劉遺民書問附
Letter from Liu Yimin, with an attached note
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。弟子沈痾草澤，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，鏡心象迹，佇悅之勤，良以深矣。緬然無因，瞻霞永歎，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，而覩茲上軌，感寄之誠，日月銘至。遠法師頃恒履宜，思業精詣，乾乾宵夕。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。
I, Yimin, bow in respect. Having recently partaken of your esteemed news, I hold you in fond regard across the distance. The year has not yet reached bitter cold—how is your health? Letters have been cut off and blocked, which only deepens what I keep bottled up. This disciple lies ill among the weeds and marshes, constantly troubled by weakness and disease. Taking advantage of the monk Huiming's journey north, I have hastily sent word of how things are with me. The ancients did not let physical distance make their affection grow cold; where understanding reaches, there is closeness. Thus, though rivers and mountains stretch far and wide, and we have not met face to face in years, as for my longing for your character and savoring your flavor, mirroring my heart against the traces of your image, my diligent, joyful anticipation is truly deep. Vast and without occasion to meet, I gaze at the clouds and sigh endlessly. Following the season, I send you love and respect. I hope that by way of travelers I may frequently receive news of you. I bow in hope that the great assembly there is well and harmonious! May the foreign Dharma Master be at peace and well received! You, O Superior One, with a vessel awakened and brought forth, have encountered this profound encounter—I imagine the work of opening and penetrating it is enough to exhaust more than half one's thoughts. Therefore, whenever I think of our long separation, my shame and regret are profound. The monk Qingchang of this mountain grows ever more diligent in the Precepts of the Path; beyond the hours of meditation and seclusion, he only studies and lectures. Humble and dignified, he is indeed a joy to be with. This disciple has already fulfilled a long-held wish, and now beholds this lofty model—my sincere gratitude is inscribed day and night. Master Yuan has lately always walked in what is fitting; his thoughts and practice are refined and profound, diligent morning and night. Were it not that the workings of the Path flow hidden and principle is guided by the spirit, who at his advanced years could keep his vital energy so calm and his diligence like this? Therefore my reliance and comfort are deep, and my grateful admiration exceeds all bounds.
去年夏末，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。披味殷勤，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。苟非絕言象之表者，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，復能麁為釋之。
Late last summer, I first saw the Venerable Sengzhao’s *Treatise on Not Knowing*. His talents flow clear and outstanding; the purport strikes a deep and well-balanced note. He draws on and engages the sacred texts, and though his phrasing is graceful, it always arrives at the point. I savored it again and again and could not put it down. One could truly say it bathes the mind in the deep waters of the Vaipulya scriptures and opens the heart in the realm where all that is hidden is transcended! If this discerning exposition is carried through to full clarity, then the many streams of Prajñā will, one might say, be understood without a word spoken. How could one not rejoice? How could one not rejoice!
Where the principle is subtle, the words are steep and perilous; when one sings alone, few join in response. If one is not someone who has transcended the very expressions of words and images, will one not go astray by clinging to images? I believe that the section answering the question of seeking wisdom through conditions is nuanced and exhaustive, extremely refined and skillful, leaving nothing to be desired. Yet for those in the dark, it is hard to grasp all at once; there remain one or two lingering doubts. I now set them down separately, as follows. I imagine that in your leisure you might again offer a rough explanation of them for me.
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，所疑於高論之旨，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，神湻化表而慧明獨存。當有深證，可試為辨之。疑者當以撫會應機覩變之知，不可謂之不有矣。而論旨云「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？為當咸覩其變耶？若覩其變，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。願復重喻，以祛其惑矣。
The preface to the treatise says: "The essence of Prajñā is neither existent nor nonexistent. In its emptiness it does not lose illumination, and in its illumination it does not lose emptiness. Therefore it is said: 'Without moving from equal enlightenment, one establishes all dharmas.'" The next chapter says: "What differs from ordinary people is the divine knowing, and so it cannot be sought through the marks of things." It also says: "Function is precisely stillness, and stillness is precisely function. The more still the spirit, the more it responds in motion." Now the sage's mind is utterly still, its principle reaching the utmost and being one with nothingness. Without haste yet hastening, without slowness yet slowing. Thus we know that knowing does not cancel stillness, and stillness does not cancel knowing; never is it not still, never is it not knowing. Therefore in its moving of things, it accomplishes the work and the Way that transforms the world. Though it dwells within the named, it is far away and one with the nameless. The profundity of this principle is indeed what has always been most obscured. But what those who now discuss the matter doubt regarding the purport of your lofty treatise is this: they wish to seek what distinguishes the sage's mind. Do you mean that it exhausts the spirit and fathoms all measures, so that the wondrous is fully realized in hidden accord? Or do you mean that the mind-essence is naturally so, and the numinous fearsome power senses on its own? If it exhausts the spirit and fathoms all measures, with the wondrous fully realized in hidden accord, then the very names of stillness and illumination are simply the essence of concentration and wisdom. If the mind-essence is naturally so, and the numinous power senses on its own, then the responses to the multitudes of measures have surely nearly ceased. Now if the mind's measures are already profound and it alone carries on its illumination, its spirit pure beyond the realm of transformation while wisdom's clarity alone remains—there must be a profound realization here; pray try to distinguish it for us. The doubter will surely hold that the knowing which meets occasions, responds to capacities, and beholds change cannot be said not to exist. Yet the purport of the treatise says "originally there is no knowledge that grasps deludedly," without explaining the reason why it does not grasp. I say one ought first to determine the way in which the sage's mind responds and meets: does it solely illuminate the markless? Or does it behold all changes? If it beholds changes, then it differs from the markless. If it solely illuminates the markless, then there is no meeting that could be met. Yet since there is no meeting that could be met, how can there be the merit of meeting and responding? My mind is not yet enlightened on this; I beg you to instruct me again. The treatise says: "Having no fixation, nothing is unfixed; having no 'is,' nothing is not 'is.' Since nothing is not 'is,' it is 'is' yet without 'is'; since nothing is unfixed, it is fixed yet without fixation." Now to be without fixation while nothing is unfixed—this is precisely what makes it the utmost fixity. To be without 'is' while nothing is not 'is'—this is precisely what makes it the true 'is.' How could there be a true 'is' that is not 'is,' or an utmost fixity that is not fixity, so that one says "fixed yet without fixation, 'is' yet without 'is'"? If you say the utmost fixity is not ordinary fixity, and the true 'is' is not ordinary 'is,' this is merely that the words of the enlightened and the deluded differ in the first place—which is precisely why the purport of the treatise is not clear. I beg you to explain it again, to dispel this confusion.
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。
When it comes to the highest truth, I once went over it carefully with Dharma Master Yuan, and he too was glad to take it up and grasp its meaning. Only, the positions each of us assigns seem to have their own basis, so perhaps it is not necessary that our understanding be entirely the same. Lately I have also been sharing these thoughts with various friends who care about such matters, and there have repeatedly been those who struck right at the key point—yet I regret that I cannot be in the same age as that man.