---
title: "楞嚴經摸象記 · 第二卷"
description: "明代高僧莲池大师袾宏所著的《楞嚴經摸象記》是对《大佛顶首楞严经》的权威注疏。该书以盲人摸象为喻，强调对佛法真谛的体认需超越片面认知，系统阐释了首楞严定的修持法门、心性本体论及禅观实践。其内容涵盖显密教理、禅净融合思想，为汉传佛教尤其是禅宗与净土宗提供了重要理论依据。该注疏被誉为解读《楞严经》的里程碑之作，对明清佛教义学发展影响深远，至今仍是研究楞严思想的核心文献。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcyde3x40j87l2042pyh2ujg"
---

### ○第二卷

> Volume 2

垂手正倒。

> Hanging the hand, turning it upside down.

舊解：竪手為倒，垂手為正。一說：垂手是倒，以後文如我垂手等無有異為據。然經文雖止是如我垂手四字，意則通該前文。若云如我上來垂手示眾一段因緣，非專指垂手也。請以喻明。頭以下垂為倒，故時時上竪。手既亦以下垂為倒，何不亦時時上竪乎？又一說：手無正倒，一時首尾相換。世人妄見，生正倒想，以後文名字何處號為顛倒為據。此說亦佳，但非經正意。良由下文棄海取漚，認漚為海，本末翻覆，故名顛倒。則知海者喻真，漚者喻妄。妄身在於心內，如一漚至微；真心徧乎身外，如海水至廣。棄真取妄，認妄為真，身心顛倒所在，正在此耳。與觀手者正倒錯亂，何以異哉？或謂：合論亦云垂手是倒。曰：合論何可盡從也？如前七徵中，文外不相知。古人謂不字當是又字，其理甚正。合論云當是不字，而文義畢竟不通。下文辨見展轉五重，合論非之，亦不當理。

> Old interpretation: Raising the hand is considered upside-down, while lowering the hand is considered right-side up. One view holds: Lowering the hand is upside-down, based on the later text "just as I lower my hand" and similar passages. However, although the scripture only says "just as I lower my hand," the meaning extends to the preceding text. It is as if it refers to the earlier passage where I lowered my hand to instruct the assembly—not specifically pointing to lowering the hand alone. Let me clarify with an analogy: The head is considered upside-down when lowered, so we often raise it upright. If the hand is also considered upside-down when lowered, why not also raise it upright at all times? Another view: The hand has no inherent right-side-up or upside-down; it is merely a temporary exchange of head and tail. Ordinary people, deluded by their perceptions, give rise to notions of right-side-up and upside-down, based on the later text "where is the name for upside-down?" This view is also excellent, but it is not the main intent of the scripture. The reason is that in the following passage, abandoning the ocean for a bubble and mistaking the bubble for the ocean—reversing the fundamental and the incidental—is called upside-down. From this, we understand that the ocean symbolizes truth, while the bubble symbolizes delusion. The deluded body resides within the mind, like a tiny bubble; the true mind pervades beyond the body, like the vast ocean. Abandoning truth for delusion, mistaking delusion for truth—this is precisely where the upside-down nature of body and mind lies. How is this different from mistaking the right-side-up and upside-down of the hand? Some may say: The \*Combined Commentary\* also states that lowering the hand is upside-down. I reply: How can we fully rely on the \*Combined Commentary\*? For example, in the earlier seven inquiries, the text says "outside of words, they do not know each other." Ancient masters said the character "not" should be "again," which is quite reasonable. The \*Combined Commentary\* says it should be "not," but the meaning of the text ultimately does not make sense. In the later passage discussing the fivefold unfolding of perception, the \*Combined Commentary\* disputes it, which is also unreasonable.

晦昧為空云云，趍外奔逸。

> Confusion gives rise to emptiness, and one rushes outward, chasing after external things.

長水以晦昧為空，至結暗為色，配三細。次聚緣內搖，配前二粗。次趍外奔逸，配後二粗。為煩惱道畢，有非之者。然此配合三細，多說不同。今長水所配，下文因明立所等處，陰入界大等處，迷妄有虗空等處，皆如是說。前後經文，語意符合。蓋渠從清淨本然，忽生山河大地中悟入，故認取如是。而孤山以文殊覺海性澄圓偈文，與此相對，而釋意頗合。亦顯長水非無據而云然。前後文義，互為照應，未可非也。又愚意三細六粗，本出起信。而將論合經，不必拘拘逐句逐字的配，但取大意可也。良由佛為法王，於法自在。或隨時增減開合，辭不必同，而理實無二。太拘則反成齟齬。況本論中，三細六粗，共成九相。既而明血脉，則又成八。既而原染起，則又成六。開合增減，彼論自不拘死法。引之者，獨可拘死法乎？

> The Longshui Commentary takes the arising of obscurity and emptiness as the first subtlety, the congealing of darkness into form as the second, and the stirring of conditions within as the third. It then pairs the gathering of conditions and internal agitation with the first two coarsenesses, and the outward pursuit and scattering with the latter two coarsenesses, thus completing the path of afflictions. Some have criticized this, but there are various interpretations regarding the pairing with the three subtleties. The Longshui Commentary's approach aligns with passages in the sutra such as "establishing the basis through clarity," the discussion of the aggregates, sense fields, and elements, and the explanation of delusion giving rise to emptiness. The wording and meaning throughout the sutra are consistent. This perspective likely stems from an insight into how mountains, rivers, and the great earth suddenly arise from the originally pure and tranquil nature, leading to such an understanding. Gushan, in his commentary on Manjushri’s verse about the clear and perfect nature of the ocean of enlightenment, presents a contrasting yet harmonious interpretation, further demonstrating that Longshui’s view is not without basis. The textual meanings support each other and should not be dismissed. Moreover, the three subtleties and six coarsenesses originally come from the \*Awakening of Faith\*. When aligning the treatise with the sutra, one need not rigidly match every word and phrase; grasping the general meaning suffices. The Buddha, as the Dharma King, is free in his teaching methods—sometimes expanding, sometimes condensing, sometimes separating, sometimes merging. The wording may differ, but the underlying principle remains the same. Excessive rigidity can lead to contradictions. In the treatise itself, the three subtleties and six coarsenesses form nine aspects, yet when tracing the flow of thought, they become eight, and when examining the origin of defilements, they become six. The treatise itself does not adhere to a fixed framework, so why should those who reference it be bound by one?

一迷為心。

> Once deluded, you take this mind as your true self.

一迷為心者，明此不是心，迷惑無知，錯認此虗妄以為我心也，則知我自有真心也。何者？上文晦昧為空，空結暗而為色，色雜想而為身，內搖外趍，昏昏擾擾，即於此時認為己心。自此一迷為心，便生執著，決定惑為心，在此身方寸之中，牢不可破，寧復知此心廣大圓滿，含褁虗空，周徧法界乎？顛倒如是，故名為可憐憫者。有人謂此處是一迷為心，下文某處文是二迷為心，又至某處文是三迷為心，其說甚謬。

此見雖非，妙精明心，如第二月。

第二月者，非真月也，何故不還？蓋第二雖非真月，然真月外更無二月，此第二月即從真起，明眼人固直下見真月矣。見精雖非真，見全體即真，亦復如是。

若不見吾不見之地，自然非物，云何非汝？

長水展轉五重，合論直說本意。要其歸結，總是見既非物，云何非汝真性耳？二說一意，何必相非？

若實我心令我今見，見性實我而身非我，何殊如來先所難言物能見我？

此即重躡上文而斷之也。溫陵所解極明，言既此在前之見實是我心而能見物，則彼見乃我而此身非我，見在物而不在我，是物來見我而非我去見物矣，有是理乎？

指非指。

或謂指非指是莊子語，非也。何不看文中連有十處指字，一云非無指示，二云舉手指陳，三云確實指陳，四云指陳示我，五云舉手所指，六云指皆是物，七云則汝所指，八云受汝所指，九云應有所指，然後十云出指非指。蓋佛令阿難指點何者是見，何者非見，故曰出指非指。可指者是物非見，不可指者是見非物，出者是非雙泯也。問：莊子不可用乎肯綮，亦莊子語也。答：用固無害，但此指不是莊子一馬一指之意，何可扭摼強合？其肯綮等自非此例，故用無害。蓋經本梵語，譯為華言，不用此間文字，則終成梵語矣，何名為譯？有闡提人言佛經剽獵老莊，果爾，則譯佛以覺伊尹，早已曰予天民之先覺矣，譯修多羅以經易詩書等，早已名經矣，則覺字經字亦是剽獵儒典乎？其說不通，無俟多辨。

諸外道種，說有真我，徧滿十方，有何差別？

此疑佛說見性周徧十方，外道亦說我徧十方，差別安在？下文惟廣說因緣自然，不剖此疑者，何也？蓋外道所計，不出斷常二見，今說緣因自然兩非，則斷見常見雙破，而又非和合生，非不和合，則情窮理極，諸計消亡，真我自顯，故云圓滿菩提，不生滅性，清淨本心，本覺常住，是佛之所謂周徧也。豈外道妄見，執有實我徧十方者，可同日而語哉？

見見之時，見非是見，見猶離見，見不能及。

見見古有正解，言能見即今見物之見也，則下之見字成所見矣。見見之時是見也，非尋常見物之見也，故曰見非是見。一說謂豈有真見復見妄見之理？二見字平看，一真見，一妄見，此說似是而非。二見平看，則之時二字無所著落。又下文云：此實見見，云何復名？覺聞知見，如何銷會？試以本經語例之。經云：將聞持佛，佛何不自聞聞？今例云：將見見如來，何不自見見？又經云：不自觀音，以觀觀者。今例云：不自見物，以見見者。如是則其義不辨而自明矣。

別業妄見。同分妄見。

舊解：別者，一人妄見也；同者，多人妄見也。混而不明，隱而不暢，未有發揮者。然溫陵有說云：別業者，起惑之異；同分者，感妄之同。會解失錄，故講者忽焉。但溫陵略出其意而止，今更為詳言之。譬如世人造種種罪，人各殊科，喻之如別；後罹王法，共入一獄，喻之如同。今曰起惑者，隨心而造妄業也，造業別其因由，故名別業；曰感妄者，隨業而受妄報也，受報同其劑限，故名同分。近又一說：別者見根，同者見境。亦異舊說，覽者詳焉。

進退合明。

經云吾今以此二事進退合明，而舊解從此處過經文一百餘字，直至如彼眾生處，方曰進同例別；一病目人處，方曰退別例同。進退雖顯，而隔前大遠，似為不妥。溫陵以法、喻互舉為進退合明，頗覺穩當。但合明則得，進退未恊。近索隱謂且置同分而舉別喻，次以法合；復置別業而舉同喻，次以法合。舉者，進也；置者，退也。兼此二說，其義甚備。

譬如有人云云，其人無故，瞪以發勞。

有謂上有人，人字屬菩薩；下其人，人字屬眾生。此說非是，上下即是一人。

取頻伽瓶塞其兩孔，滿中擎空，千里遠行，用餉他國。

溫陵、孤山皆以瓶喻妄身，空喻識陰。淨覺乃添出譬如有人之人喻業，合論非之是也。合論又云：空喻識者，無分別為真空，有分別為識陰也。瓶內之空局，故有分別與外空異也。塞其兩孔，溫陵謂妄分同異，不知何名同異。今謂塞孔者，恐物出瓶外也。而瓶有兩孔，兩孔俱塞者，保護之極其至也。空非出入之物，而慎塞之，喻識本虗幻，而保持虗幻命根，惟恐其失也。千里用餉者，喻多劫飄零，死此生彼也。