Hermeneutics has long provoked philosophical reflection. Although recent thinkers have deepened our appreciation for its centrality to human life, hermeneutics remains ill-defined. This study uses Western hermeneutics to examine the work of Sengzhao (374–414), a Chinese monk struggling to understand prajñā (Buddhist “wisdom”). Various interpretations of prajñā arose in India, and these interpretations proliferated when Buddhism entered China. Chinese thinkers, unfamiliar with Indian ideas, interpreted Buddhism through Confucian and Daoist concepts. This resulted in much confusion. Kumarajīva, a Central Asian missionary, changed this situation by giving the Chinese their first systematic explanation of Buddhism. Inspired by Kumarajīva, Sengzhao wrote “Prajñā is Not-knowing” to correct Chinese misunderstandings.
In “Prajñā is Not-knowing” Sengzhao approaches prajñā like a typical Chinese literatus; for him prajñā is the “Sagely Wisdom” of one who apprehends Dao. But Sengzhao also does something different. Sengzhao says that prajñā has been misunderstood because it cannot be described, yet he proceeds to speak of prajñā by using a special language—“wild words.” Rooted in both Buddhist and Daoist teachings, Sengzhao's “wild words” defy rational understanding. They do not inform us about prajñā so much as transform our thinking to the Mind of prajñā.
Scholars praised Sengzhao's essay but his “wild words” were prone to misunderstanding due to their extraordinary nature. Liu Yimin (354–410), a “gentry recluse” who read the essay, was mystified. He wrote Sengzhao asking for clarification and even criticizing the essay on certain points. Sengzhao answered Liu's questions and in his reply he used “wild words” to try to get Liu realize prajñā. Analysis of their exchange shows that Liu and Sengzhao speak past each other. They understand “Sageliness” and language differently, and these differences are based on presuppositions rooted in their respective communities.
These findings about Liu and Sengzhao's different interpretations of prajñā call us to re-think how we understand prajñā. Their misunderstanding raises problems about interpretation between communities and has direct bearing on the subject of “mysticism,” a controversial topic in religious studies. Liu and Sengzhao challenge current debates about “mysticism” and language, and encourage us to view “mystical” texts as avenues to awakening.
