---
title: "湛然圓澄禪師語錄 · No. 1444-附b 參禪釋難或問補遺"
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/cmcxr5xsu00osi9041clscoah"
---

### No. 1444-附b參禪釋難或問補遺

> Appendix to No. 1444-b: Supplementary Clarifications and Questions on Chan Meditation

客曰。如師所云。玄沙不出嶺。寶壽不渡江。則妙明元心本在自悟。不待師承印証。各人本地風光。誰所不具。理果當然。何以風穴有應讖之憂。太陽懷覆宗之慮。既非師証覆宗絕嗣。彼何謂也。

> The guest asked: "As the Master has said, 'Xuan Sha never left his mountain, and Bao Shou never crossed the river.' This implies that the wondrous, clear, primal mind is inherently realized through personal awakening, without needing a master's confirmation or seal. Each person’s innate nature is already complete—who lacks it? If this is truly the case, then why did Feng Xue worry about fulfilling a prophecy, and why did Tai Yang fear the decline of his lineage? If it is not through a master’s verification that the lineage ends or heirs are lost, what do they mean by this?"

答曰。皆為後人耳。經不云乎。我此法印為欲利樂世間故說。盖恐後世之人不求正悟。悟亦不真。胡說亂道。賺悞晚輩。必假師承印許方可為人。此深防外道邪慢之過。非曰初心用功參禪恐其無師而不致力也。汝但真參實悟。然後求師印証。弗為遲矣。故岩頭天然頴脫往師德嶠。靈雲見色明心方覲雪峯。所以黃檗見百丈舉馬祖一喝因緣不覺吐舌。丈曰子嗣馬大師也。檗曰。不然。因師所舉得見馬大師。且不識馬大師。倘嗣馬大師。以後喪我兒孫。丈曰子何所憑。檗曰。不見道。智與師齊咸師半德。智過於師方堪傳受。丈曰如是如是。黃檗可謂萬世之龜鑑矣。今人徒知嗣馬大師則喪我兒孫。不知不嗣百丈則喪我兒孫又甚也。近來諸方稱善知識。竪拳竪指胡道亂喝者。詰其師承全無的據。猶如偽名為仕者。公驗皆無。寧非自搆其罪也。古之所謂喪我兒孫者。得不謂此時之說耶。嗚呼。師子傳衣罹難。達摩得得航海。四祖深山覔子。五祖夜半傳心。其憂覆宗絕嗣之患。非止風穴．太陽。其來久矣。我輩不思佛祖之用心。棄而弗顧。哀哉。

> Answer: This is for the sake of later generations. Doesn't the scripture say, "My Dharma seal is expounded for the benefit and happiness of the world"? This is precisely to prevent later generations from seeking true awakening—and if they do awaken, doing so inauthentically—then babbling nonsense and misleading younger practitioners. They must rely on the approval of a teacher through a lineage to be qualified to teach others. This is a profound defense against the faults of heretics and arrogant practitioners. It does not mean that beginners working hard at Chan meditation should stop striving simply for lack of a teacher. You simply need to genuinely investigate and realize the truth. Then, seek a teacher for validation and certification—there's no rush. That's why Chan master Yantou, who was naturally sharp and enlightened, nevertheless went to teacher Decheng; and why Lingyun, upon seeing peach blossoms and awakening to the mind, then visited Xuefeng. Along these lines, when Huangbo heard from Baizhang about Mazu's single shout and its cause, he couldn't help but stick out his tongue. Baizhang said, "You are the heir of Master Ma." Huangbo replied, "Not so. Because of your teaching, I saw Master Ma, but I do not know him. If I were to succeed Master Ma, I would later harm my descendants." Baizhang asked, "What basis do you have for this?" Huangbo replied, "Have you not heard it said: 'Wisdom equal to the teacher reduces the teacher's virtue by half; wisdom surpassing the teacher qualifies one to receive the teachings'?" Baizhang said, "Yes, yes." Huangbo can truly serve as a model for ten thousand generations. Nowadays, people only know that claiming succession from Master Ma would harm their descendants, but they do not know that not succeeding Baizhang is even more harmful to their descendants. Recently, many so-called good spiritual friends in various places raise their fists, point their fingers, and shout nonsense. When questioned about their teacher-lineage, they have no clear basis. It's like people who falsely claim to be officials—without any official seal, are they not bringing guilt upon themselves? As the ancients said, "Destroying my descendants"—could this not refer to exactly such times? Alas, the transmission of the robe by the Patriarch led to calamity. Bodhidharma traveled far across the sea. The Fourth Patriarch searched deep in the mountains for a successor. The Fifth Patriarch transmitted the mind-seal at midnight. Their fears of ending the lineage and cutting off the tradition were no less than those of Fengxue and Taiyang—this has been going on for a long time. How tragic that we, the present generation, do not reflect on the intentions of the Buddhas and Patriarchs, but abandon them and pay them no heed!

問曰。如來一代時教不出止觀之門。故曰如來所得法。定慧力莊嚴。豈非定慧之力必籍止觀所成乎。首楞嚴中。阿難啟請十方如來。得成菩提妙奢摩他三摩禪那最初方便。如來欵答曾不壞乎三者。天台大師亦以三法教人。可謂妙契佛心者矣。諸方獨稱達摩之禪名為傳佛心印。天台得非傳佛心印乎。師能有旨為我辨否。

> Question: Throughout the Buddha's entire teaching career, the path always comes down to the gate of Calmness and Insight. Thus it is said, "The Dharma realized by the Tathagata is adorned with the power of concentration and wisdom." Is it not the case that the power of concentration and wisdom must be accomplished through Calmness and Insight? In the \*Śūraṅgama Sūtra\*, Ānanda asked the Tathāgatas of the ten directions about the initial expedient for attaining bodhi through Wonderful Śamatha, Samāpatti, and Dhyāna. The Tathāgata answered without destroying any of these three. The Great Master Tiantai also taught people using these three methods, which can be said to have wonderfully matched the Buddha's mind. In various places, only Bodhidharma's Chan is honored as "transmitting the Buddha's mind seal." Does Tiantai not also transmit the Buddha's mind seal? Master, can you clarify this for me?

答曰。阿難既請最初方便。當知十方如來由三方便之門得成菩提。非謂菩提不異方便。如來但由定慧莊嚴自心。豈云自心本是莊嚴。若知如來無所得而得菩提。則知方便不是方便。莊嚴即非莊嚴。以是而推。當知天台三法教人。傳佛方便之心。達摩一心直指。傳佛真實之道矣。門庭施設。教法千差。入理深談。自心頗得。古云。誰能入不由戶。出不從門。天台以之也。須知十方無壁落。四面亦無門。達摩以之也。天台如漸昇堂奧。達磨如鎮坐中庭。雖則二皆傳佛之心。如來禪．祖師禪不可相濫耳。

> Answer: As Ananda had asked for the initial methods of practice, it should be understood that the Tathagatas of the ten directions attain enlightenment through three gateways of methods. This does not mean that enlightenment is no different from the methods. The Tathagatas merely adorn their own minds through concentration and wisdom; it is not said that the mind is inherently adorned. If one realizes that the Tathagatas attain enlightenment without any attainment, then one understands that methods are not methods, and adornment is not adornment. Based on this reasoning, one should know that the Tiantai school’s teaching of three doctrines transmits the Buddha’s expedient mind, while Bodhidharma’s direct pointing to the mind transmits the Buddha’s true way. The various schools differ in their approaches and teachings, but when it comes to profound insight into the principle, one arrives at the essence of the mind itself. An ancient said, “Who can enter without a door or leave without a gate?” Tiantai embodies this. You should also know that the ten directions have no walls, and the four sides have no gates—Bodhidharma embodies this. Tiantai is like gradually ascending to the inner hall, while Bodhidharma is like sitting calmly in the central courtyard. Although both transmit the Buddha’s mind, the Tathagata Zen and the Patriarch Zen should not be confused.

問曰。彼中次第三觀。本非圓宗行人所脩。較諸禪宗誠不可及。若彼一念不思議三觀。豈有不同之理耶。答曰。金鍮易辨。煤墨難分。既云不思議。可容辨也。盖欲學者達宗旨之端由。當于無辨中施其辨耳。若彼宗學者能忘言會意。格外明宗。于中求其同相不可得。况有異乎。所謂口欲言而詞喪。心欲思而慮忘。直下不容心思言議去也。若也承言執旨。滯相迷詮。實謂有不思議之可得。有不思議之可脩。非惟不契達摩之禪。亦乃失于天台之旨。既失天台之旨。尚不能與天台合為一家。安可與達摩較其同異哉。雖然。須知天台不思議之觀。可謂從門而入。畢竟不是家珍。達摩直指人心。所謂流自胷中。方名盖天盖地。是以永嘉經年造觀。往師六祖。南岳觀密作用。受法曹溪。是非優劣。了然現矣。

> Question: Among those teachings, the graduated Three Contemplations are not what a practitioner of the Perfect School cultivates. Compared to the Chan School, they are indeed inferior. But what about that One Mind's Inconceivable Three Contemplations? Surely there can be no difference in principle, right? Answer: Gold and brass are easy to tell apart; coal and ink are hard to distinguish. Since you speak of the "Inconceivable," can distinctions still be made? This is simply to allow learners to reach the source of the core teachings, and thus, in the midst of no-distinction, one must still engage in discernment. If scholars of that tradition could forget words and grasp the meaning, and awaken to the essence beyond conventional frameworks, they would not be able to find a sameness within it, let alone a difference. It is what is called: "The mouth wishes to speak, but words fail; the mind wishes to think, but thoughts vanish." At that very moment, no mental or verbal deliberation is allowed. If one clings to words and holds to meanings, becomes attached to appearances and misinterprets the teaching, then they truly believe the Inconceivable can be attained and cultivated. This not only fails to accord with Bodhidharma's Chan, but also loses the essential point of the Tiantai school. Having lost the essence of Tiantai, one cannot even unify with Tiantai as one teaching—how then could one compare it with Bodhidharma's Chan for differences and similarities? Nevertheless, know this: the Tiantai Inconceivable Contemplation is indeed an entry through a method; in the end, it is not the treasure within one's own home. Bodhidharma's direct pointing to the human mind—what flows naturally from one's own being—is what deserves to be called "covering heaven and covering earth." Therefore, though Yongjia spent years cultivating contemplation, he ultimately went to study with the Sixth Patriarch. And though Nanyue carried out profound contemplative practices, he received the Dharma at Caoxi. The matter of superior and inferior, advantage and disadvantage, is then clear as day.

附答明鼎子問

> A supplementary reply to Mingdingzi's question.

問。雲棲主張念佛歸於一心。一心者謝盡六塵。單持淨念。固非隨聲唱和之流。亦非集起忽滅之輩。久久淘汰。打成一片。則念佛即是參禪。參禪即是念佛。念長一分禪長一分。念增一寸禪增一寸。彼錄所載不一而足。如是則師前云究心後正好念佛。我亦云念佛後正好參禪。何必舍土趨禪。翻成二見也。請明示之。

> Question: Master Yunqi advocates that reciting the Buddha's name should return to one-mind. One-mind means leaving behind all sensory impressions and simply upholding the pure recitation. This is certainly not like those who just follow the crowd in chanting aloud, nor like those whose minds suddenly stir up and then just as quickly fade away. Through continuous refinement over time, when it becomes a seamless whole, then reciting the Buddha's name is exactly meditation, and meditation is exactly reciting the Buddha's name. For every bit of growth in recitation, meditation grows accordingly; for every ounce of increase in recitation, meditation increases likewise. The recorded teachings contain countless such statements. If that's the case, then Master, when you said before that after settling the mind, it is perfect to recite the Buddha's name, I would add that after reciting the Buddha's name, it is just right to engage in meditation. Why must we abandon the Pure Land to pursue Chan, which only creates a dualistic view? Please clarify this.

答曰。子所謂謝盡六塵。非唱和生滅之徒。前不云乎而非頓也。楞嚴云。譬如國王為賊所侵。發兵討除。是兵要知賊之所在。若不識知而能討之。無有是處。子謂憑塵念佛。是躲其賊也。予謂究心破惑。欲除其賊也。故聲聞于結伏而不斷。菩薩于結破而不起。豈可以躲根與破惑同日語哉。又謂念長一分禪長一分。吁是何言歟。古云。若有一法。不成法身。若無一法。不成法身。若增一法不成法身。若欠一法不成法身。念苟可長。禪作麼生長。若可長。則吾心多一物矣。我云參禪後好念佛者。苟能發悟。活計隨時。無可不可。子云念佛後好參禪者。未審何處是念佛之後。若云開悟之後。何必更說參禪。若未獲開悟。念佛何曾有後。參禪直取自心。不見有身土之二。子徒起取捨之情。能妙悟自心。則知心外元非有土。

> You ask, "Are you saying to completely eliminate the six sense objects?" This is not about following the chain of arising and ceasing. Didn’t I already mention that this isn’t an abrupt process? The \*Shurangama Sutra\* says: “For example, a king whose kingdom is invaded by bandits sends an army to subdue them. This army must know where the bandits are. If they don’t recognize or know their location, it’s impossible to subdue them.” You claim that relying on sense objects to recite the Buddha’s name is like hiding from the bandits, while I say that investigating the mind to break through delusions is like trying to eliminate the bandits. Thus, an Arhat may suppress afflictions without cutting them off, while a Bodhisattva breaks through afflictions and does not let them arise again. How can “hiding from the sense organs” be compared to “breaking through delusions”? You also say, “As mindfulness grows, so does Chan.” Oh, what kind of statement is that? The ancients said: “If there is a single dharma, it does not constitute the Dharmakaya. If there is no dharma, it does not constitute the Dharmakaya. If you add a single dharma, it does not constitute the Dharmakaya. If you lack a single dharma, it does not constitute the Dharmakaya.” If mindfulness could grow, how could Chan be made to grow? If it could be added to, then there would be one more thing in my mind! I said that after meditation (Chan) it is good to recite the Buddha’s name—if one can attain awakening, one’s livelihood can adapt to circumstances, leaving nothing unacceptable. You say that after reciting the Buddha’s name it is good to practice Chan—I wonder where exactly this “after reciting the Buddha’s name” is located. If you mean after awakening, then why still talk about practicing Chan? If you have not yet attained awakening, how can there be an “after” for reciting the Buddha’s name? Chan practice directly points to one’s own mind, seeing no duality between body and land. You are merely stirring up feelings of attachment and rejection. If you can awaken to your own mind, you will realize that outside the mind there is originally no land.

再問。參禪究心非上根利智鮮能承當。中下之輩心如獼猴。須以方便拴縛之。若槩以禪理相語。彼將如聾如啞。徒成夢說。何如教之念佛。則上根之者彼此互融。中下之者淨念相繼。日久功深。何分利鈍。廣被群機。無所不攝。當此末法尤為善巧。較之參禪但可接上根而難以接中下者。豈不徑庭哉。請决所疑。

> You ask further. For those who delve into Chan meditation and investigate the mind, only those of sharp faculties and keen insight can truly take it on. People of medium or lesser ability have minds that jump around like monkeys. They need skillful means to tether themselves. If you were to simply speak to them of Chan principles, they would be like the deaf or the mute, and your words would be nothing but a dream. How much better, then, to teach them to recite the Buddha’s name? In this way, those of sharp faculties will merge their practice with others, while those of medium or lesser ability will sustain pure thoughts one after another. As time passes and practice deepens, what distinction remains between the sharp and the dull? This method broadly reaches all types of beings and leaves nothing out. In this degenerate age, it is especially skillful and appropriate. Compared to Chan practice, which can only guide those of sharp faculties but struggles to reach those of medium or lesser ability, is the difference not vast indeed? Please resolve this doubt.

答。三乘方便本是假名。法性平等。聖凡不二。當時世尊入普光明殿。現受用三昧。凡下果是不堪。非不堪也。信不及耳。諸大菩薩內秘外現。騰疑請釋。然後知其人人本具。箇箇不無。皆堪承紹。故後等賜諸子。不言有高下矣。今子執言有上下之根。有利鈍之異。且試論之。見聞知覺誰具誰不具乎。彼時難信大士決明。正啟今日之不信。今日參决古人指示正。參當時之難信也。所以云。古今一道。聖凡一心。豈分上下今古乎。但不能信心參叩。如其能之。彼極愚痴之徒。正是大機。何以故。彼全體不會。全體現前。只欠箇承當耳。念佛躲根輕易度日。雖有遠因。易潛業識。故祖師云。繫念乖真。昏沉不好。子當鑒諸。

> I shall answer. The expedient teachings of the Three Vehicles are merely provisional names. The nature of Dharma is equal; saints and ordinary beings are not two. At that time, the World-Honored One entered the Hall of Universal Light, manifesting the bliss of samadhi. Common beings below the fruition stage could not endure it—not because they were truly incapable, but because their faith fell short. The great bodhisattvas, inwardly realized and outwardly manifesting, raised doubts and sought clarification. Only then did it become known: everyone originally possesses it; each and every one lacks nothing. All are capable of carrying on the lineage. Therefore, later the father equally bestowed the precious treasures upon his sons, without mention of high or low. Now you insist there are superior and inferior roots, and sharp and dull differences. Let us examine this: among seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing—who possesses them and who does not? In that time, the unbelief of beings worthy of great difficulty was resolved by the great beings—precisely opening the way for today's lack of faith. Today, our inquiry and decision through the ancients' pointers leads directly to the difficulty of faith in that very time. Thus it is said: "The ancient and present are one path; saints and ordinary beings share one mind." How can there be a division of superior and inferior, past and present? If one cannot sincerely place faith, inquire, and bow in practice, then it is otherwise. But if one can, even the most foolish and deluded person is precisely the great vessel. Why? Because such a one, in their utter non-grasping, has the whole truth manifest before them—only lacking the acceptance of it. Those who rely on mindfulness of Buddha as an easy escape, passing the days lightly, may plant distant causes, but easily conceal karmic consciousness. Therefore, the patriarch says: "Fixed thoughts are contrary to the true nature; drowsiness is no good." You should take heed.

補問終