劉勰《文心雕龍．論說》對「論」的文體發展流變作歷時性的觀察比較；談到論的起源、傳世的典範，劉勰以「述聖通經」作為取捨的標準。然而，在歷時性的觀察過程，論到了魏晉時期的「崇有」、「貴無」之爭，劉勰的表現，就與先前的立場有了差距；提出「般若之絕境」作為超越「有」、「無」之爭的理論。「般若」一詞來自佛經，乃身為佛教徒的劉勰，於《文心雕龍》全書唯一指出佛典或與佛理相關的名理，但是劉勰並未具體說明其指涉之篇目與作者。本文擬從《文心雕龍．論說》所論述關於「論」的發展與流變，耙梳劉勰個人對於佛教之論與文章體裁探索之方向，探討「般若」與「論」二者之關聯；嘗試分析劉勰對於「般若」論高度評價的原因。

LIU, XIE's The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons conducts a diachronic observation and comparison of the changes in the development of prose genre “discourse” (“lun”). Speaking of the origin of the genre of discourse and its paradigm, LIU, XIE's criterion is “explaining the sages and understanding the classics.＂ However, when it comes to diachronic observation, in which the controversy between “upholding being” and “valuing nothingness” is discussed, LIU, XIE's discussion shows a discrepancy from his previous stance. He proposes “the ultimate state of Prajna＂ as a move beyond the being-nothingness controversy. “Prajna” is a concept from Buddhist canons that is accepted by most people. Prajna is as the only notion that LIU, XIE, as a Buddhist, specifies as related to Buddhist canons or philosophy in the entirety of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons, without specifying the title and author it refers to throughout. Owing to the lack of scholarly elaboration on this question, this article aims to clarify it by comparing the discussions on “discourse” over the history of its development and transformation, and by reading LIU, XIE's approach to Buddhist discourse and prose genres in The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons, thereby identifying the relationship between “Prajna” and “discourse.” On this basis, this article analyzes the reason for which LIU, XIE had a high regard for the discourse on “Prajna.”