---
title: "楞嚴經直解 · 先定時味"
description: "明末高僧广莫于崇祯年间撰写的《楞嚴經直解》是一部重要注疏，旨在以简洁语言阐释《楞严经》深奥义理。该书结合禅宗思想与实修体系，系统解读经中如来藏心性、修行次第及禅定境界，为明末佛教复兴的代表作。其直白风格利于普及，被誉为研习《楞严经》的实用指南，在汉传佛教注疏史上具有较高权威性，尤其影响后世禅教融合的修行传统。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmex2dr5s0nwcjp04k6qrk61z"
---

### 先定時味

將解此經，長水以十門分別，其指遠而義周，初學未易能通也。今所不敘，特以時味之濫，千載未明，茲略出所自，質諸大方耳。昔長水璿師，指謂匿王琉璃，事非一時，耶輸持地，記自法華，故判此經在法華後，涅槃前。孤山、吳興，意同長水。溫陵環師，指謂法王說法，有條不紊，初說一乘頓教以立本，即華嚴也；次說三乘漸教以逗機，即阿含、方等、般若也；後說一乘圓教以顯實，即法華也。楞嚴即般若、法華之中。今時玅峯覺法師，按天台玄文，出楞嚴百問，往破諸說，則長水、溫陵諸師，似難逃乎照膽鏡矣。詳夫百問之意，定屬方等，而方等收經，古有通軌，百問不明示者，欲人因問討尋，自得其緒耳。昔神智、柏庭二師，亦以此經判歸方等，良以世尊一代時教，通依五時五味收之。然此時味之說，出自華嚴、涅槃二經，天台因時立義，列為五時：曰華嚴、曰阿含、曰方等、曰般若、曰法華。此五時中，方等以彈偏、斥小、歎大、襃圓為義。然此經中，處處彈訶，不亦方等乎？而諸師稍見經文前後，便批判不定。而獨不知此五時之中，有通有別。通則通其初後，別則別在方等。互徧之義，詳出法華玄文。又四明光明玄記云：以凡判教，有前後分。前分有次，後分不定。後雖不定，須攝歸前。今經互相指處，是後分不定意。七徵、八辯、三科等文，是前分有次意。收通歸別，攝後歸前，有例可考，諒非臆說。當知此經，是方等中圓教所攝。而人不知，徒指前後，此何據哉？灼然時歸方等，味定生酥，決判此經，必安所自？若夫指畫未詳，區分未悉，幸諸達者，浚其流而洪其源可也。嗟乎！此經來我，震旦最𣆶。故一家之判無聞，千載之訛不已。茲者略陳管見，明經之士，試為評之。

> To explain this sutra, Master Changshui analyzed it through ten distinct aspects, but his guidance is profound and complex—too challenging for beginners to grasp fully. I will not recount his explanation here; instead, I focus on a long-standing confusion regarding the "time and flavor" of the sutra, unresolved for centuries, and present my views for the learned to assess. Long ago, Master Changshui pointed out that the incident with King Prasenajit and the crystal bowl did not occur at the same time as the story of Yasodhara and the earth—an event recorded in the Lotus Sutra. Thus, he classified this sutra as coming after the Lotus Sutra but before the Nirvana Sutra. Masters Gushan and Wuxing agreed with him. Master Wenling argued that the Dharma King proclaimed the teachings in an orderly manner: first the One Vehicle sudden teaching to establish the foundation (the Avatamsaka Sutra), then the Three Vehicles gradual teaching to suit capacities (the Agamas, Vaipulya, and Prajnaparamita), and finally the One Vehicle perfect teaching to reveal the truth (the Lotus Sutra). He placed the Shurangama Sutra between the Prajnaparamita and the Lotus Sutra. Recently, Master Miaofeng, following the Tiantai tradition, composed "One Hundred Questions on the Shurangama Sutra," refuting these earlier views. According to him, Masters Changshui and Wenling would find it hard to escape his scrutiny like a mirror that reveals all flaws. Indeed, his questions firmly situate the sutra within the Vaipulya period. Traditionally, Vaipulya includes many sutras, though he did not specify why—perhaps expecting readers to deduce the logic themselves. Earlier, Masters Shenzhi and Boting also classified this sutra as Vaipulya. The classification of the Buddha's teachings by "time and flavor" originates from the Avatamsaka and Nirvana Sutras. The Tiantai school systematized this into five periods: Avatamsaka, Agama, Vaipulya, Prajnaparamita, and Lotus-Nirvana. Within these, Vaipulya is characterized by refuting partiality, criticizing lesser vehicles, praising the Mahayana, and extolling the perfect teaching. This sutra repeatedly criticizes and refutes—does this not align with Vaipulya? Yet earlier masters, observing inconsistencies in the text, could not agree. They failed to realize that within the five periods, there is a distinction between "general" and "specific." Generally, the teachings permeate all periods; specifically, this sutra belongs to Vaipulya. This interplay is detailed in the Tiantai commentaries. Furthermore, Siming's commentary states: "When classifying teachings, there is a division between earlier and later sections. The earlier section has a clear sequence; the later section is less fixed. Although the later section lacks strict order, it must be subsumed under the earlier." In this sutra, mutual references—like the seven inquiries, eight discernments, and three aggregates—reflect the later section's flexibility, while the structured parts indicate the earlier section's order. By integrating the general into the specific and later into the earlier, we have precedent, not mere speculation. Thus, this sutra belongs to the perfect teaching within the Vaipulya period. Those who point to arbitrary textual divisions lack genuine evidence. Clearly, its time is Vaipulya, its flavor is "fresh cream." To determine its classification, we must establish a solid basis. If my explanation is insufficient, I hope wise readers will deepen the understanding and expand the source. Alas! This sutra arrived in China quite late, so the Tiantai school lacked a definitive classification, leading to centuries of error. Now, I offer my humble opinion—may knowledgeable scholars of the scriptures judge it.