---
title: "雲山燕居申禪師語錄 · 介夫郭居士請益法要"
description: "雲山燕居申禪師語錄是清代禪師德申的語錄彙編由弟子合哲等人編輯並依駒本增補印行該書成書於清朝反映了當時禪宗的發展面貌內容包括德申禪師的上堂法語機鋒對答偈頌書信等記錄了其禪法思想和修行指導在佛教典籍中該語錄屬於禪宗語錄體裁對於研究清代禪宗特別是臨濟宗的法脈傳承和禪風特色具有重要價值是了解當時禪師實修與教學的珍貴文獻"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmgn1ev2g25vijl04tcw4bjmi"
---

### 介夫郭居士請益法要

> Disciple Guo Requests Dharma Essentials

夫云：「請問和尚，貴教中多言空者，何也？」師云：「爾道我是那一教耶？還是儒耶？釋耶？道耶？若謂我是釋，釋未免非道。若謂我是道，道未免非儒。若謂我是儒，儒未免非釋。若謂我不在三教，我亦不妨泛在三教。若謂我即在三教，三教又不能收我。若一定以跡相見，我爾又非道中人。既非道中人，空之一問，意有相非。吾怪乎三教之不當非者久矣，其奈後之不容不非者。何也？觀其跡，則釋未免非道之癖於身，道未免非儒之癖于仕，儒未免非釋之癖于空也。皆是盲人抹象，各執一端，未見頭尾四蹄之大全，故有此三教之分。何以知其釋之不當非其道之未免癖于身？身者，相也。相即心也，心即相也。故老子之用心處，不在即身上做，亦非離身上做。若謂老子在即身上做，即不當云餘食贅行，物或惡之。若謂老子在離身做，又不當云載營魄抱，一能無離。老子于不即不離之間，做到綿綿若存處，何等圓合恰好。但後之學老子者，不肖老子用心，故不能獨立而不改，周行而不殆，所以迎之有首，隨之有後，拘拘束束，于幻化浮軀上用心，畢竟要拖起他上天下地，則惑矣。故道之又不容不非也。何道之不當非儒之未免癖于仕？仕者，治也。治即學也，學即治也。故孔子之用心處，不專在仕上做，亦不離于仕上做。若謂孔子專在仕上做，即不當悅吾斯之未能信。若謂孔子專離仕上做，又不當云明明德于天下。孔子于不即不離之間，做到不舍晝夜處，何等泛應恰好。但後之學孔子者，不肖孔子用心，故不能反身循理，保燮太和，所以未免留情于粉白黛綠之間，不及造端乎日用尋常之際，忙忙急急于蝸名蠅利上用心，畢竟要擔到死而後已，則惑矣。故儒之又不容不非也。何儒之不當非釋之未免癖於空？空者，心也。心即色也，色即心也。故佛氏之用心處，不在即空上做，亦非離空上做。若謂佛氏在即空上做，即不當云是法住法位，世間相常住。若謂佛氏在離空上做，又不當云凡所有相皆是虛妄。佛氏于不即不離之間，做到圓覺遍通處，何等任運恰好。但後之學佛氏者，不肖佛氏用心，故不能行解相應，理事無礙，所以長年坐在文字理學之鄉，或寂寞空閒之處，悠悠忽忽于動靜取舍上用心，畢竟要倚墻靠壁，則惑矣。故釋之又不容不非也。」夫云：「和尚持論固是，但釋教言空者，終恐不可。」師云：「釋教所謂空者，非謂頑蠢不靈之空，乃含吐十虛，包羅萬有之真空也。心若不空則不虛，不虛則不靈，故老子所謂虛而不屬，孔子所謂空空如也，亦何常離得空字？且如世間之空，空若非空，自不容其雲騰鳥飛，風動塵起，草木山川，樓臺殿閣，四聖六凡，種種物象，大小纖洪，一切音響，一上一下，一左一右，一橫一直，震作發揮，安成一箇世界？故曰心空及第者，良有以也。但釋凡開口輒以空言心者，非無據也，要知心之應物，如空之不拒諸像發揮耳。如其心若不空，則是物與物交，今乾坤世界之大成，凡民眾甫之大利，若不空，何以容受？故有情無情，具此真空之理，錯盪為用，大以成大，小以成小，隨其形器，盡其分量，果可有大小乎哉？果可無大小乎哉？是隱顯莫測之教，非所以對庸鄙道也。今復以虛空譬而曉之，且如在室則有一室虛空，在堂則有一堂虛空，在谷則有一谷虛空，在山巔則有廣大虛空，倘臨於日月則有無盡虛空，此皆形器分量之別，非虛空有大小之不同也。虛空既無大小之不同，然則心也復有大小之不同歟？故曰蟭螟蜉蝣之心，心所同也；藕絲針眼之空，空所同也。三教聖人立言設化，豈復有不同耶？故釋之所謂於一毛端遍能含受十方國土，含此也；坐微塵裏轉大法輪，轉此也；自心現量，現此也；萬法惟識，惟此也；因所作壞不壞相展轉因，因此也；一切事究竟堅固，究此也；圓覺妙心，覺此也。略舉釋之言空如此，而儒之所謂吾無隱乎爾，非露此耶？左右逢源，非逢此耶？明於庶物，非明此耶？察於人倫，非察此耶？高堅前後，非恍此耶？欲罷不能，非本此耶？萬物皆備於我，非備此耶？儒之既違越不得空字，然則道之又越得空歟？故玄之又玄，玄此也；三十輻共一轂，運此也；鑿戶以為室，埏埴以為器，用此也；貴以身為天下，寄此也；愛以身為天下，託此也；曰彝、曰希、曰微，體此也；致虛守靜，復此也；芸芸歸根，反此也；泛兮其可左右，恃此也；視之不足見，聽之不足聞，用之不可既，廓此也；不出戶，知此也；不窺牖，見此也；牒牒而不分別，渾此也；形無其形，物無其物，驗此也；萬竅怒嚎，散此也；大小逍遙，樂此也。今道之既離不得空字，何獨怪其釋氏之不當言空也？故在儒曰君子之於天下，在道曰道在天下，在釋曰佛法在世間，果可離於天下世間而談教也？故當時之列為三教者，深有謂也。設使當時只有一儒教，而後之習儒者，幾能彷彿孔氏之用心，而不漸流入於人欲之私者耶？只有一道教，而後之習道者，幾能彷彿老氏之用心，而不漸流入於搬弄之末者耶？只有一釋教，而後之習釋者，幾能彷彿佛氏之用心，而不漸流入於矯現之偽者耶？故必由此三教列而鼎立，始有交相教養之助，然後進步有階，持守便當，不致溺於一偏，互相詆訿。所以儒士之結道者，談保身之方；結釋者，談治心之要；道者，結儒士談人事之節；結釋者，談實相之真；釋者，結儒者談日用之常；結道者，談形神之玅。則雍容和睦一家，彼此來往三教，他日相逢，見而悅之，乃故知也。得非納交美好於一時，扇淳風於萬古歟？然雖如是，猶有三教話會處。到這裏，更須超脫一步，不涉縑纖，雖有理莫能伸，言辯莫能及，文字莫能載，因果罪福，事業功勳，一齊放下，前後際斷，中亦不安，只教淨裸裸絕承當，赤灑灑無回互，在儒不知，在釋不知，在道不知，然亦不妨在儒也，在釋也，在道也。故曰：乘委射御之迂，造次顛沛之急，皆禪也；吐故納新之俗，燒丹點汞之愚，皆禪也；著衣持缽之拘，按本宣科之瀆，皆禪也。故我之所謂禪者，泛在三教，而不為三教所留難，亦何妨道冠、儒履、佛袈裟？亦何妨全道、全儒、全釋乎？亦何妨一總不著赤條條？故禪者，誠去執之虛名，即禪亦不可得而名矣。」夫云：「弟子一向不信有禪，但知有儒、有釋、有道而已，今聆和尚大教，始知真有禪也。」遂拜辭而去。

> The student asked, "Master, I've heard that your tradition often speaks of 'Emptiness.' Why is that?" The Master replied, "Which tradition do you think I belong to? Confucian, Buddhist, or Taoist? If you say I'm Buddhist, then Buddhism isn't separate from Taoism. If you say I'm Taoist, Taoism isn't separate from Confucianism. If you say I'm Confucian, Confucianism isn't separate from Buddhism. If you say I belong to none of the three, I'm still within them all. If you say I belong to all three, none of them can fully contain me. If you insist on judging by outward appearance, then you and I aren't true followers of any path. Since we're not bound by labels, your question about 'Emptiness' seems to imply some criticism. I've long found it puzzling that these three paths should be pitted against each other. Yet, later followers can't help but criticize one another. Why? Looking at their outward forms, it seems Buddhism criticizes Taoism for being too attached to the body, Taoism criticizes Confucianism for being too attached to worldly service, and Confucianism criticizes Buddhism for being too attached to emptiness. These are all like blind men touching an elephant—each grasping one part without seeing the whole. That's why these divisions arose. How do we know Buddhism shouldn't criticize Taoism's focus on the body? The body is a form, and form is mind, mind is form. So Laozi's practice wasn't solely about the body, nor was it completely separate from it. If he practiced only through the body, he wouldn't have said, 'Surplus food and redundant actions are detested by all.' If he practiced apart from the body, he wouldn't have said, 'Carry the soul and embrace unity—can you keep them from separating?' Laozi, in the space between attachment and detachment, reached a state of 'subtle and continuous existence'—how perfectly balanced! But later students of Taoism failed to grasp Laozi's true intent. They couldn't 'stand alone and unchanging, move cyclically without danger.' So they remained trapped, clinging to the illusory body, trying to drag it up to heaven and down to earth—truly deluded! Thus, Taoism also deserves criticism. How do we know Taoism shouldn't criticize Confucianism's focus on service? Service means governance, and governance is learning, just as learning is governance. So Confucius's practice wasn't solely about service, nor was it separate from service. If he practiced only through service, he wouldn't have said, 'I delight in not yet being trusted with this.' If he practiced apart from service, he wouldn't have said, 'Illuminate virtue throughout the world.' Confucius, between attachment and detachment, reached a state of 'unceasing like day and night'—how broadly responsive and balanced! But later Confucians failed to grasp Confucius's true intent. They couldn't 'turn inward and follow principle, preserving harmony.' So they lingered in vanity and trivial pursuits, never grounding themselves in everyday matters, frantically chasing fame and profit until death—truly deluded! Thus, Confucianism also deserves criticism. How do we know Confucianism shouldn't criticize Buddhism's focus on emptiness? Emptiness is mind, and mind is form, just as form is mind. So the Buddha's practice wasn't solely about emptiness, nor was it separate from emptiness. If he practiced only through emptiness, he wouldn't have said, 'This Dharma abides in its dharma-position; the characteristics of the world are eternal.' If he practiced apart from emptiness, he wouldn't have said, 'All forms are illusory.' The Buddha, between attachment and detachment, reached a state of 'perfect enlightenment, universally penetrating'—how effortlessly appropriate! But later Buddhists failed to grasp the Buddha's true intent. They couldn't achieve 'unity of practice and understanding, no obstruction between principle and phenomena.' So they sat forever in textual studies or empty solitude, drifting through meditation on stillness and activity—truly deluded! Thus, Buddhism also deserves criticism." The student said, "Your point is well taken, Master. But Buddhism's talk of emptiness still worries me." The Master said, "The emptiness Buddhism speaks of isn't a dull, lifeless void. It's a true emptiness that encompasses all ten directions and contains myriad things. If the mind isn't empty, it isn't vast; if it isn't vast, it isn't spiritual. That's why Laozi spoke of 'the void that never exhausts,' and Confucius spoke of 'utterly empty and still.' Neither could do without the word 'empty.' Consider the emptiness of the world—if it weren't empty, clouds couldn't drift, birds couldn't fly, wind couldn't stir, dust couldn't rise, grass, trees, mountains, rivers, towers, temples, sages and ordinary beings—all kinds of forms, great and small, coarse and fine, every sound rising and falling, left and right, horizontal and vertical—couldn't manifest to form a world. That's why it's said, 'When the mind is empty, one passes the examination'—there's good reason for this. When Buddhists speak of mind as emptiness, it's not without basis. Understand that the mind responding to things is like space accommodating all forms without resistance. If the mind weren't empty, it would be merely objects colliding. How could this vast world, with all its people and benefits, exist unless it were empty? Thus, both sentient and insentient beings share this true emptiness, functioning through interpenetration. Great things become great, small things become small, each according to its capacity. Can we truly assign size to it? Can we truly say there's no size? This is a teaching of hidden and revealed mystery—not something to explain to ordinary, shallow people. Let me use another metaphor for emptiness. In a room, there's the emptiness of the room; in a hall, the emptiness of the hall; in a valley, the emptiness of the valley; on a mountain peak, vast emptiness; before the sun and moon, infinite emptiness. These are distinctions of containers, not differences in emptiness itself. Since emptiness has no size, how could the mind have size? It's said that the mind of a tiny insect and the mind of a great being share the same essence; the emptiness of a lotus thread needle's eye and infinite space share the same nature. How could the sages of the three paths differ in their teachings? So when Buddhism says, 'On a single hair-tip, one can contain lands of the ten directions'—this is what it means. 'Turning the great Dharma wheel within a speck of dust'—turning this. 'All is mind-itself'—manifesting this. 'All phenomena are consciousness'—only this. 'Causes giving rise to effects without destroying their characteristics'—this causal chain. 'All things ultimately solid'—realizing this. 'The wondrous mind of perfect enlightenment'—awakening to this. I've briefly touched on how Buddhism speaks of emptiness. As for Confucianism—'I hide nothing from you'—isn't this revealing it? 'Finding sources on both sides'—isn't this reaching it? 'Understanding the nature of things'—isn't this clarifying it? 'Discerning human relations'—isn't this examining it? 'Lofty, firm, before and behind'—isn't this glimpsing it? 'Unable to stop even if one wanted'—isn't this its foundation? 'All things complete within me'—isn't this its fullness? Since Confucianism can't escape the word 'empty,' how could Taoism? 'Mystery beyond mystery'—mystery of this. 'Thirty spokes share one hub'—functioning of this. 'Cutting doors for rooms, shaping clay for vessels'—use of this. 'Cherishing the body as if it were the world'—entrusting this. 'Loving the body as if it were the world'—committing this. 'Subtle, faint, obscure'—embodying this. 'Attaining emptiness, maintaining stillness'—returning to this. 'All things returning to their root'—reversing to this. 'Vast, available left or right'—relying on this. 'Looked at but unseen, listened to but unheard, used but inexhaustible'—expanding this. 'Without leaving the door, knowing the world'—knowing this. 'Without peering through the window, seeing the Way'—seeing this. 'Mixed together without distinction'—merging with this. 'Form without form, thing without thing'—verifying this. 'A hundred hollows howling'—scattering this. 'Great and small, both free'—delighting in this. Since Taoism can't do without the word 'empty,' why single out Buddhism for criticism? The Confucian says, 'The noble person relates to the world.' The Taoist says, 'The Way is in the world.' The Buddhist says, 'The Dharma exists in the world.' Can any teaching truly be separate from the world? Those who divided these into three paths had deep reasons. If there were only Confucianism, how many of its later students could truly imitate Confucius's practice without gradually falling into selfish desires? If only Taoism, how many could truly imitate Laozi's practice without sliding into manipulative tricks? If only Buddhism, how many could truly imitate the Buddha's practice without devolving into hypocritical shows? Thus, it's necessary for these three paths to stand together like a tripod—mutually supportive and corrective. Only then can there be a path for advancement, a framework for discipline, preventing anyone from drowning in one extreme and condemning the others. So when a Confucian befriends a Taoist, they discuss preserving life. Befriending a Buddhist, they discuss the essentials of mind-calming. A Taoist with a Confucian discusses human duties; with a Buddhist, the truth of reality. A Buddhist with a Confucian discusses everyday norms; with a Taoist, the mysteries of form and spirit. In this way, they dwell harmoniously as one family, coming and going among the three paths. When they meet again, they recognize each other as old friends. Isn't this fostering goodwill now and spreading gentle virtue through the ages? Yet even so, there's still the meeting point of the three paths. Here, one must take a further step beyond—not touching even a thread. Though reason can't fully express it, words can't capture it, texts can't contain it; cause and effect, merit and achievement—all must be set aside. The past and future are cut off; even the middle has no resting place. Only naked openness, with nothing to claim; bare clarity, with nothing to obstruct. Not knowing it as Confucian, Buddhist, or Taoist—yet not excluding them either. So it's said: the clumsiness of archery and charioteering, the urgency of crisis and hardship—all are Chan. The customs of breathing exercises, the folly of alchemy—all are Chan. The formality of robe-wearing, the reverence of scripture-recitation—all are Chan. So the Chan I speak of pervades the three paths without being confined by them. What's wrong with a Taoist hat, Confucian shoes, and Buddhist robes? What's wrong with being fully Taoist, fully Confucian, fully Buddhist? What's wrong with casting off all labels, utterly bare? Chan is truly a name for letting go of attachments—and even that name cannot capture it." The student said, "I never believed in Chan before—only in Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Now, having heard your teaching, I see that Chan truly exists." He bowed in thanks and took his leave.

## 燕居禪師語錄二卷終

> Final Words of Master Yanju's Teachings, in Two Volumes