Kumārajīva translated the Vimalakīrti Sūtra. At the time, I too attended the lectures in sequence. As I received his instruction, I set down trustworthy portions of what I heard, arranging them as notes. The language may lack ornament, but its meaning rests on a transmitted teaching. I am now entrusting one copy to the traveller going south. Please examine it carefully when you have the leisure.
4. Beginning the reply: the highest principle cannot be exhausted in words
Your questions are tactful and exact, and it is truly difficult to give a fitting answer. My thought has not penetrated the hidden depths, nor am I skilled in expression. Moreover, the highest purport is originally without words; once it falls into speech, it can scarcely avoid departing from its intent. Even if one went on speaking without end, what would finally have been made clear? For the moment, with words bordering on presumption, I shall try to respond to the meaning of your letter.
You write that the sage's mind is darkly still, that the ultimate principle with which it accords is the same as non-being; although the sage dwells in the world of names, he accords from afar with the realm that cannot be named. This principle is obscure and deep, and ordinary people indeed find it still harder to understand. If one experiences it within the heart, one may naturally forget words and inwardly receive it, confirming it within the square inch of one's own mind. Why insist on taking the distinctions found in ordinary feelings and views, and then ask whether the sage's mind must contain those same distinctions?
5. The first reply: how can there be no knowing, yet nothing not known?
You report the view of those discussing the matter: if the sage has exhausted numinous clarity and every operation of mind, bringing subtle function to its utmost and darkly according with truth, then stillness and illumination should separately constitute the essences of concentration and wisdom. But if the sage's mind is inherently numinous, still, and tranquil, shining in solitary responsiveness, then its responses to the multitude of things would seem almost to cease.
My meaning is this: when subtle function is brought to its utmost and darkly accords with truth, the two names concentration and wisdom cannot be divided within it. When numinous clarity is still and tranquil, shining in solitary responsiveness, one cannot therefore say that the sage's responses to the multitude of things have stopped. Although the two formulations differ, the subtle function they describe is always one. Seen through the traces of activity available to us, there appears to be a difference between motion and stillness. In the sage himself, the two do not differ.
Why? The sage's profound wisdom silently illuminates and accords with the most ultimate non-being. Once they are said to be the same, there is nowhere that their accord does not reach its limit. Once the accord with non-being has reached its limit, how could the two fixed names concentration and wisdom still be divided within this one wisdom? If the two names arise within the accord, the presence of two discriminated names means the accord is no longer complete. If the names arise outside the accord, they do not belong to the sage's mind itself.
Moreover, the sage's mind is empty, still, hidden, and subtle, marvellously beyond the ordinary realm. Whatever touches it, it invariably responds; whatever meets it, it invariably penetrates. The hidden pivot works in silence, and its functioning is not laborious. How, then, could its responses to the multitude of things cease?
The ordinary mind is called existent because it fixes the existence before it as truly existent. Yet existence does not establish itself as a fixed existence. Therefore, the sage's mind does not determine existence as existent. Not determining existence as existent, it sees that existence is not fixed existence. Since existence is not fixed existence, the mind does not fall back into a fixed non-being. Thus the sage grasps neither existence nor non-being. Only by grasping neither does the mind become truly empty and open.
Existence and non-being are shadows and echoes that arise in the mind in response to objects. Words and images then climb upon these shadows and echoes. When the fixed distinction between existence and non-being has ceased, the mind contains no shadow or echo to be grasped. Once shadows and echoes have sunk away, words and images cannot take the measure of the sage's mind. Where words and images cannot measure it, the Way surpasses every category. Precisely because it surpasses categories, it can exhaust numinous clarity and every operation of mind. This is what is meant by subtle function brought to its utmost.
The root of bringing subtle function to its utmost lies in the mind's having nowhere to lodge. Because it has nowhere to lodge, it is darkly still, empty, and open. Yet subtle function brought to its utmost also consists in exhausting every operation of mind, and so it can respond to the multitude of things. Responding to things, it meets them within motion. Empty and unlodged, it surpasses every name. Because it surpasses names, we provisionally call it non-being. Because it meets things as they arise, we provisionally call it existent. This existence is only a temporary name established in accord with those who take it as existent. How could the sage's mind itself be fixed by that name?
Therefore, the scriptures say that noble wisdom has no object-grasping, discriminative knowing, yet there is nothing it does not illumine and know; it does nothing contrived, yet there is nothing it does not accomplish. This is the wordless, signless, quiescent Way. How could one say that calling it existent fixes it as existent, or calling it non-being fixes it as non-being; that calling it moving makes it violate stillness, or calling it still makes it abandon function?
6. Leaving both extremes of existence and non-being: neither grasping nor rejecting
Yet many who discuss the matter today fasten the purport to the words. They search for a corner along the great square that has no corners, parade a prior understanding as though it disclosed the profound, and assume that the view retained in their own minds must be correct. Thus, on hearing that the sage knows, they say he has a discriminating mind; on hearing that the sage is without knowing, they equate his mind with vast empty space. Existence and non-being are both distinctions preserved by extreme views. How could either be the Way that abides in the middle and does not split into two extremes?
Although the myriad things differ from one another, their nature always returns to one. One cannot fix a thing as a self-standing thing, yet neither does one negate the thing. If one fixes things as things, names and forms line up separately. If one does not fix things as things, those very things accord with truth. Thus the sage neither grasps things as fixed things nor negates them into nothing at all. Because he does not grasp a thing as fixed, it is not fixed existence. Because he does not negate the thing, it is not the non-being of annihilation. Since it is not fixed existence, he does not grasp it. Since it is not annihilating non-being, he does not reject it. By not rejecting, he lets the thing before him wondrously remain and accord with truth. By not grasping, he leaves no ground on which fixed names and forms can be established. That names and forms cannot be established does not mean there is discriminative knowing; that the thing before him wondrously remains and accords with truth does not mean there is no knowing at all. Thus prajñā neither grasps nor rejects any dharma. It has no object-clinging knowing, yet there is nothing it does not illumine and know. This lies beyond object-grasping, in a realm discrimination cannot reach. If one still tries to challenge it through existence and non-being, has one not gone far astray?
Now let us ask those who maintain that the sage's mind is either existent or non-existent: when ordinary cognition arises, it can reach only as far as things with form. Dharmas originally have no fixed form. What, then, could noble wisdom grasp and know? What the world calls absence of knowing usually means the insentience of wood, stone, or empty space. Yet noble wisdom numinously illumines what is hidden and subtle. It sees a matter before it becomes manifest, and principle conceals not the slightest pivot. How could such absence of knowing be equated with wood or stone?
It is called without knowing because there is no object that could be grasped and known. Noble wisdom has neither the world's benighted absence of knowing nor the ordinary person's object-grasping knowledge. Because it has no object-grasping knowledge, it is said not to be existent. Because it has no benighted absence of knowing, it is said not to be non-existent. Thus emptiness and stillness do not lose illumination, and illumination does not lose emptiness and stillness. Tranquil and ever still, it has neither grasping nor constraint. Who could make it become fixed existence as soon as it moves, or fixed non-being as soon as it is still?
The scriptures therefore say that true prajñā is neither existent nor non-existent, neither arising nor ceasing, and cannot be shown to anyone through speech. To say it is not existent only negates fixed existence; it does not determine prajñā as a fixed not-existent. To say it is not non-existent only negates fixed non-being; it does not determine prajñā as a fixed not-non-existent. Thus neither not-existent nor not-non-existent is something to be grasped. Subhūti spoke of prajñā all day, yet said that he had said nothing. How could this Way, which cuts off speech, be transmitted by conceptual understanding alone? May those who accord with the profound meet it beyond words.
7. The second reply: does seeing the signless mean failing to see the myriad changes?
You ask again that we first determine how the sage's mind responds to things: does it see only the signless, or does it also see every change in full? Those discussing the matter seem to treat the signless and the myriad changes as two different principles. If the mind sees the myriad changes, it differs from the signless. If it sees only the signless, it loses the function of comforting beings and meeting things as they arise. If this is how the matter is understood, there may still be an obstruction to the meaning of directly according with truth.
The scripture says that form is not different from emptiness, and emptiness is not different from form; form itself is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form. On the account given by those discussing the matter, observing form and emptiness would require one mind first to see form and another mind afterward to see emptiness. If one mind sees only form, there would be form without emptiness. If one mind sees only emptiness, there would be emptiness without form. Emptiness and form would then stand apart, and one could not know which was fundamental.
Thus, when the scripture says not-form, its true meaning is to understand, right within form, that form is not fixed form. It does not mean leaving form to seek a separate not-form. If not-form were spoken only where there is no form, vast empty space is already not form; what would that show? If one understands not-form within form itself, one knows that not-form does not differ from form, and that form itself is not-form. Therefore, the myriad changes are the signless, and the signless is the myriad changes. Beings differ in their feelings and views, and so the verbal traces left by the teaching differ. But if one examines the profound scriptures and exhausts the sage's intent, how could true and conventional require two different minds, or emptiness and existence two different modes of illumination?
For precisely this reason, seeing the signless does not lose the function of comforting beings and meeting things as they arise. Seeing the myriad things change does not violate the principle of the signless. Reaching existence does not differ from non-being; reaching non-being does not differ from existence. It is never that existence is not seen; rather, in seeing existence, it is not fixed as existent. It is never that non-being is not seen; rather, in seeing non-being, it is not fixed as non-being. The scripture therefore says that without moving from equal awakening, all dharmas are established. From this it follows: how could stillness and function obstruct one another? How could the knowing that sees the myriad changes differ from the wisdom that illumines the signless?
My only concern is that those discussing the matter may divide emptiness and existence into two minds, and stillness and active functioning into two operations. This is why they say that the knowing which sees the myriad changes cannot be said to be wholly absent. But if one can relinquish the opinions enclosed within one's own limits, seek the subtle pivot beyond phenomenal marks, contemplate the myriad existents together within a single empty openness, and understand that utmost openness is not annihilating non-being, then one should say this: all day long, the consummate person responds to conditions, moves along with the myriad things, and takes up each occasion to comfort and teach, yet never once grasps these functions as fixed existence. If the sage's mind is such, what could there be to grasp? Why continue asking why the principle of non-grasping was not explained?
8. The third reply: can true rightness and ultimate fittingness become new attachments?
You say again that only what has no fixed rightness is truly right, and only what has no fixed fittingness is ultimately fitting. This may stand as your letter states it. Yet it must genuinely be the case that the mind does not fix anything as right, and within non-grasping rightness responds to things as right; that the mind does not fix anything as fitting, and within non-grasping fittingness responds to things as fitting. Then even if it judges things right all day long, it does not violate non-grasping rightness; even if it deems things fitting all day long, it does not violate non-grasping fittingness.
My concern is only that someone may plant a right within non-grasping rightness, and a fitting within non-grasping fittingness. That would be the fault. Why? If the truly right can be fixed as right and the ultimately fitting can be fixed as fitting, names and forms appear, distinctions between beautiful and ugly arise, and ceaseless discrimination sets beings chasing and contending with one another. Who could bring it to an end?
Therefore, the sage makes his breast empty, lucid, and utterly open, without attached understanding or object-grasping knowing. Although he dwells in the domain of every activity and function, his mind rests in the realm of the unconditioned. Although he lives within the world of names, he makes his home where speech is cut off. There it is solitary, empty, still, and open, beyond capture by form or name. That is all. If one again says that the truly right can be fixed as right and the ultimately fitting fixed as fitting, I still cannot understand this refined thesis. I fear that what is called right and fitting is merely what people take to be so, while the sage's mind itself does not take it so. Why insist on saying that his mind does?
9. Conclusion: meeting beyond the written word
Once words and traces arise, divergent paths emerge from them. Yet words always contain what they cannot say, and traces always have a place where no trace can be left. Therefore, one skilled in words seeks through words the intent that words cannot express; one skilled in following traces seeks through traces that source which traces cannot leave behind.
The ultimate principle is empty, still, hidden, and profound. As soon as the mind prepares an analogy, it has already gone astray. How much more so when it uses words: what they point to may only lie farther away. May those whose minds can penetrate meet me beyond the written word.
經證先開：般若的『無知』是不是什麼都不知道？
劉遺民追問的不是一個抽象名詞。他真正擔心的是：若聖心冥寂、般若無知，聖人怎能看見眾生千差萬別的處境，又怎能隨機回應？若回答聖人有知，似乎又把般若放回凡夫的分別心；若回答聖人無知，豈不是把聖人說成木石虛空？
僧肇先把經證放在兩端之間：「聖智無知而無所不知，無為而無所不為。」這一句不是把有知和無知硬接在一起，而是逼我們重問：平常所說的『知』，是不是只有攀緣境相、分別取捨這一種？若無知只是沒有這種攀緣，便不等於昏昧；若無為只是沒有勞苦造作，也不等於不能應物。
元康對這一句的判語很謹慎：它是般若經的大意，不是可在《大品》中照字抄出的完整句子；《思益》所說無所得而得、無所知而知，則給了同一條讀路。經證的用處不是替論主省去論證，而是先把『無知而知』安放在般若語境裡，再看僧肇如何一步步解開。
一封答書，為何先寫這麼長的寒暄？
書信沒有一開頭就進入有無辯難。僧肇先說一僧一俗雖服像有殊，所期的妙理不二；又說江山雖遠，契理便如近鄰。接著問候慧遠與廬山道俗，詳報長安的譯經法集：遠方經典與勝僧來集，有人帶回方等新經，有人譯律，有人教禪，有人整理毘曇。
這些不是可有可無的傳記插頁。它們讓後面的『寂而常應』先有一幅活的圖像。長安有譯場、寺院、法師與數百門徒，廬山有僧俗共學；兩地隔著江山，法義卻藉信使、經卷、詠文與問答相通。所謂無寄，不是斷絕人事；所謂冥寂，也不是退出法集。這封信自己就呈現了：身在具體往來之中，心不必被往來的名相拘住。
僧肇又以城塹與津梁寫這個世界。姚興護持三寶，如城牆壕塹；法領遠行取經，如千載橋梁。城塹使法集得以安住，津梁使遠近得以相通。等到正答說聖心『虛以通之，數以應之』，讀者已在書信前半看過『通』與『應』如何落在人間。
第一問：寂與照，真是兩種心嗎？
劉遺民把問題推到最尖銳處：若聖人妙盡冥符，寂與照是否分成定與慧？若聖心只是靈明寂泊、獨自感照，對眾多機緣的回應是否就要停止？
僧肇的回答是：兩句雖殊，妙用常一。元康將利刃落在讀者看見的『跡』與聖心自身之間：「於我見迹則動靜有異。於聖本心則動靜不二也。」我們從外面看，默然似靜，應物似動；於是把兩種作用分成兩個心體。僧肇卻問：如果聖心感無不應、會無不通，為何要在冥寂之外另造一個照，在照之外另造一個寂？
論中最有力量的意象，是有無如心的影與響。影依形顯，響因聲發；它們不是形與聲本身。有與無也是心面對聖智時投出的影響，言語與形象再攀著這些影響而起。若聽到應物便說『有心』，聽到冥寂便說『無心』，就是抓著影響替聖心定形。
因此，聖心超出名稱時，勉強叫作無；隨事相會時，又勉強叫作有。兩名都是因人而設，不是聖心裡有兩個固定部分。這便是『玄心默照』：默不廢照，照不破默；回應眾緣而其用不勤，冥然無寄而群數之應不息。
不取不捨：無知為何不是斷滅？
若只說非有，讀者容易滑向無；若只說非無，又容易退回有。僧肇因此把取捨兩邊一起截斷：「非有，所以不取；非無，所以不捨。」不是固定的有，所以不能攀取；不是斷滅的無，所以不能棄捨。
這一刀也落在『物』上。把物固定成一個自立的物，名相便各自陳列；不把物固定成物，卻不等於把物抹去。論主說『不物於物』，不是離開萬物另求一個真，而是當下不以執取把物封死。於是，不取使名相無由固定，不捨使眼前之物妙存即真。
同樣，世間所說的無知，常指木石與太虛沒有情識；般若無知卻有靈鑒幽燭，道無隱機。它沒有凡夫攀相的有知，也沒有木石昏昧的無知。虛不失照，照不失虛，正因不被有無拘住，才不能被一動定成有、一靜定成無。
元康在解非有非無時借用東、西與中。說中不是東，不表示中立刻就是西；說中不是西，也不表示中立刻就是東。『非有』只遮固定的有，不是另立固定的無；『非無』只遮斷滅的無，不是另立固定的有。這樣讀，才不會把遣執之語再造成新的所執。
第二問：只照無相，還能不能看見眾生萬變？
第二問比第一問更貼近教化：若聖心只照無相，還看得見眾生的變動嗎？若看見變動，豈不是已離開無相？談論者把兩者分開後，聖人似乎只能二選一：守住空，便失去撫會；進入有，便離開真。
僧肇沒有另造一套答案，只把本論自己的色空意象推到底。經文說：「色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。」如果見色與見空必須由兩顆心分別完成，那麼見色時便失空，見空時便失色，『即』字也就無處安立。
所以，非色不是離開色去說虛空本來無色，而是就在色上不把色固定成色。元康收束得極利：「真偽不殊心。空有不異照。」真與俗不需要兩顆心，空與有也不需要兩種照見。照無相時，沒有失去撫會之功；看見變動時，也沒有違背無相之旨。
論主把答案凝成：「變即無相，無相即變。」這不是說變動的形相不存在，而是說萬變之中沒有一個可被攀住的定相；也不是說無相另成一片空寂，而是說無相就在萬變不住之處。聖人終日應會、與物推移、乘運撫化，卻未始把這些作用執成固定的有。這才使寂與用真正不相妨礙。
第三問：真是與至當，為何也可能成病？
劉遺民說，沒有固定的是，才是真是；沒有固定的當，才是至當。僧肇並不立即否定，只加上一道嚴格條件：若心不把是執成是，便可在無是中隨事為是；若心不把當執成當，便可在無當中隨事為當。
病出在下一步。若人把『真是』重新固定成一個可執的是，把『至當』固定成一個可執的當，名相便顯，美惡隨生，彼此競逐又無法止息。本來用來鬆開執取的話，反而變成更精緻的執取。
僧肇在這裡留下全書最能見行履的句子：「居動用之域，而止無為之境，處有名之內，而宅絕言之鄉。」聖人不逃離動用，也不被動用帶走；不拒絕名稱，也不住在名稱之中。外在仍有教化、判斷與回應，內裡卻不把任何一個是與當固著為自性。
言迹之喻：這封信最後為何叫人到文字之外相見？
問答已經極細，僧肇卻在最後提醒：言語本身正是歧路可能生起的地方。元康借足跡與鞋履說明：腳印由鞋履走出，卻不是鞋履；言語由心義而出，也不是心義。若只守著腳印，不再追問誰從此走過，痕跡便從引路之物變成障礙。
因此，善言者要從言語尋求言語不能說出的地方，善循跡者要從痕跡尋求痕跡不能留下的地方。這不是叫人棄經棄論，而是教人不要把經論的遣執之語再執成一套固定名相。元康末句把方向說得明白：「於文外相求。不可執文致難也。」
承衍
《高僧傳》保存了這場往復的歷史現場：劉遺民讀〈波若無知論〉，呈給慧遠，兩人反覆披尋，於是寄問長安；僧肇則在譯場法集之中回書。後來元康把答書判成寒暄、正答、總結，又把正答中的三問逐一剖開，使讀者不至於把綿密書信讀成一團玄言。
但承衍不是讓疏代替論。真正要守住的仍是僧肇自己的三道追問：無知是否必然昏昧？無相是否必然離開萬變？真是是否可以固定為是？答案都不靠另立一個玄境，而在論中原有的影響、色空、動用與言迹中展開。寂不廢照，空不離變，言不等於義；讀到最後，書信跨越江山，而所期正在文外相鄰。
Let scripture open the way: does prajñā “without knowing” mean knowing nothing?
Liu Yimin is not asking about an abstract term. His real concern is this: if the sage's mind is darkly still and prajñā is without knowing, how can the sage see the countless differences in the situations of beings, and how can he respond to each occasion? If we answer that the sage knows, we seem to return prajñā to the ordinary person's discriminating mind. If we answer that he does not know, do we not reduce the sage to wood, stone, or empty space?
Sengzhao first sets scriptural testimony between these two extremes: noble wisdom is without knowing, yet there is nothing it does not know; it does nothing contrived, yet there is nothing it does not do. This does not forcibly join knowing and not knowing. It compels us to ask again whether the knowing we ordinarily speak of is limited to grasping the marks of objects, discriminating among them, and choosing or rejecting them. If being without knowing means only the absence of that grasping, it is not benightedness. If non-doing means only the absence of laborious contrivance, it does not mean an inability to respond to things.
Yuankang is careful in judging this line. It conveys the broad meaning of the prajñā scriptures; it is not a complete sentence that can be copied word for word from the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. The Sūtra of Brahmā's Questions, in speaking of attaining through non-attainment and knowing through having nothing known, opens the same road. Scriptural testimony does not spare the treatise the work of argument. It first places knowing-without-knowing within the language of prajñā, then lets us watch Sengzhao unfold it step by step.
Why does a letter of reply begin with so long a greeting?
The letter does not open at once with the debate over existence and non-being. Sengzhao first says that although one correspondent is ordained and the other a householder, their garb and appearance differ while the subtle principle they seek is not two. Though rivers and mountains keep them far apart, accord with principle makes them neighbours. He then sends greetings to Huiyuan and the ordained and lay practitioners on Mount Lu, and gives a detailed report of the translation assembly in Chang'an: scriptures and eminent monks have arrived from afar; one master has returned with new Vaipulya texts, another translates the Vinaya, another teaches meditation, and another puts the Abhidharma in order.
These are not optional biographical pages wrapped around the doctrinal argument. They give the later phrase “still, yet constantly responding” a living image before the argument even begins. Chang'an has translation halls, monasteries, teachers, and hundreds of disciples. Mount Lu has an ordained and lay community studying together. Rivers and mountains separate the two places, yet Dharma meaning passes between them through messengers, scriptures, hymns, and questions and replies. Having nowhere to lodge does not mean cutting oneself off from human affairs. Dark stillness does not mean withdrawing from the Dharma assembly. The letter itself already shows how one may remain within concrete exchanges without letting the mind be bound by the names and forms of exchange.
Sengzhao also writes this world through the images of walls, moats, and bridges. Yao Xing protects the Three Jewels as walls and a moat protect a city. Faling's journey to obtain scriptures makes him a bridge across a thousand years. Walls and moats allow a Dharma assembly to remain secure; a bridge lets distant places communicate. By the time the formal reply says that the sage's mind passes freely through emptiness and responds through the manifold, the reader has already seen in the first half of the letter how penetration and response take form among people.
The first question: are stillness and illumination really two minds?
Liu Yimin presses the issue to its sharpest point. If the sage brings subtle function to its utmost and darkly accords with truth, do stillness and illumination divide into concentration and wisdom? If his mind is only numinous, still, tranquil, and shining in solitary responsiveness, must its responses to the multitude of occasions cease?
Sengzhao answers that although the two formulations differ, subtle function is always one. Yuankang places the blade between the traces visible to a reader and the sage's own mind. From our view of the traces, motion and stillness differ; in the sage's original mind, they are not two. Seen from outside, silence appears still and response appears active, so we divide two operations into two mental essences. Sengzhao instead asks: if every contact evokes a response and every meeting is penetrated, why manufacture an illumination outside dark stillness, or a stillness outside illumination?
One of the treatise's strongest images is that existence and non-being are like shadows and echoes in the mind. A shadow appears in dependence on a form; an echo arises because of a sound. Neither is the form or sound itself. Existence and non-being are likewise shadows and echoes projected when the mind approaches noble wisdom, while words and images climb upon them in turn. To hear of response and declare that the sage has an existent mind, or to hear of dark stillness and declare that he has no mind, is to seize the shadow and echo and use them to impose a shape on the sage's mind.
Thus, when the sage's mind surpasses names, it is provisionally called non-being; when it meets things as they arise, it is provisionally called existent. Both names are established for the sake of others, not because two fixed parts reside in the sage's mind. This is profound mind silently illuminating: silence does not discard illumination, and illumination does not break silence. It responds to conditions without labor, while its many responses never cease in dark freedom from every lodging.
Neither grasping nor rejecting: why is being without knowing not annihilation?
If we say only “not existent,” a reader can easily slip toward non-being. If we say only “not non-existent,” the reader can just as easily retreat into existence. Sengzhao therefore cuts through grasping and rejecting at once. Because it is not fixed existence, it cannot be grasped; because it is not annihilating non-being, it must not be rejected.
The same cut falls upon the thing itself. To fix a thing as a self-standing thing makes names and forms line up separately. Yet not fixing it as a thing does not erase it. When the treatise says not to thingify things, it does not seek a truth apart from the myriad things. It refuses, right where the thing is present, to seal it within grasping. Non-grasping thus leaves fixed names and forms without a basis, while non-rejection lets the thing before us wondrously remain and directly accord with truth.
Likewise, what the world calls not knowing ordinarily means that wood, stone, or empty space has no awareness. Prajñā without knowing, however, possesses a numinous discernment that illumines the hidden; no subtlety of the Way remains concealed from it. It has neither the ordinary person's grasping knowledge of marks nor the benighted absence of knowing found in wood and stone. Its emptiness does not lose illumination, and its illumination does not lose emptiness. Precisely because existence and non-being do not confine it, motion cannot fix it as existent, nor stillness as non-existent.
Yuankang uses east, west, and the middle to explain neither existence nor non-being. To say that the middle is not east does not immediately establish it as west. To say that it is not west does not immediately establish it as east. “Not existent” only blocks fixed existence; it does not set up fixed non-being. “Not non-existent” only blocks annihilating non-being; it does not set up fixed existence. Read in this way, words that remove attachment do not become new objects of attachment.
The second question: if it illumines only the signless, can it still see beings in all their changes?
The second question comes closer to the work of teaching. If the sage's mind illumines only the signless, does it still see beings changing? If it sees those changes, has it not left the signless behind? Once the two are divided, the sage appears forced to choose: protect emptiness and lose the work of comforting and meeting beings, or enter existence and depart from truth.
Sengzhao does not invent a separate answer. He presses the treatise's own image of form and emptiness to its conclusion. Scripture says that form is not different from emptiness and emptiness is not different from form; form itself is emptiness and emptiness itself is form. If seeing form and seeing emptiness had to be performed separately by two minds, then seeing form would lose emptiness and seeing emptiness would lose form. The word “itself” would have no place to stand.
Not-form, then, does not mean leaving form and observing that empty space is already formless. It means not fixing form as fixed form right within form itself. Yuankang's conclusion is exact: true and conventional do not require different minds, and emptiness and existence do not require different illuminations. To illumine the signless does not lose the work of comforting and meeting beings; to see change does not violate the purport of the signless.
The treatise condenses the answer: change is the signless, and the signless is change. This does not mean that changing appearances do not exist. It means that amid the myriad changes there is no fixed mark to seize. Nor does it make the signless a separate region of blank stillness. The signless is present exactly where the myriad changes do not abide. All day long the sage responds and meets, moves along with things, and takes up each occasion to comfort and teach, yet he never grasps those activities as fixed existence. Only thus do stillness and function genuinely cease to obstruct one another.
The third question: why can true rightness and ultimate fittingness also become a sickness?
Liu Yimin says that only what has no fixed rightness is truly right, and only what has no fixed fittingness is ultimately fitting. Sengzhao does not reject this outright. He adds a strict condition: if the mind does not grasp rightness as right, it can respond to things as right within non-grasping rightness; if it does not grasp fittingness as fitting, it can respond to things as fitting within non-grasping fittingness.
The sickness begins in the next step. If someone fixes true rightness once more as a rightness that can be grasped, or ultimate fittingness as a fittingness that can be grasped, names and forms appear, distinctions between beautiful and ugly arise, and beings chase and contend with one another without end. Words originally meant to loosen grasping have become subtler objects of grasping.
Here Sengzhao leaves one of the letter's clearest images of lived conduct: the sage dwells in the domain of activity and function, yet rests in the realm of the unconditioned; he lives within the world of names, yet makes his home where speech is cut off. He does not flee active functioning, nor is he carried away by it. He does not reject names, nor does he dwell within them. Teaching, judging, and responding continue outwardly, while inwardly no rightness or fittingness is hardened into an intrinsic nature.
The image of words and traces: why does the letter end by asking us to meet beyond the text?
The exchange has become very fine-grained, yet Sengzhao closes by warning that words themselves are precisely where divergent roads may arise. Yuankang explains with footprints and shoes. A footprint is made by a shoe, but it is not the shoe. Words arise from the mind's meaning, but they are not that meaning. If one guards the print without asking who passed this way, a trace changes from a guide into an obstruction.
One skilled in words therefore seeks through words what words cannot say. One skilled in following traces seeks through traces what traces cannot leave behind. This is not an instruction to discard scripture or treatise. It is an instruction not to grasp their attachment-releasing words as another system of fixed names and forms. Yuankang's final sentence gives the direction plainly: seek one another beyond the text; do not cling to the text and use it to raise objections.
Continuation / what carries forward
The Biographies of Eminent Monks preserves the historical scene of this exchange. Liu Yimin read On Prajñā Without Knowing and presented it to Huiyuan. The two examined and savoured it repeatedly, then sent their questions to Chang'an. Sengzhao replied from within the translation assembly. Later, Yuankang divided the reply into greeting, direct answer, and conclusion, then opened the direct answer into its three questions, so that readers would not take this intricate letter for an undifferentiated mass of dark sayings.
Yet what carries forward is not a commentary taking the treatise's place. We must still keep Sengzhao's own three questions before us. Must absence of knowing be benighted? Must the signless lie apart from the myriad changes? Can true rightness be fixed as right? The answers do not depend on setting up another profound realm. They unfold through the treatise's own shadows and echoes, form and emptiness, active functioning, and words and traces. Stillness does not abolish illumination; emptiness does not leave change behind; words are not identical with meaning. At the close, the letter crosses rivers and mountains, while what the two correspondents seek makes them neighbours beyond the written word.
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
〈答劉遺民書〉是《肇論》八段脊的第七單元，承接〈般若無知論〉與〈劉遺民書問〉，是往復問難的下篇。底本範圍為〔T45 0155b22–0157a11〕，原典層二千七百一十一字；唐元康《肇論疏》題作〈答劉隱士書〉，逐文疏釋範圍為〔T45 0184a27–0189c23〕。
元康先把書問往復合判為三章，至本篇開首說：「論有三章。此下第三肇法師釋答也。」〔T45 0184a28〕又把答書自身判成三段：「答書亦有三章。第一敘暄涼。第二正答。第三總結。」〔T45 0184a29–0184b01〕
正答再分通答與別答：「第二章正答問也。文亦有二。前通答。後別答。」〔T45 0186b03–0186b04〕別答對應劉遺民前三問，元康明說：「第二別答前三問。即為三章。」〔T45 0186b09–0186b10〕其三章依次是：「今答第一智體有知無知問也。」〔T45 0186b10–0186b11〕「第二答前第二境智有相無相問也。」〔T45 0188b06–0188b07〕「第三答前第三境智相對。有是無是有當無當也。」〔T45 0189a17–0189a18〕末後以言迹與文外相期作總結。故本檔依『敘暄涼—通答—三問別答—總結』展開，不另造書信科目。
二、本論釋要
本篇前半先盡書信之禮：問候劉遺民與廬山道俗，稱述慧遠，報告長安譯場、遠來經典與諸法師，又附寄僧肇的《維摩》注。這一大段不是義理答辯前可以刪去的閑文；它把論辯放在廬山與長安兩地佛教共同體的實際往來中，也交代僧肇的經說師承與寫作處境。
正答的通關處在『不要拿常情的差別去求聖心的差別』。第一問追問聖智究竟有知還是無知。僧肇以寂與照、虛與應並明：若只從應物看，便執為有知；若只從冥寂看，便等同木石。兩名都只是隨跡強立，不能分割聖心。
第二問把照無相與見萬變分成兩種作用。僧肇以色空相即反詰：若見色與見空必須兩心先後，便不能成立即色之空。故萬變不在無相之外，照無相也不廢撫會。第三問再防『真是』『至當』成為新的固定名相：若把真是定成可執的是，把至當定成可執的當，美惡與競逐便重新生起。全書最後收回言迹：言可以引人，卻不能代替所指；讀者須由文入義，不可執文為義。
三、經論宗依
（一）古譯《維摩詰經》
答書以「不面在昔」〔T45 0155b23〕起筆。元康說此語出古譯《維摩經》，現存支謙譯本逐字作：「不面在昔，辱來相見。」〔T14n0474 0525c03〕本篇化用其前四字為書信寒暄；這一歸屬可由現存經文坐實。
答書又說，鳩摩羅什法師午年譯出《維摩經》，僧肇當時參與聽講，並把所聞分條寫成注解〔T45 0155c27–0156a01〕。這是本篇自述，不把支謙古譯與什譯聽講混為同一件事：起首成語由元康繫於古譯，後段所稱午年新出則明指什譯法集。
（二）『聖智無知』與《大品》《思益》
本篇引：「聖智無知而無所不知，無為而無所不為。」〔T45 0156b02–0156b03〕元康對前半的判語很審慎：「此是大品經之大意。無的文也。」〔T45 0187b02〕又說：「又是思益經意。」〔T45 0187b03〕因此，這句宜列作僧肇綜攝經意之文，不反繫成《大品》逐字原句。
元康隨即牒引《思益》語意。現存鳩摩羅什譯《思益梵天所問經》逐字作：「以無所得故得，以無所知故知。」〔T15n0586 0039b11–0039b12〕這可坐實元康所指的《思益》語脈；但它與本篇『聖智無知』句並非逐字同文，兩者只作經意對讀。
（三）般若無取無捨
本篇引：「般若於諸法，無取無捨，無知無不知。」〔T45 0156b15–0156b16〕元康判為《大品》語脈。現存《放光般若經》有逐字相近而較長的經文：「於諸法無所取、無所捨亦無礙」〔T08n0221 0127c22〕。故『無取無捨』可在古譯般若中定位；本篇全句，尤其『無知無不知』的連接，仍只按《肇論》保存之文誌錄，不把相近句改說成全句逐字出自《放光》。
（四）真般若非有非無
本篇引：「真般若者，非有非無，無起無滅，不可說示於人。」〔T45 0156b24–0156b25〕元康只說：「大品經意也。」〔T45 0188a04〕現存《大品》尚未核得此全句逐字，故列為取意引文，不強繫原經頁碼。
緊接其後的須菩提故事，元康判作《大品》文，並保存答語：「我無所說也。」〔T45 0188a27〕現存《大品》可見無所得、無所說的同一語脈，但本篇所敘整段問答未核得完全同文，故只據元康疏誌錄。
（五）色空相即與〈習應品〉
本篇現文引：「色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。」〔T45 0156c05–0156c06〕元康明繫《大品》〈習應品〉。現存鳩摩羅什譯《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》〈習應品〉作：「非色異空、非空異色，色即是空、空即是色」〔T08n0223 0223a13–0223a14〕。兩文首二句有『色不異』與『非色異』之別，後二句相同。
更重要的是，僧肇緊接著自行解作『經云非色』，元康也沿『非色』作疏。故底本現文、羅什譯經與本篇後續釋文三者之間確有文字張力。本檔保留 T1858 原典層不動，於校本目並列，不裁哪一形為原貌。
（六）不動等覺而建立諸法
本篇引：「不動等覺而建立諸法」〔T45 0156c17〕。元康說這是舊《大品》《放光》經語。現存《放光般若經》作：「不動於等覺法，為諸法立處。」〔T08n0221 0140c15〕義段與關鍵詞相應，但文字並不全同；本篇句宜誌作壓縮取意，不作現存《放光》逐字引文。
（七）《道行》歸屬核查
本篇原典與元康〈答劉隱士書〉段明稱或明判者，是古譯《維摩》、《大品》、《放光》與《思益》。本段未見《道行》題名，故不為湊足經名而另立《道行》出處；若後續古疏有具體逐字歸屬，再依所見補錄。
四、古德疏釋
（一）書信往復不是義理正文之外的殼
元康說，答書開頭前略後廣，是古人作書重複問候的時代文體；又釋服像殊為一僧一俗、江山緬為一南一北，而心期與契理不二。最精要的疏語是：「身雖有殊。心期不別也。」〔T45 0184b12〕又說：「處雖緬遠。契理相近也。」〔T45 0184b14–0184b15〕這兩句把全書的書信形式與義理主題扣在一起：外在有殊，所期不二。
（二）通答先破『以近情求遠理』
正答開首，元康把僧肇的用意收成：「理既深玄。忘言心內自得。」〔T45 0186b05–0186b06〕又反問：「何得以近情而求遠理耶。」〔T45 0186b08〕這不是拒絕劉遺民的問題，而是先校正提問的方法：不能先把凡情中的有無、動靜分成固定兩端，再要求聖心落入其中一端。
（三）第一問：動靜二跡，聖心不二
元康把『妙盡冥符』判為靜，把『靈泊獨感』判為動，隨即說：「於我見迹則動靜有異。於聖本心則動靜不二也。」〔T45 0186b19–0186b20〕因此，寂與照不是兩個彼此排斥的心體，而是讀者從作用痕跡所立的兩名。
至有無關節，元康說聖心超出名字，故強名無心；聖心應物，故又名有心。這兩名都隨人而立，不固定聖心。若執兩邊，便如疏中所說：「有無二邊。名為邊見。」〔T45 0187b22–0187b23〕
（四）不取不捨，不落斷無
元康釋本篇的取捨句說：「非有故不可取。非無故不應捨也。」〔T45 0187c04–0187c05〕不取，是不把物固定為有；不捨，是不把物斷成全無。兩句必須同讀，否則『無知』容易被誤解成木石般不覺，『無相』也容易被誤解成離物另立的虛空。
（五）第二問：變即無相
元康把劉遺民的疑問明定為『見變動即有相，見無相便不能撫接眾生』。僧肇以色空相即作答，元康收束為：「色既即空。有即無也。」〔T45 0188c03〕又說，眾生情見各別，所以聖教或說有、或說空；究其聖意，則「真偽不殊心。空有不異照。」〔T45 0188c08–0188c09〕
（六）第三問：真是不可再固著為是
元康認為『無是所以真是、無當所以至當』在不固著時可以成立；所警惕的是把有是定為真是、有當定為至當。若固定下來，名相、美惡與競逐便再度生起。因此，聖人在跡上應物，心不被跡拘；本篇的圖像是：「居動用之域，而止無為之境，處有名之內，而宅絕言之鄉。」〔T45 0157a02–0157a03〕
（七）總結：言迹要引向文外
元康釋末段說，言對心如腳印對履；有言有迹，異見便可能由此而生。至理不能由比擬與言說直接取得，故疏末明示：「於文外相求。不可執文致難也。」〔T45 0189c05〕這不是棄文，而是令文字完成引路之用後，不再被誤認為所指本身。
五、術語
| 術語 | 本篇義界 |
|---|---|
| 冥寂 | 冥然不顯、寂然無寄；不是昏昧不覺。 |
| 妙盡 | 靈明與心數窮盡其妙用；元康以般若之心釋之，不另分定慧二體。 |
| 極數 | 窮極眾多心數與應物差別；不表示被數量拘束。 |
| 無寄 | 心不寄著於有、無、名、相；是妙盡之道的根本。 |
| 群數之應 | 對眾多事物與機緣的回應；聖心冥寂而此應不息。 |
| 無知 | 無攀緣取相之知，不是木石太虛般的無情。 |
| 即真 | 不把物固定成物時，就當下之物明其真；不是捨物另求真。 |
| 變即無相 | 變動不在無相之外；見變不必另起一心，照無相也不廢應會。 |
| 真是、至當 | 無心固著而隨事所立的是與當；若再固定成名相，即成過患。 |
| 言迹 | 言語如足跡，能引向所指而不等同所指。 |
六、譬喻
（一）服像、江山與木契
一僧一俗，故服像有殊；一南一北，故江山遙遠。元康又以木契相合解『理契』。三者共同說明：外在身分與處所有別，不妨礙所期之理相鄰。這也預告後文『空有不異照』的答法。
（二）城塹與津梁
答書以城牆壕塹譬喻姚興護持三寶，以橋梁譬喻法領遠行取經。前者顯護法，後者顯傳法；二喻把長安譯場寫成有守護、有往來的法集現場，不只是抽象的義理背景。
（三）郢人與匠石
僧肇自謙劉遺民之問委婉切要，難以作答，故說難為郢人。元康取《莊子》匠石運斧、郢人不失容的故事，說明好問如妙斲，恰當的回答又須有能承受斧風而不動的對手。此喻不替義理作證，只說書問往復之難。
（四）影與響
本篇說有無是心的影響，言象又攀緣影響。影不等於形，響不等於聲；同樣，有無之名不是聖心本身。若追逐影響而忘其所由，便會把隨言強立的有無當作固定心體。
（五）東、西與中
元康解『非有非無』時用方位作譬：說中不是東，不等於立刻斷定中就是西；說中不是西，也不等於立刻斷定中就是東。此喻用來阻止讀者把『非有』翻成固定的無，把『非無』翻成固定的有。
（六）足跡與鞋履
末段借足跡與鞋履說言迹。足跡由鞋履走出，卻不是鞋履本身；言語由心義而出，也不是心義本身。善讀者循跡而求所不迹，故全書以文外相期收束。
七、史傳
慧皎《高僧傳》記劉遺民讀〈波若無知論〉後呈慧遠，二人「因共披尋翫味，更存往復。」〔T50n2059 0365a28–0365a29〕這是本篇書問成立的直接史傳背景。
現存僧傳接著錄劉遺民問書，再以『肇答書曰』起錄答書，但只保存寒暄、長安譯場與難答之歎，至「聊以狂言，示詶來旨也。」〔T50n2059 0365b27〕即轉記僧肇其他著作，未續錄三問的義理正文。因此，僧傳是本篇的節錄見證，不宜稱現存 T2059 全錄整封答書。
傳本與論本的答書開頭已有可核異文：論本作「返覆」〔T45 0155b24〕，僧傳作「反覆」〔T50n2059 0365b10〕；論本作「屆」〔T45 0155b24〕，僧傳作「戒」〔T50n2059 0365b10〕；論本作「頃常如何」〔T45 0155b25〕，僧傳作「頃常何如」〔T50n2059 0365b10–0365b11〕；論本作「貪道勞疾，多不住耳」〔T45 0155b25〕，僧傳作「貧道勞疾每不佳」〔T50n2059 0365b11〕。本檔只並錄，不裁定優劣，也不把傳文倒改論本。
八、校本定位
- 底本：T45n1858〈答劉遺民書〉〔0155b22–0157a11〕；原典層二千七百一十一字，已由全論連續切分校驗，封存原典不動。
- 鏡疏：唐元康《肇論疏》T45n1859〈答劉隱士書〉〔0184a27–0189c23〕；題名『遺民／隱士』之別各守論、疏原文。
- 僧傳：T50n2059 僧肇傳〔0365a09–0366a29〕涵蓋僧肇生平、書問節錄與〈涅槃無名論〉；其中答書實際節錄止於〔0365b27〕。傳／論異文依實文並錄，不把整段傳記範圍誤作答書全文範圍。
- 色空句：T1858 現文作『色不異空』，但同篇後文自行說『非色』，元康亦沿『非色』解；羅什譯《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》〈習應品〉作『非色異空』。三處並存，原典層守 T1858，考據層誌錄，不裁改字。
- 經引定位：『聖智無知』『真般若』兩句，元康都明判《大品》之意而非全句確文；『般若無取無捨』與『不動等覺』可在《放光》核得相近古譯，均因文字不全同而只作義段對讀。
- 存疑：僧傳答書的實際收錄範圍、色空首二句的底本張力，已附記於本論存疑錄；均不改封存原典。
I. Doctrinal-structural placement
The Reply to Liu Yimin's Letter is the seventh unit in the eight-unit spine of The Zhaolun. It follows On Prajñā Without Knowing and Liu Yimin's Letter of Inquiry, forming the latter half of their exchange of questions and replies. The base-text span is 〔T45 0155b22–0157a11〕, comprising 2,711 characters in the source layer. The Tang commentator Yuankang titles it Reply to the Recluse Liu's Letter in his Zhaolun Shu; his line-by-line commentary spans 〔T45 0184a27–0189c23〕.
Yuankang first gathers the letter of inquiry and the reply into a three-part whole. At the opening of this unit he writes: 「論有三章。此下第三肇法師釋答也。」〔T45 0184a28〕 ["The discussion has three sections. From here begins the third: Dharma Master Zhao's explanation in reply."] He then divides the reply itself into three: 「答書亦有三章。第一敘暄涼。第二正答。第三總結。」〔T45 0184a29–0184b01〕 ["The letter of reply also has three sections. First, the exchange of greetings; second, the direct reply; third, the general conclusion."]
The direct reply is further divided into a general answer and separate answers: 「第二章正答問也。文亦有二。前通答。後別答。」〔T45 0186b03–0186b04〕 ["The second section directly answers the questions. Its text likewise has two parts: first the general answer, then the separate answers."] The separate answers correspond to Liu Yimin's first three questions, as Yuankang states: 「第二別答前三問。即為三章。」〔T45 0186b09–0186b10〕 ["Second, it separately answers the first three questions, thus forming three sections."] The three are, in order: 「今答第一智體有知無知問也。」〔T45 0186b10–0186b11〕 ["Now he answers the first question: whether the essence of wisdom has knowing or does not have knowing."] 「第二答前第二境智有相無相問也。」〔T45 0188b06–0188b07〕 ["Second, he answers the foregoing second question: whether object and wisdom have marks or are signless."] 「第三答前第三境智相對。有是無是有當無當也。」〔T45 0189a17–0189a18〕 ["Third, he answers the foregoing third question concerning object and wisdom in relation: having rightness or having no rightness, having fittingness or having no fittingness."] The end concludes with words and traces and the hope of meeting beyond the text. This apparatus therefore follows the received structure: exchange of greetings → general reply → three separate answers → conclusion. It does not invent a new division for the letter.
II. Summary of the treatise
The first half observes the full courtesies of a letter. Sengzhao greets Liu Yimin and the ordained and lay practitioners on Mount Lu, praises Huiyuan, reports on the Chang'an translation assembly, the scriptures arriving from afar, and the various masters, and sends along his notes on the Vimalakīrti. This long passage is not idle writing that may be removed before the doctrinal reply. It places the debate within the actual exchanges between the Buddhist communities of Mount Lu and Chang'an, while also disclosing the scriptural lineage and setting of Sengzhao's writing.
The gate into the direct reply is the warning not to use the distinctions of ordinary feeling to demand corresponding distinctions in the sage's mind. The first question asks whether noble wisdom knows or does not know. Sengzhao sets out stillness with illumination and emptiness with response. If one looks only at response, one grasps it as knowing; if one looks only at dark stillness, one equates it with wood and stone. Both names are merely provisionally established by following the traces and cannot divide the sage's mind.
The second question divides illumination of the signless from seeing the myriad changes as though they were two functions. Sengzhao replies through the mutual identity of form and emptiness: if seeing form and seeing emptiness required two successive minds, the emptiness that is form itself could not be established. The myriad changes are therefore not outside the signless, and illumination of the signless does not abandon the work of comforting and meeting beings. The third question then guards against true rightness and ultimate fittingness becoming new fixed names and forms. If true rightness is fixed as a graspable rightness and ultimate fittingness as a graspable fittingness, distinctions of beautiful and ugly and their ensuing contentions arise once more. The whole letter finally returns to words and traces: words can guide, but they cannot replace what they indicate. The reader must enter meaning through the text without grasping the text as the meaning.
III. Canonical and treatise foundations
1. The old translation of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra
The reply opens with 「不面在昔」〔T45 0155b23〕 ["We have not met face to face in the past."] Yuankang says that the phrase comes from an old translation of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra. In the extant translation by Zhi Qian, the exact wording is: 「不面在昔，辱來相見。」〔T14n0474 0525c03〕 ["Though we did not meet face to face in the past, you have honoured me by coming to see me."] The reply adapts the first four characters as an epistolary greeting; the extant scripture confirms the attribution.
The reply also says that Master Kumārajīva translated the Vimalakīrti Sūtra in the year of the Horse, that Sengzhao attended the lectures, and that he arranged what he heard into notes 〔T45 0155c27–0156a01〕. This is the letter's own testimony. It does not conflate the old Zhi Qian wording with attendance at the new Kumārajīva translation: Yuankang assigns the opening expression to the old translation, while the later reference to the newly produced text in the year of the Horse explicitly belongs to Kumārajīva's translation assembly.
2. Noble wisdom without knowing and the Large Prajñāpāramitā and Sūtra of Brahmā's Questions
The letter cites: 「聖智無知而無所不知，無為而無所不為。」〔T45 0156b02–0156b03〕 ["Noble wisdom is without knowing, yet there is nothing it does not know; it does nothing contrived, yet there is nothing it does not do."] Yuankang is careful in his judgment of the first half: 「此是大品經之大意。無的文也。」〔T45 0187b02〕 ["This is the broad meaning of the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra; there is no exact wording."] He adds: 「又是思益經意。」〔T45 0187b03〕 ["It is also the meaning of the Sūtra of Brahmā's Questions."] The sentence should therefore be recorded as Sengzhao's synthesis of scriptural meaning, not reverse-attributed as a verbatim line from the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra.
Yuankang immediately draws out the meaning of the Sūtra of Brahmā's Questions. The exact wording in Kumārajīva's extant translation is: 「以無所得故得，以無所知故知。」〔T15n0586 0039b11–0039b12〕 ["Because there is nothing attained, one attains; because there is nothing known, one knows."] This confirms the scriptural current Yuankang identifies. It is not, however, word-for-word the same as the letter's sentence on noble wisdom; the two are placed side by side only as readings of the same scriptural meaning.
3. Prajñā neither grasping nor rejecting
The letter cites: 「般若於諸法，無取無捨，無知無不知。」〔T45 0156b15–0156b16〕 ["Prajñā, with respect to all dharmas, neither grasps nor rejects; it is without knowing, yet there is nothing it does not know."] Yuankang assigns it to the scriptural current of the Large Prajñāpāramitā. The extant Radiance of Wisdom Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra has the longer, closely corresponding wording: 「於諸法無所取、無所捨亦無礙」〔T08n0221 0127c22〕 ["With respect to all dharmas, there is nothing grasped and nothing rejected, and there is no obstruction."] Thus the phrase “neither grasping nor rejecting” can be located in an old Chinese prajñā translation. The full sentence in the letter, especially the joining of without knowing and nothing not known, is still recorded only as preserved in The Zhaolun; the similar scriptural sentence is not misrepresented as an exact source for the whole line.
4. True prajñā is neither existent nor non-existent
The letter cites: 「真般若者，非有非無，無起無滅，不可說示於人。」〔T45 0156b24–0156b25〕 ["True prajñā is neither existent nor non-existent, neither arising nor ceasing, and cannot be explained or shown to anyone."] Yuankang says only: 「大品經意也。」〔T45 0188a04〕 ["This is the meaning of the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra."] The full sentence has not been verified verbatim in the extant Large Prajñāpāramitā, so it is listed as a meaning-based citation rather than forcibly assigned an original-scripture locus.
In the Subhūti story that immediately follows, Yuankang judges the episode to come from the Large Prajñāpāramitā and preserves the reply: 「我無所說也。」〔T45 0188a27〕 ["I have said nothing."] The extant Large Prajñāpāramitā contains the same current of non-attainment and nothing-said, but the entire exchange as told in this letter has not been found in identical wording. It is therefore recorded solely on the basis of Yuankang's commentary.
5. The mutual identity of form and emptiness and the Chapter on Habituated Correspondence
The present text of the letter cites: 「色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。」〔T45 0156c05–0156c06〕 ["Form is not different from emptiness; emptiness is not different from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form."] Yuankang explicitly connects it with the Chapter on Habituated Correspondence of the Large Prajñāpāramitā. The extant Kumārajīva translation reads: 「非色異空、非空異色，色即是空、空即是色」〔T08n0223 0223a13–0223a14〕 ["It is not that form is different from emptiness, nor that emptiness is different from form; form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself is form."] The first two clauses differ between form-is-not-different and not-form-different; the last two are the same.
More importantly, Sengzhao's own explanation immediately afterward says that the scripture speaks of not-form, and Yuankang likewise comments through not-form. There is therefore a real textual tension among the base text, Kumārajīva's scripture, and the letter's ensuing explanation. This apparatus leaves the T1858 source layer unchanged and records all three under witness collation, without deciding which form reflects an earlier text.
6. Establishing all dharmas without moving from equal awakening
The letter cites: 「不動等覺而建立諸法」〔T45 0156c17〕 ["Without moving from equal awakening, one establishes all dharmas."] Yuankang says this is wording from the old Large Prajñāpāramitā and the Radiance of Wisdom. The extant Radiance of Wisdom Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra reads: 「不動於等覺法，為諸法立處。」〔T08n0221 0140c15〕 ["Without moving from the dharma of equal awakening, one establishes a place for all dharmas."] The doctrinal passage and key words correspond, but the wording is not wholly the same. The letter's sentence is therefore recorded as a compressed meaning-based citation, not as a verbatim quotation of the extant Radiance of Wisdom.
7. Checking the attribution to the Daoxing scripture
Within the base text and Yuankang's Reply to the Recluse Liu's Letter, the sources explicitly named or expressly judged are the old Vimalakīrti, the Large Prajñāpāramitā, the Radiance of Wisdom, and the Sūtra of Brahmā's Questions. The title Daoxing does not appear in this span. It is therefore not added merely to increase the list of scripture names. If a later ancient commentary supplies a specific verbatim attribution, it may be recorded according to that evidence.
IV. Explanations by the ancient commentator
1. The exchange of letters is not a shell outside the doctrinal body
Yuankang explains that the reply is brief at first and expansive afterward because repeated greetings belonged to the epistolary style of the ancients. He glosses difference in garb and appearance as one correspondent ordained and the other lay, and distant rivers and mountains as one in the north and the other in the south, while what their hearts seek and their accord with principle are not two. His most concise words are: 「身雖有殊。心期不別也。」〔T45 0184b12〕 ["Though their bodily stations differ, what their hearts seek is not different."] He adds: 「處雖緬遠。契理相近也。」〔T45 0184b14–0184b15〕 ["Though their places are distant, accord with principle makes them near."] These two lines join the epistolary form of the whole letter to its doctrinal theme: outwardly different, inwardly seeking what is not two.
2. The general reply first breaks the attempt to seek distant principle through familiar feelings
At the opening of the direct reply, Yuankang gathers Sengzhao's intent as: 「理既深玄。忘言心內自得。」〔T45 0186b05–0186b06〕 ["Since the principle is deep and profound, one forgets words and attains it inwardly in the mind."] He then asks: 「何得以近情而求遠理耶。」〔T45 0186b08〕 ["How could one seek the distant principle through familiar feelings?"] This does not reject Liu Yimin's question. It first corrects its method: one cannot begin by fixing existence and non-being, motion and stillness, as two extremes within ordinary feeling, then require the sage's mind to fall into one or the other.
3. The first question: two traces of motion and stillness, one undivided sage's mind
Yuankang judges bringing subtle function to its utmost and darkly according to be stillness, and numinous tranquillity shining in solitary responsiveness to be motion. He immediately says: 「於我見迹則動靜有異。於聖本心則動靜不二也。」〔T45 0186b19–0186b20〕 ["From our view of the traces, motion and stillness differ; in the sage's original mind, motion and stillness are not two."] Stillness and illumination are therefore not two mutually exclusive mental essences. They are two names established by the reader from the traces of function.
At the juncture of existence and non-being, Yuankang says that because the sage's mind surpasses names, it is provisionally named no-mind; because it responds to things, it is also named having-mind. Both names are established in accord with people and do not fix the sage's mind. To cling to the two sides is what the commentary calls: 「有無二邊。名為邊見。」〔T45 0187b22–0187b23〕 ["The two extremes of existence and non-being are called extreme views."]
4. Neither grasping nor rejecting, without falling into annihilating non-being
Yuankang explains the letter's line on grasping and rejecting: 「非有故不可取。非無故不應捨也。」〔T45 0187c04–0187c05〕 ["Because it is not existent, it cannot be grasped; because it is not non-existent, it must not be rejected."] The two clauses must be read together. Otherwise, without knowing is easily mistaken for the insensience of wood and stone, while the signless is mistaken for an empty space set up apart from things.
5. The second question: change itself is the signless
Yuankang defines Liu Yimin's concern as follows: to see change and motion is to have marks; to see the signless is to lose the ability to comfort and meet beings. Sengzhao replies through the mutual identity of form and emptiness. Yuankang gathers it as: 「色既即空。有即無也。」〔T45 0188c03〕 ["Since form itself is emptiness, existence itself is non-being."] He also says that because beings differ in their feelings and views, the noble teaching sometimes speaks of existence and sometimes of emptiness; at the level of the sage's intent, however: 「真偽不殊心。空有不異照。」〔T45 0188c08–0188c09〕 ["Truth and falsity do not require different minds; emptiness and existence do not require different illuminations."]
6. The third question: true rightness must not again be fixed as right
Yuankang accepts that having no fixed rightness is true rightness and having no fixed fittingness is ultimate fittingness so long as neither is grasped. His warning concerns fixing a particular right as true rightness and a particular fitting as ultimate fittingness. Once fixed, names and forms, distinctions of beautiful and ugly, and their ensuing contentions arise again. Thus the sage responds to things at the level of traces while his mind is not confined by traces. The image in the letter is: 「居動用之域，而止無為之境，處有名之內，而宅絕言之鄉。」〔T45 0157a02–0157a03〕 ["He dwells in the domain of activity and function, yet rests in the realm of the unconditioned; he lives within the world of names, yet makes his home where speech is cut off."]
7. Conclusion: words and traces must lead beyond the text
Yuankang explains the final passage by saying that words stand to the mind as footprints stand to shoes. Once words and traces exist, divergent views can arise from them. The ultimate principle cannot be obtained directly through analogy or speech, and so the commentary closes with the instruction: 「於文外相求。不可執文致難也。」〔T45 0189c05〕 ["Seek one another beyond the text; one must not cling to the text and use it to raise objections."] This does not discard the text. It lets writing complete its work of guidance without being mistaken for what it indicates.
V. Terms
| Term | Meaning in this letter |
|---|---|
| Dark stillness (冥寂) | Darkly unmanifest and still without lodging; not benighted unawareness. |
| Subtle function brought to its utmost (妙盡) | Numinous clarity and the operations of mind exhaust their subtle function. Yuankang explains it through the mind of prajñā, without dividing concentration and wisdom into two essences. |
| Exhausting the manifold (極數) | Bringing the many operations of mind and differentiated responses to their utmost; not being confined by quantity. |
| Having nowhere to lodge (無寄) | The mind does not lodge in existence, non-being, names, or marks; this is the root of subtle function brought to its utmost. |
| Responses to the multitude (群數之應) | Responses to the many things and occasions; the sage's mind is darkly still, yet these responses do not cease. |
| Without knowing (無知) | Free of knowing that grasps objects and marks; not insentient like wood, stone, or empty space. |
| Directly according with truth (即真) | When a thing is not fixed as a self-standing thing, its truth is disclosed right within the thing; truth is not sought elsewhere by abandoning it. |
| Change itself is the signless (變即無相) | Change is not outside the signless. Seeing change does not require another mind, and illumining the signless does not abandon responsive engagement. |
| True rightness and ultimate fittingness (真是、至當) | Rightness and fittingness established responsively without mental fixation; if fixed once more as names and forms, they become faults. |
| Words and traces (言迹) | Words are like footprints: they can guide toward what they indicate but are not identical with it. |
VI. Similes and figures
1. Garb and appearance, rivers and mountains, and the wooden tally
One correspondent is ordained and the other lay, so their garb and appearance differ. One is in the north and the other in the south, so rivers and mountains lie between them. Yuankang also explains accord with principle through the matching halves of a wooden tally. Together, the three images show that differences in outward station and place do not prevent the principle they seek from making them neighbours. They also anticipate the later answer that emptiness and existence do not require different illuminations.
2. Walls and moats, and the bridge
The reply compares Yao Xing's protection of the Three Jewels to a city's walls and moat, and Faling's journey in search of scriptures to a bridge. The former displays protection of the Dharma; the latter, transmission of the Dharma. Together they present the Chang'an translation assembly as a living scene of protection and exchange, not merely an abstract doctrinal background.
3. The man of Ying and Master Carpenter Shi
Sengzhao humbly says that Liu Yimin's questions are tactful and exact and therefore difficult to answer: it is hard to play the man of Ying. Yuankang invokes the story from the Zhuangzi in which Master Carpenter Shi swings his axe while the man of Ying does not change expression. An excellent question is like a marvellous stroke, while a fitting answer also requires a counterpart who can receive the wind of the axe without moving. The simile does not prove a doctrine; it conveys the difficulty of the epistolary exchange.
4. Shadow and echo
The letter says that existence and non-being are the mind's shadows and echoes, while words and images cling to those shadows and echoes. A shadow is not the form and an echo is not the sound. In the same way, the names existence and non-being are not the sage's mind itself. To pursue the shadow and echo while forgetting their source is to mistake names provisionally established through speech for fixed mental essences.
5. East, west, and the middle
In explaining neither existence nor non-being, Yuankang uses spatial directions. To say that the middle is not east does not immediately determine it as west; to say that it is not west does not immediately determine it as east. The simile prevents the reader from turning not-existent into fixed non-being, or not-non-existent into fixed existence.
6. Footprints and shoes
The final passage uses footprints and shoes to explain words and traces. A footprint is left by a shoe but is not the shoe itself. Words issue from the mind's meaning but are not that meaning itself. A skilful reader follows the trace toward what leaves no trace, and the letter therefore closes with the hope of meeting beyond the text.
VII. Historical record
Huijiao's Biographies of Eminent Monks records that after Liu Yimin read On Prajñā Without Knowing, he presented it to Huiyuan, and the two 「因共披尋翫味，更存往復。」〔T50n2059 0365a28–0365a29〕 ["thereupon examined and savoured it together, and further preserved an exchange of correspondence."] This is the direct biographical background to the questions and reply.
The extant biography next records Liu Yimin's letter of inquiry and introduces the reply with the words that Zhao's answering letter says. It preserves only the greeting, the account of the Chang'an translation assembly, and Sengzhao's remark on the difficulty of answering. At 「聊以狂言，示詶來旨也。」〔T50n2059 0365b27〕 ["for the moment, with these near-mad words, I show a response to the intent of your letter"], it turns to Sengzhao's other works and does not continue with the doctrinal body of the three questions. The biography is therefore an excerpted witness to the letter, not an extant complete transcription of the entire reply in T2059.
The biographical and treatise witnesses already display verifiable variants at the opening. The treatise reads 「返覆」〔T45 0155b24〕 ["returning over it repeatedly"], while the biography reads 「反覆」〔T50n2059 0365b10〕 ["turning it over repeatedly"]. The treatise reads 「屆」〔T45 0155b24〕 ["arrived"], while the biography reads 「戒」〔T50n2059 0365b10〕 ["admonition"]. The treatise reads 「頃常如何」〔T45 0155b25〕 ["How have you usually been of late?"], while the biography reads 「頃常何如」〔T50n2059 0365b10–0365b11〕 ["Of late, how have you usually been?"]. The treatise reads 「貪道勞疾，多不住耳」〔T45 0155b25〕 ["Consumed by the Way, I have wearied myself into illness and am often unsettled"], while the biography reads 「貧道勞疾每不佳」〔T50n2059 0365b11〕 ["This poor practitioner, worn by illness, is often unwell"]. This apparatus records both readings without judging one superior or using the biographical wording to alter the treatise.
VIII. Witness collation
- Base text: T45n1858, Reply to Liu Yimin's Letter 〔0155b22–0157a11〕. Its source layer comprises 2,711 characters, verified through continuous carving of the complete treatise and sealed without alteration.
- Mirror commentary: Yuankang's Tang Zhaolun Shu, T45n1859, Reply to the Recluse Liu's Letter 〔0184a27–0189c23〕. The titles Liu Yimin and Recluse Liu are retained respectively as transmitted in treatise and commentary.
- Monastic biography: T50n2059, biography of Sengzhao 〔0365a09–0366a29〕, covering Sengzhao's life, excerpts from the exchange of letters, and On Nirvāṇa Being Nameless. The actual excerpt from the reply ends at 〔0365b27〕. Variants between biography and treatise are recorded from the texts themselves; the span of the full biographical entry is not misrepresented as the span of the complete reply.
- Form and emptiness: T1858 presently reads form-is-not-different-from-emptiness. Yet the ensuing explanation within the same letter says not-form, Yuankang likewise explains not-form, and Kumārajīva's Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Chapter on Habituated Correspondence, reads not-form-different-from-emptiness. All three readings are retained. The source layer keeps T1858, while the apparatus records the witnesses and does not decide or emend the character.
- Placement of scriptural citations: Yuankang expressly judges the sentences on noble wisdom without knowing and true prajñā to convey the meaning of the Large Prajñāpāramitā, not exact complete wording. Closely corresponding passages for prajñā neither grasping nor rejecting and for not moving from equal awakening can be verified in the Radiance of Wisdom translation; because the wording is not wholly identical, both remain parallel readings of a doctrinal passage rather than verbatim source claims.
- Open questions preserved: the actual extent of the reply excerpted in the monastic biography and the tension among the first two form-and-emptiness clauses have been entered in the treatise's record of open questions. Neither changes the sealed source text.