---
title: "禪宗永嘉集 · 8 事理不二"
description: "禪宗永嘉集是唐代高僧玄覺所著的重要佛教典籍，成書於8世紀初。玄覺為永嘉大師，是禪宗六祖惠能的弟子，該書系統闡述了禪宗頓悟思想與修行次第。內容分為十門，涵蓋修禪綱要、止觀法門、見解抉擇等，融合天台宗與禪宗教義，強調頓悟漸修的實踐路徑。此書在中國佛教史上具有重要地位，被視為禪宗修學的權威指南，對後世禪宗發展影響深遠，是研究唐代禪宗思想與實踐的關鍵文獻。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cm9qr8l3004g3gy0vn2auzwwy"
---

### 事理不二第八

> Chapter 8: Principle and Phenomena Are Not Two

夫妙悟通衢。則山河非壅。迷名滯相。則絲毫成隔。然萬法本源。由來實相。塵沙惑趣。原是真宗。故物像無邊。般若無際者。以其法性本真。了達成智故也。譬夫行由通徑。則萬里可期。如其觸物衝渠。則終朝域內。以其不知物有無形之畔。渠有窮虛之域故也。是以學遊中道。則實相可期。如其執有滯無。則終歸邊見。以其不知有有非有之相。無有非無之實故也。今之色相紛紜。窮之則非相。音聲吼喚。究之則無言。迷之則謂有形聲。悟之則知其閴寂。如是則真諦不乖於事理。即事理之體元真。妙智不異於了知。即了知之性元智。然而妙旨絕言。假文言以詮旨。真宗非相。假名相以標宗。譬夫象非雪山。假雪山而類象。此但取其能類耳。豈以雪山而為象耶。今之法非常而執有。有假非有以破常。性非斷而執無。假非無而破斷。類夫淨非水灰。假水灰而洗淨者。此但取其能洗耳。豈以水灰而為淨耶。故知中道不偏。假二邊而辨正。斷常非是。寄無有以明非。若有若無言既非。非有非無亦何是。信知妙達玄源者。非常情之所測也。何者。夫妄非愚出。真不智生。達妄名真。迷真曰妄。豈有妄隨愚變。真逐智迴。真妄不差。愚智自異耳。夫欲妙識玄宗。必先審其愚智。若欲審其愚智。善須明其真妄。若欲明其真妄。復當究其名體。名體若分。真妄自辨。真妄既辨。愚智迢然。是以愚無了智之能。智有達愚之實。故知非智無以明其真妄。非智莫能辨其名體。何者或有名而無體。或因體而施名。名體混緒。實難窮究矣。是以體非名而不辨。名非體而不施。言體必假其名。語名必藉其體。今之體外施名者。此但名其無體耳。豈有體當其名耶。譬夫兔無角而施名。此則名其無角耳。豈有角當其名耶。無體而施名者。則名無實名也。名無實名。則所名無也。所名既無。能名不有也。何者。設名本以名其體。無體何以當其名。言體本以當其名。無名何以當其體。體無當而非體。名無名而非名。此則何獨體而元虛。亦乃名而本寂也。然而無體當名。由來若此。名之體當。何所云為。夫體不自名。假他名而名我體。名非自設。假他體而施我名。若體之未形。則名何所名。若名之未設。則體何所明。然而明體雖假其名。不為不名而無體耳。設名要因其體。無體則名之本無。如是則體不名生。名生於體耳。今之體在名前。名從體後辨者。如此則設名以名其體。故知體是名源耳。則名之所由緣起於體。體之元緒何所因依。夫體不我形。假緣會而成體。緣非我會。因會體而成緣。若體之未形。則緣何所會。若緣之未會。則體何所形。體形則緣會而形。緣會則體形而會。體形而會則明。形無別會。形無別會。則會本無也。緣會而形則明。會無別形。會無別形。則形本無也。是以萬法從緣。無自體耳。體而無自。故名性空。性之既空。雖緣會而非有。緣之既會。雖性空而不無。是以緣會之有。有而非有。性空之無。無而不無。何者會即性空。故言非有。空即緣會。故曰非無。今言不有不無者。非是離有別有一無也。亦非離無別有一有也。如是則明法非有無。故以非有非無名耳。不是非有非無。既非有無。又非非有非非無也。如是何獨言語道斷。亦乃心行處滅也。

> When profound insight opens the great highway, mountains and rivers no longer obstruct. When one clings to names and fixates on appearances, even the slightest thing becomes a barrier. Yet the source of all phenomena has always been the true reality. The dust-like delusions and tendencies are originally the true essence. Thus, while objects and appearances are boundless, wisdom is limitless—because the nature of reality is fundamentally true, and through realization, it becomes wisdom. Consider a traveler: if they follow an open road, a journey of ten thousand miles can be completed. But if they bump into objects or collide with ditches, they remain confined within a small area all day. This is because they do not understand that objects have no fixed form, and ditches have no solid boundary. Therefore, if one studies and practices the Middle Way, true reality can be attained. But if one clings to existence or fixates on emptiness, they will ultimately fall into extreme views. This is because they do not understand that what is called "existence" is not truly existent, and what is called "emptiness" is not truly empty. Now, the myriad forms and colors we see—if we investigate them thoroughly, they are not solid appearances. The sounds and shouts we hear—if we trace them to their source, they are without words. Deluded, we think they have form and sound; awakened, we know they are fundamentally silent. Thus, the ultimate truth does not contradict worldly phenomena—the very substance of phenomena is originally true. Profound wisdom is not separate from ordinary knowing—the nature of awareness is originally wisdom. Yet the profound meaning transcends words; we borrow language to point to it. The true essence has no form; we borrow names and appearances to indicate it. It is like the simile of the elephant and the snow mountain: the elephant is not the snow mountain, but we use the snow mountain to illustrate the elephant. We only borrow it for comparison—how could we mistake the snow mountain for the elephant itself? Now, phenomena are not permanent, yet people cling to them as real. We borrow "non-existence" to refute permanence. Nature is not annihilated, yet people cling to emptiness. We borrow "non-emptiness" to refute annihilation. It is like cleanliness: it is not water or ash, but we use water and ash to wash clean. We only borrow them for cleansing—how could we mistake water and ash for cleanliness itself? Thus we know the Middle Way is not biased; it borrows the two extremes to clarify what is right. "Eternalism" and "nihilism" are not correct; we rely on "existence" and "emptiness" to show their fallacy. If both "existence" and "emptiness" are spoken of as incorrect, then what is the correctness of "neither existence nor emptiness"? Truly, those who profoundly comprehend the mysterious source cannot be measured by ordinary thinking. Why? Delusion does not arise from foolishness; truth is not born from wisdom. Realizing delusion is called truth; being confused about truth is called delusion. How could delusion change according to foolishness, or truth revolve around wisdom? Truth and delusion do not err—it is foolishness and wisdom that differ. To profoundly understand the deep teaching, one must first examine foolishness and wisdom. To examine foolishness and wisdom, one must clearly understand truth and delusion. To understand truth and delusion, one must further investigate names and substance. If names and substance are distinguished, truth and delusion become clear. Once truth and delusion are clear, foolishness and wisdom are far apart. Thus, foolishness lacks the capacity for complete wisdom, while wisdom possesses the reality of penetrating foolishness. Therefore, without wisdom, one cannot clarify truth and delusion; without wisdom, one cannot distinguish names and substance. Why? Some things have names but no substance; others are given names based on their substance. Names and substance are entangled, truly difficult to fully investigate. Thus, substance cannot be distinguished without a name, and a name cannot be applied without a substance. To speak of substance, we must borrow a name; to speak of a name, we must rely on a substance. Now, applying a name outside of substance—this only names the absence of substance. How could there be a substance corresponding to that name? It is like giving a name to "the rabbit’s horn"—this names the absence of a horn. How could there be a horn corresponding to that name? To apply a name without a substance is to have a name without a real referent. A name without a real referent means what is named does not exist. Since what is named does not exist, the naming itself cannot be said to exist. Why? We establish names originally to name substances; without a substance, what corresponds to the name? We speak of substances originally to correspond to names; without a name, what corresponds to the substance? A substance without correspondence is not a substance; a name without a referent is not a name. Thus, not only is substance originally empty, but names are fundamentally silent. Yet, a substance without a corresponding name has always been like this. What can be said about a name corresponding to a substance? Substance does not name itself; it borrows another’s name to name itself. A name is not established by itself; it borrows another’s substance to apply itself. If a substance has not yet formed, what can a name name? If a name has not yet been established, how can a substance be clarified? However, clarifying a substance, though it borrows a name, does not mean that without a name there is no substance. Establishing a name must be based on a substance; without a substance, the name is fundamentally nonexistent. Thus, substance is not born from a name; a name is born from a substance. Now, if substance exists before the name, and the name is discerned after the substance, then we establish a name to name the substance. Thus we know substance is the source of the name. Then, the arising of the name depends on the substance. But what does the original thread of substance depend on? Substance does not form itself; it borrows the convergence of conditions to become a substance. Conditions do not converge by themselves; they converge because of the substance. If a substance has not yet formed, what do conditions converge upon? If conditions have not yet converged, how is a substance formed? The forming of a substance is the convergence of conditions that form it; the convergence of conditions is the forming of the substance that converges. The forming of the substance through convergence shows that the form has no separate convergence. Since the form has no separate convergence, convergence is fundamentally nonexistent. The convergence of conditions forming the substance shows that convergence has no separate form. Since convergence has no separate form, form is fundamentally nonexistent. Thus, all phenomena arise from conditions and have no independent substance. Since substance is not independent, it is called nature-empty. Nature being empty, even though conditions converge, it is not existent. Conditions having converged, even though nature is empty, it is not nonexistent. Therefore, the existence from conditional convergence is existent yet not existent; the emptiness of nature is empty yet not empty. Why? Convergence is nature-empty, thus it is said to be non-existent. Emptiness is conditional convergence, thus it is said to be non-empty. Now, when we speak of "neither existent nor non-existent," it is not that apart from existence there is a separate non-existence, nor that apart from non-existence there is a separate existence. Thus, it clarifies that phenomena are neither existent nor non-existent, so we use "neither existent nor non-existent" to name it. It is not that there is a "neither existent nor non-existent"; since it is not existent or non-existent, it is also not "not existent" and "not non-existent." In this way, not only is the path of speech cut off, but also the place of mental activity ceases.