---
title: "憨山老人夢遊集 · 發明體用"
description: "憨山老人夢遊集是明代高僧憨山德清的著作集，由侍者福善日錄、门人通炯编辑整理。憨山德清是明末四大高僧之一，主张禅净双修，对佛教中国化有深远影响。该书收录了他的诗文、法语、书信等，内容涵盖禅宗思想、净土修行和佛教义理，展现了其圆融各宗的智慧。作为明代佛教重要文献，夢遊集不仅反映了当时佛教的发展状况，也为后世研究明代佛教思想提供了珍贵资料，在佛教史上具有重要地位。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmclqloav03ppl7042qpmcqdw"
---

### 發明體用

或曰。三教聖人教人。俱要先破我執。是則無我之體同矣。奈何其用。有經世忘世出世之不同耶。答曰。體用皆同。但有淺深小大之不同耳。假若孔子果有我。是但為一己之私。何以經世。佛老果絕世。是為自度。又何以利生。是知由無我。方能經世。由利生。方見無我。其實一也。若孔子曰。寂然不動。感而遂通天下之故。用也。明則誠。體也。誠則形。用也。心正意誠。體也。身修家齊國治。天下平。用也。老子無名。體也。無為而為。用也。孔子曰。唯天唯大。唯堯則之。蕩蕩乎。民無能名焉。又曰。無為而治者。其舜也歟。且經世以堯舜為祖。此豈有名有為者耶。由無我。方視天下皆我。故曰。堯舜與人同耳。以人皆同體。所不同者。但有我私為障礙耳。由人心同此心。心同則無形礙。故汲汲為之教化。以經濟之。此所以由無我而經世也。老子則曰。常善教人。故無棄人。無棄人。則人皆可以為堯舜。是由無我。方能利生也。若夫一書所言。為而不宰。功成不居等語。皆以無為為經世之大用。又何嘗忘世哉。至若佛則體包虗空。用周沙界。隨類現身。乃曰。我於一切眾生身中。成等正覺。又曰。度盡眾生。方成佛道。又曰。若能使一眾生發菩提心。寧使我身受地獄苦。亦不疲厭。然所化眾生。豈不在世間耶。既涉世度生。非經世而何。且為一人而不厭地獄之苦。豈非汲汲耶。若無一類。而不現身。豈有一定之名耶。列子嘗云。西方有大聖人。不言而信。無為而化。是豈有心要為耶。是知三聖。無我之體。利生之用。皆同。但用處大小不同耳。以孔子匡持世道。姑從一身。以及家國。後及天下。故化止於中國。且要人人皆做堯舜。以所祖者堯舜也。老子因見當時人心澆薄。故思復太古。以所祖者軒黃也。故件件說話。不同尋常。因見得道大難容。故遠去流沙。若佛則教被三千世界。至廣至大。無所揀擇矣。若子思所讚聖人。乃曰。凡有血氣者。莫不尊親。是知孔子體用未嘗不大。但局於時勢耳。正是隨機之法。故切近人情。此體用之辯也。惜乎後世學者。各束於教。習儒者拘。習老者狂。學佛者隘。此學者之弊。皆執我之害也。果能力破我執。則剖破藩籬。即大家矣。

> Some may ask: "The sages of the three teachings all instruct people to first break through self-attachment. Thus, their essence of 'non-self' is the same. Yet why are their functions so different—some governing the world, some forgetting the world, and some transcending the world?" The answer: Their essence and function are the same; it is only that there are differences in depth and scope. If Confucius truly had a self, it would only be for his own private benefit—how could he then govern the world? If Buddhism and Daoism truly rejected the world, they would only be for self-liberation—how could they then benefit living beings? Thus we know that it is through non-self that one can govern the world, and through benefiting living beings that non-self is manifested. In truth, they are one. For example, Confucius said: "In stillness, unmoving; when stimulated, penetrating all affairs under heaven"—this is function. "When understanding is attained, there is sincerity"—this is essence. "When there is sincerity, it takes form"—this is function. "When the mind is rectified and intentions are sincere"—this is essence. "Cultivate oneself, regulate the family, govern the state, and bring peace to the world"—this is function. Laozi spoke of "namelessness"—this is essence. "Acting through non-action"—this is function. Confucius said: "Only heaven is truly great; only Yao modeled himself upon it. Vast and boundless—the people could find no name for it." He also said: "Was it not Shun who governed through non-action?" Moreover, in governing the world, Yao and Shun are taken as models—how could they be considered as having names or engaging in deliberate action? It is through non-self that one sees all under heaven as oneself. Thus it is said: "Yao and Shun were the same as other people." Because all people share the same essence, what differs is only the obstruction of selfishness. Since human hearts share this same heart, when hearts are the same, there are no barriers. Therefore, they diligently engaged in teaching and transforming, ordering and aiding the world. This is how non-self leads to governing the world. Laozi said: "Constantly good at saving people, therefore no one is rejected." If no one is rejected, then everyone can become like Yao and Shun. This is how non-self enables benefiting living beings. As for phrases in his text such as "act but do not control," "achieve merit but do not dwell in it"—all take non-action as the great function of governing the world. How can this be called forgetting the world? As for the Buddha, his essence encompasses emptiness, and his function pervades all worlds. He manifests according to kind, saying: "I attain complete enlightenment within the bodies of all living beings." He also said: "Only when all beings are liberated will I achieve Buddhahood." And: "If I can cause even one being to develop the mind of enlightenment, I would willingly endure the sufferings of hell without weariness." Yet are not the beings he transforms within the world? Since he engages with the world to liberate beings, is this not governing the world? Moreover, for the sake of one person he does not shrink from the sufferings of hell—is this not diligence? If there is no kind of being for whom he does not manifest, how can there be any fixed name? Liezi once said: "In the West there is a great sage who, without speaking, is trusted; without acting, transforms." Could this be intentional action? Thus we know that the three sages share the same essence of non-self and the same function of benefiting living beings—only the scope of their function differs. Confucius upheld the way of the world, starting from the individual, extending to family and state, and later to all under heaven. Thus his transformation was limited to the Middle Kingdom, and he wanted everyone to become like Yao and Shun, taking them as ancestors. Laozi, seeing the shallow and fickle hearts of his time, longed to return to great antiquity, taking the Yellow Emperor as ancestor. Therefore, his every word differed from the ordinary. Seeing that the great Way was hard to accommodate, he went far away to the flowing sands. As for the Buddha, his teaching covers the three thousand worlds—vast and great, without discrimination. As Zisi praised the sage, saying: "All who have blood and breath honor and draw near." This shows that Confucius’ essence and function were not small—they were only constrained by the circumstances of the time. This is precisely the method of adapting to opportunity, thus closely fitting human feelings. This is the distinction of essence and function. It is regrettable that later scholars each confined themselves to their own teaching: Confucian learners became rigid, Daoist learners became wild, Buddhist learners became narrow. These are the faults of learners, all harms of clinging to self. If one can truly break through self-attachment, smashing through barriers, then one becomes part of the great whole.