---
title: "湛然圓澄禪師語錄 · 又"
description: "湛然圆澄禅师语录由明代禅宗高僧湛然圆澄所述，其门人明凡记录，丁元公与祁骏佳编撰。该书成书于明末佛教复兴时期，收录圆澄禅师的开示、法语、公案及书信，集中体现其禅学思想与修行指导，倡导直指人心、见性成佛的曹洞宗风。作为明代禅宗重要文献，该语录不仅传承了临济与曹洞宗的精髓，对后世禅修者具有深远影响，是研究明清佛教禅宗思想与实践的重要典籍。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcxr5xpm00i9i9048eynyjo0"
---

### 又

> Furthermore,

問。儒釋不壞權實者。凡有施為。皆不出權。將謂實者離一切施為也。三乘人所見皆如此。惟大乘人所見不同。斬猫刈蛇。皆是滿盤托出。非常境界。全體昭然。但人不能解耳。雖然。未到這箇田地。切不可妄擬。昔玉泉皓禪師。甞製犢鼻裩。書歷代祖師名字。乃云。惟有文殊普賢。略較些子。且書於帶上。故叢林目為皓布裩。有鄉僧亦效之。師見而詬曰。汝具何道理。敢以為戲事。嘔血無及也。其僧竟如所記。故吾謂不可妄擬。昔者丹霞燒木佛。院主呵之而鬚眉墮落。所以不識此境界。斥之亦不可。故曰。如人飲水。冷暖自知。以是故知南泉歸宗之輩。高提祖印。直示向上機關。非撥無也。若不是他說破。沒世之人。安知有這箇時節。惟居士明知此事。假興諸問。作末世法眼。奈某智短。不副所問為慚耳。

> Question: In Confucianism and Buddhism, the principle of "not discarding the provisional and the real" means that all actions fall within the scope of the provisional. To say that the real is separate from all actions is the understanding of practitioners of the Three Vehicles. Only practitioners of the Great Vehicle see things differently. Acts like killing a cat or cutting a snake reveal the complete truth openly—an extraordinary realm where the whole is clearly manifest. But people simply cannot comprehend it. However, if you have not reached this level, you must never recklessly imitate it. In the past, Master Yuquan Hao wrote the names of successive patriarchs on his loincloth and said, "Only Manjushri and Samantabhadra come close." He even inscribed this on the belt. Thus, the monastery nicknamed him "Hao of the Loincloth." A village monk tried to imitate him, but the master scolded him, saying, "What understanding do you have to dare treat this as a joke? You will vomit blood with no hope of recovery." That monk indeed suffered as predicted. Therefore, I say we must never recklessly imitate such things. In the past, Master Danxia burned a wooden Buddha statue. When the temple abbot scolded him, his eyebrows and beard fell off. So if one does not recognize this realm, even criticizing it is inappropriate. Thus, it is said, "When you drink water, you alone know whether it is cold or warm." For this reason, we know that masters like Nanquan and Guizong raised the ancestral seal high, directly revealing the ultimate teaching. They did not advocate nihilism. If they had not explained it, how would people of later ages know such a moment exists? Only you, layman, clearly understand this matter and ask these questions to serve as a Dharma eye for the degenerate age. Unfortunately, my wisdom is shallow, and I am ashamed that my answers fall short of your questions.

又

> Furthermore,

居士垂問二段。直如銀山銕壁。山僧不知所措。苟非日用真正留心個中。安能造詣如是之細也。然欲通其難。不外自己。捨己而別求。是不得其計矣。何則。佛說如幻。六祖云。不思善惡。皆所謂撥塵見佛。譬如有人流浪他鄉。知識教其回家。必曰路中不可游蕩。莫管是非。一直到家。既到家已。不妨治生產業。皆要用。幻與非幻。不必言矣。如此則在路不顧閒非。實為歸家之正法。何無記之有。到家自有分外消息。不必預防無記而生疑也。又極樂人壽無量。佛壽亦無量。云何彌陀觀音有泥洹。此有二義。一者佛對眾生說。不對佛說。故曰眾生病故。菩薩亦病。若眾生病愈。菩薩亦愈。二者佛有二身。一者法身不屬生滅。二者報身修因報得。眾生之壽無量者。對此方百年之說。如玄門稱千萬年為長生者。對短說長。故報身之無量。非同法身之無量也。要而言之。佛為度眾生故。示生三界。既有所度之機。機盡則應亡。是為泥洹。夫泥洹者。不生不滅之謂。非永滅不生也。又娑婆與極樂無垢短長較量者。此皆約報境而言。非真境也。境既屬報。其長短自不能同矣。吾以義推之。娑婆之名堪忍。以能忍苦故。極樂反此。總名對待。而不若無垢者。以其苦樂兩忘故也。又云。勢至不泥洹者。彼大菩薩願力持故。若云彌陀滅後。觀音勢至相次紹位。亦未有不般泥洹之說。但後後耳。所言彌陀化身多者。亦眾生心數。念念出生。有何數量。如此。則三十六萬億。猶是對機之數。況藏中無文。故雲棲大師斥之。吾謂但恐不能實悟耳。如能真悟。則佛及眾生。大小數量。此界他方。皆是迷頑妄想安立。若悟菩提本無所有。故曰。但有言說。都無實義。管見如此。諒居士有格外之識。非下情所知爾。

> A layperson posed two questions that were as formidable as a silver mountain and iron wall. This old monk felt at a loss. If you had not truly dedicated yourself to practice in daily life, how could you have reached such a subtle depth? Yet to resolve this difficulty, there is no need to look outside yourself. Seeking elsewhere while abandoning yourself is to lose the way. Why is that? The Buddha said all is like an illusion, and the Sixth Patriarch said, “Think not of good, think not of evil.” Both are about brushing aside dust to see the Buddha. Imagine someone wandering in a foreign land. A guide tells him to return home and warns, “Do not loiter on the road. Mind not right and wrong. Go straight until you arrive home.” Once home, you can tend to household affairs and engage in all activities. There is no need to speak of illusion versus non-illusion. Thus, ignoring distractions on the path is the very method of returning home. Why worry about blankness? Once home, there is a spontaneous, extraordinary experience; there is no need to preemptively guard against blankness and give rise to doubt. As for the idea that in the Land of Ultimate Bliss, beings have immeasurable lifespans, and the Buddha’s lifespan is also immeasurable, yet Amitabha and Guanyin enter nirvana—this has two meanings. First, the Buddha speaks to beings, not to Buddhas. Thus it is said, “Because beings are sick, the bodhisattva is also sick. When beings are cured, the bodhisattva is also cured.” Second, the Buddha has two bodies. One is the dharma body, which is beyond birth and death. The other is the reward body, which is attained through cultivating causes. When we say beings have immeasurable lifespans, it is in contrast to the hundred-year lifespan of this world. Just as Taoists call millions of years “long life” in contrast to short life, so the “immeasurable” of the reward body is not the same as the “immeasurable” of the dharma body. In essence, the Buddha appears in the three realms to save beings. Once the conditions for being saved are exhausted, the response ceases—this is nirvana. Nirvana means “neither arising nor ceasing,” not eternal extinction without further arising. As for comparing the Saha world and the Land of Ultimate Bliss in terms of defilement, purity, length, or shortness—these are all discussed in terms of the reward realm, not the true realm. Since the realm is a reward, its length and shortness naturally differ. My reasoning is this: Saha is called “endurance” because beings endure suffering. The Land of Ultimate Bliss is the opposite. Both together are termed “relativity.” But the state of “no defilement” transcends both because it forgets both suffering and bliss. Regarding the idea that Mahasthamaprapta does not enter nirvana—this is because of the power of that great bodhisattva’s vows. If it is said that after Amitabha passes away, Guanyin and then Mahasthamaprapta succeed to the position, there is no claim that they do not eventually enter nirvana—only that they do so later, in succession. The many emanations of Amitabha correspond to the number of beings’ thoughts, arising in each thought. What limit is there? Thus, even 360 quadrillion is still a number tailored to specific beings. Moreover, since there is no scriptural basis for this figure, the Great Master Yunqi denounced it. I say: we need only fear failing to attain true awakening. If one truly awakens, then Buddhas, beings, large and small quantities, this world and others—all are established by confusion, stubbornness, and deluded thinking. If one awakens to enlightenment, fundamentally nothing exists. Thus it is said, “All are only words; none have true meaning.” This is my humble view. I trust you have extraordinary insight beyond ordinary understanding.