---
title: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論 · 性學開蒙荅問"
description: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論是明末高僧智旭的著作。明末佛教面臨內部僵化與外部挑戰，智旭大師立足天台宗，主張禪教律淨融合，回應時代弊病。該書匯集其書信、註疏與開示，系統闡述性相融通、淨土為歸的佛學思想，強調解行並進與實踐修行。作為中國佛教史上承先啟後的巨著，它深刻影響了後世漢傳佛教的發展，尤其對淨土宗的推廣貢獻卓著，被尊為淨土宗第九祖的智旭，其思想透過此論成為明清佛教的重要指南。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmgn46dbd0n5jk10441tqggtj"
---

### 性學開蒙荅問即壇中第四問廣荅

> Sexology Priming Q&A <note place="inline">Expanded answer to the fourth question in the forum</note>

儒釋同異之致，性學重輕之關，憒憒久矣。欲釋此疑，須先就儒典消文釋義，以超是非兩關。次就二公決擇是非，以示平心公論。後對佛教細辨同異，以彰權實本跡。

> Confucianism and Buddhism differ in essence, and the relative importance of teachings on human nature has long been a muddled and confused issue. To clarify this doubt, we must first explain and interpret the Confucian scriptures to transcend the two extremes of right and wrong. Next, we must examine and decide between the two schools of thought, presenting a fair and impartial judgment. Finally, we must carefully distinguish the similarities and differences with Buddhism, revealing the provisional and ultimate truths as well as the fundamental and manifest manifestations.

初就儒典消釋者，朱註以尊德性為存心，道問學為致知。以致廣大，極高明，溫故，敦厚，屬存心，以盡精微，道中庸，知新，崇禮，屬致知。如兩物相需，未是一貫宗旨，所以偏重偏輕，致成大諍。今謂首倡大道，既包下兩節，則洋洋優優同是道，故同稱大。不可謂洋洋但大，不入無閒；優優但小，不極無外。尤不可謂洋洋但是德性，不由問學；優優但是問學，不關德性也。然此大道，全率於性，全凝於德，故名德性。猶釋稱如來藏性，以藏性雖十界所同，惟如來能合之，故以如來藏稱，不稱地獄藏性、人天藏性等也。然則德性二字，已含性修因果旨趣，而廣大精微等，皆德性所具之義趣，致之盡之，乃至崇之，皆道問學者之妙修耳。尊此德性，方道其問學，道此問學，方尊其德性。否則性近習遠，淪於汙下，猶所謂法身流轉五道為眾生矣。然德性廣大，謂其洋洋發育也；精微，謂其優優百千也；高明，謂其位天育物也；中庸，謂其不離子臣弟友之閒也，故謂其稟自初生也。新，謂其經綸參贊也；厚，謂父子君臣等，皆天性所定也；禮，謂仰事俯育等，皆人事應爾也。世有廣大而不精微者，如海魚身長若干由旬，蕩而失水，螻蟻得意。有即廣大而精微者，如阿修羅王，變身與須彌齊，復能幻入蕅絲孔。德性亦爾，雖洋洋峻極，而復舉體攝入一威儀，隨舉一小威儀全具德性，非德性少分也。世有精微而不廣大者，如玩器等，微妙精巧，不堪致用。有即精微而廣大者，如摩尼珠，圓明清淨，不過分寸，置之高幢，四洲雨寶。德性亦爾，雖百千經曲，而隨拈其一，皆全具位育功能，非少分功能也。世有高明而不中庸者，如夏日赫盛，不可目視。有即高明而中庸者，如諸佛光明，勝百千日，而觸者清涼。德性亦爾，上達即在下學，位天育物之極致，不離庸言庸行之家風。世有中庸而不高明者，如鄉黨善人，可狎可欺。有即中庸而高明者，如時中之聖，溫而厲。德性亦爾，下學全體上達，灑埽應對之節，即具旋乾轉坤之用。世有故而不新者，如衣敝不堪復御。有故而常新者，如上古瑤琴，一番摩撫一番音。德性亦爾，出生一切道德文章，經綸事業，不可窮盡。世有新而不故者，如美食不可再列。有新而嘗故者，如春至花開，樹未嘗改。德性亦爾，雖出一切經綸事業、道德文章，而體嘗如故。世有厚而非禮者，如牛犢相隨，殷然天愛，而罔知儀節。有厚而即禮者，如孝子事親，冬溫夏凊，昏定晨省，出於至性，匪由勉強。德性亦爾，雖率其天真，自有禮節。世有禮而非厚者，如六國事秦，勢不得已。有禮而即厚者，如孔子拜下，盡禮非諂。德性亦爾，雖百千經曲，絕非強設。又致廣大而不盡精微者，亦自有博學多聞，與則半是，奪則全非，以既不精微，即於廣大不能致故。盡精微而不致廣大者，亦自謂一門深入，與亦半是，奪亦全非，以既不廣大，則於精微不能盡故。極高明而不道中庸者，亦自謂豁達大度，然離中庸，而別擬高明，便不名極。道中庸而不極高明者，亦自謂言行相顧，然捨高明而安於卑陋，非君子之道。溫故而不知新者，亦自謂守其德性，而德性豈如此之癡頑？知新而不溫故者，亦自謂日有增長，然如溝澮可立待其涸。敦厚而不崇禮者，亦自謂率其本真，未免同人道於牛馬。崇禮而不敦厚者，亦自謂舉止有式，反為忠信之薄而亂之首。故必了知廣大精微等無非德性，皆須道問學以尊之，則全修在性，全性起修，既非二致，那偏重輕？斯為超出是非兩關，全收二公之長，永杜二公流獘者也。

> First, in interpreting the Confucian classics, Zhu Xi's commentary explains that venerating one's moral nature (zun de xing) is the cultivation of the mind, while pursuing inquiry and study (dao wen xue) is the extension of knowledge. Broadening to become vast and great, attaining the highest and brightest, cherishing the past, and being sincere and generous all belong to the cultivation of the mind. Exhausting subtlety and detail, walking the middle path, seeking new understanding, and honoring ritual propriety all belong to the extension of knowledge. Like two separate things that need each other, this does not represent the principle of a single thread, and thus imbalances and disputes arise. Now, when we speak of the Great Way (Dao), it already encompasses these two aspects. So, the vast and overflowing (yang yang) and the refined and detailed (you you) are equally the Dao, and therefore equally called "great." We cannot say that the vast is only great but does not enter into the smallest spaces; nor that the refined is only small but does not extend without limit. Neither can we say that the vast is solely moral nature and does not arise from inquiry and study, or that the refined is solely inquiry and not related to moral nature. However, this Great Way is entirely guided by our nature and fully realized in our virtue, hence it is called "moral nature." This is similar to the Buddhist term "Tathagatagarbha nature." Although the "garbha nature" is shared by all ten realms, only the Tathagata (Buddha) can fully unite with it. Therefore it is called the "Tathagata-garbha," not the "hell-being-garbha," "human-garbha," "heavenly-garbha," and so on. Thus, the term "moral nature" already includes the principles of nature (innate essence) and cultivation (practical effort), cause and effect. Broadness, subtlety, and so on are all meanings contained within moral nature. To "broaden" it, "exhaust" it, and "honor" it—all these are the wondrous practice of "pursuing inquiry and study." We must venerate this moral nature in order to practice this inquiry and study, and we must practice this inquiry and study in order to venerate this moral nature. Otherwise, our nature approaches good while our habits stray far away, sinking us into the mire. This is like what is called the "Dharma-body flowing and turning through the five paths, becoming a sentient being." Now, moral nature is vast and great, meaning it overflows and nurtures all things. It is subtle and refined, meaning it manifests in innumerable detailed forms. It is high and bright, meaning it positions heaven and nurtures all beings. It is the Middle Way, meaning it is never separated from the relationships of sons, subjects, younger brothers, and friends—hence it is said to be innate from birth. It is "new," meaning it brings order and harmony to all things, participating in heaven's creative work. It is "thick" or sincere, meaning the relationships between father and son, ruler and subject, etc., are all determined by our original nature. It is "ritual propriety," meaning caring for parents above and providing for children below are all obligatory human actions. In the world, there are things that are vast but not subtle. For example, a sea fish may be many leagues long, but if it loses water and flounders, even ants can overcome it. There are things that are both vast and subtle. For example, the king of the Asuras can make his body as tall as Mount Sumeru, yet also shrink to fit into a lotus seed's pore. Moral nature is like this. Although it is vast and supremely high, it can also completely enter into a single act of dignified conduct. Pick up any small act of dignified conduct, and it fully embodies moral nature; it is not just a part of it. In the world, there are things subtle but not vast. For example, decorative objects and toys are exquisitely made but useless for practical purposes. There are things both subtle and vast. For example, the wish-fulfilling jewel (mani) is round, clear, and pure, no larger than an inch; yet placed on a tall banner, it can rain down treasures on the four continents. Moral nature is like this. Although it contains hundreds and thousands of classical teachings and rituals, pick out any one and it fully possesses the function of ordering and nurturing the universe. It is not a small fraction of that function. In the world, there is loftiness without the Middle Way. For example, the summer sun is blazing—you cannot look directly at it. There is loftiness that is precisely the Middle Way. For example, the light of all Buddhas surpasses a hundred thousand suns, yet it brings coolness to those it touches. Moral nature is like this: the highest understanding lies within everyday learning. The ultimate reality of arranging the heavens and nurturing beings is not separate from the simple, ordinary conduct of daily life. There is the Middle Way without loftiness. For example, the good men of one's village are easygoing, and even trust or be deceived. There is the Middle Way that is also lofty. For example, the sage who adapts to the times is gentle yet forceful. Moral nature is like this: all ordinary learning is the complete foundation for highest wisdom. Even the simple acts of sweeping the floor and answering questions contain the power to reverse the course of heaven and earth. There is "old" that is not "new." For example, a worn-out coat cannot be worn again. Yet there is what is old yet always new. For example, an ancient zither of the sage kings gives a fresh sound each time it is played. Moral nature is like this: it gives rise to endless moral teachings, literary works, social order, and achievements—inexhaustible. There is what is "new" but not "old." For example, fine food cannot be served twice. Yet there is what is new yet ever ancient. For example, when spring comes, flowers bloom, but the tree itself remains unchanged. Moral nature is like this: although it produces all social order, achievements, moral teachings, and literature, its essence remains ever the same. There is being "thick" or sincere without ritual propriety. For example, a calf following its mother is natural affection, but without knowing proper etiquette. There is being sincere that is precisely ritual. For example, a filial son serving his parents—warming their bed in winter, cooling it in summer, settling them at dusk, greeting them at dawn—comes from his deepest nature, not from forced effort. Moral nature is like this: although it follows its innate simplicity, it naturally contains proper ritual. There is ritual without sincerity. For example, the six states serving the state of Qin under duress. There is ritual that is fully sincere. For example, Confucius bowed low after passing below the steps—he entirely observed ritual, but it was not flattery. Moral nature is like this: although it has hundreds and thousands of classical forms and rituals, they are in no way artificially imposed. Furthermore, those who expand vastness without exhausting subtlety may indeed be broad in learning and knowledge. If we look at half, we grant truth to their position; but to judge completely, we deny it entirely. Because without subtlety, true vastness cannot be achieved. Those who exhaust subtlety without expanding vastness may claim to be single-minded in their approach. Again, we can halfway agree, but completely we must reject it. Because without vastness, subtlety cannot be fully realized. Those who attain loftiness but do not walk the Middle Way may claim to be magnanimous and free. But if they depart from the Middle Way to propose some separate loftiness, they can no longer be called "supreme." Those who walk the Middle Way without attaining loftiness may say they are consistent in word and deed. But, abandoning loftiness for baseness, theirs is not the Way of the true noble person (junzi). Those who cherish the past but do not seek the new may claim to be preserving their moral nature. Yet how could nature ever be so dull and stagnant? Those who seek the new but do not cherish the past may claim daily growth, but their progress is like water in a ditch, soon to dry up. Those who are thick in sincerity without honoring ritual may claim to be following their original nature, but they dangerously equate human life with that of oxen and horses. Those who honor ritual without being sincere and thick may claim to have proper conduct, but this becomes the thin edge of loyalty and trustworthiness, and the very beginning of disorder. Thus, we must truly understand that vastness, subtlety, loftiness, and so on are all nothing but this moral nature itself—all must be pursued through inquiry and study in order to venerate it. Then, full cultivation rests within the original nature; full nature arises through cultivation. These two are not separate—how then could there be a bias toward one or the other? This is to transcend both the "right" and the "wrong" of their positions, to fully incorporate the strengths of the two commentators, and to forever cut off the degeneracy that followed from their schools.

次就二公決擇者。象山意謂，不尊德性，則問學與不問學皆無用，但能尊其德性，即真問學。猶吾佛所謂勝淨明心，不從人得，何藉劬勞，肯綮修證。亦猶六祖本來無物，又即孔子吾道一以貫之也。是將尊德性攝問學，非恃德性而廢問學，故得為名賢也。紫陽意謂若不道問學，雖高談德性，如所謂理佛，非關修證，必道問學以成至德，方可凝其率性之道。猶吾佛所謂菩提涅槃尚在遙遠，要須歷劫辛勤修證，亦猶神秀時時拂拭，又即孔子庸德之行，庸言之謹，下學而上達也。是將問學尊德性，非徒問學而置德性，亦得為名賢也。然則悟象山之所謂德性，問學已道；悟紫陽之所謂問學，德性自尊，可謂是則俱是。而象山似頓悟，較紫陽之漸修，當勝一籌。然執象山之言而失旨，則思而不學，與今世狂禪，同陷險阬，孔子謂之曰殆。執紫陽之言而失旨，則學而不思，與今世教律同無實證，孔子謂之曰罔，可謂非則俱非。而無實證者，尚通六趣，陷險阬者，必墮三塗。象山之流獘，亦較紫陽倍甚。若就二公之學，以救二公之徒，亦有兩番：一逆救，以象山之藥，治紫陽之病，以紫陽之藥，救象山之病。二順救，執象山之言者，為申象山真旨，執紫陽之言者，為申紫陽真旨。終不若向初義打透，則二病不生，二藥無用矣。

> Next, the debate between the two masters. Lu Xiangshan held that if one does not honor the moral nature (\*dexing\*), then whether one pursues inquiry (\*wenxue\*) or not is all meaningless; as long as one can honor the moral nature, that is true inquiry. This is like our Buddha’s teaching that the “supreme, pure, clear mind” is not obtained from others—why rely on hardship and effort to polish and realize it? It is also like the Sixth Patriarch’s saying, “Originally there is not a single thing,” and Confucius’s saying, “My Way is threaded with one unity.” In this view, inquiry is encompassed by honoring the moral nature; he did not rely on the moral nature to discard inquiry. Thus, he became a worthy sage. Zhu Xi argued that if one does not pursue inquiry, even if one speaks loftily of the moral nature—like what is called the “principle Buddha”—it is unrelated to cultivation and realization. One must pursue inquiry to perfect virtue, and only then can one solidify the path of following one’s nature. This is like our Buddha’s saying that enlightenment and nirvana are still far away, requiring many eons of arduous cultivation and realization; it is also like Shenxiu’s “constantly wipe it clean,” and Confucius’s “practice of common virtue, caution in common words, learning from below to reach above.” In this view, honoring the moral nature is encompassed by inquiry; he did not merely pursue inquiry while setting aside the moral nature. Thus, he also became a worthy sage. Therefore, if one truly understands Lu Xiangshan’s concept of “moral nature,” then inquiry is already accomplished; if one truly understands Zhu Xi’s concept of “inquiry,” then the moral nature is naturally honored. In this sense, both are correct. Yet, Lu Xiangshan’s approach seems closer to sudden enlightenment, which, compared to Zhu Xi’s gradual cultivation, may have an edge. However, if one clings rigidly to Lu Xiangshan’s words and misses their true meaning, then—like “thought without learning”—one falls into the same trap as today’s wild Chan, which Confucius called “perilous.” If one clings rigidly to Zhu Xi’s words and misses their true meaning, then—like “learning without thought”—one is like today’s doctrinal schools lacking real realization, which Confucius called “deluded.” In this sense, both are wrong. And those lacking real realization can still pass through the six realms of existence, but those who fall into the perilous trap will surely descend into the three lower realms. Thus, the pitfalls of Lu Xiangshan’s approach are actually far worse than those of Zhu Xi. If we use the teachings of these two masters to correct their respective followers, there are two approaches: First, “remedial cure”: use Lu Xiangshan’s medicine to treat Zhu Xi’s sickness, and use Zhu Xi’s medicine to save Lu Xiangshan’s sickness. Second, “direct cure”: for those who cling to Lu Xiangshan’s words, clarify Lu Xiangshan’s true meaning; for those who cling to Zhu Xi’s words, clarify Zhu Xi’s true meaning. Ultimately, none of this compares to penetrating the original meaning from the very beginning. Then both sicknesses will not arise, and neither medicine will be needed.

後對佛教細辨者，先須知此五句，有名同義異者，有名義俱同而歸宗異者。又須知對待絕待二種妙義，然後約跡約權以揀收之，約實約本以融會之，庶得戲論永滅，諍論亦消也。

> Later, for those who wish to examine Buddhism closely, they must first understand these five statements: some have the same name but different meanings, some have both the same name and meaning but lead to different ultimate destinations. Furthermore, they must understand the two kinds of profound meanings—the "relative" and the "ultimate"—and then, based on the "manifested traces" and "provisional means," discriminate and integrate them, and based on the "true reality" and "original nature," blend and unite them. Only then can endless conceptual disputes be forever silenced, and debates also vanish.

言名同義異者，德性二字，及德性中所具廣大精微等八義，同則同名德性及廣大等，異則儒以天命為性，修之上合於天者為德；老以自然而然，強名曰道者為性，復歸無名無物者為德。一往判之是天乘，亦未盡天中差別，恐不過四王忉利法門，遠自人閒視之，稱為自然，及無名無物耳。推而上之，夜摩等空居四天，亦以自然為性，以欲界未到諸定，及上品十善為德。魔天以命根互通為性，廣化七珍，多增寶媛為德。初禪天以出欲為性，離生喜樂為德。二禪天以超出覺觀為性，定生喜樂為德。三禪天以永無喜水為性，離喜妙樂為德。四禪天以不動為性，捨念清淨為德。無想天以一念不生為性，滅心心所為德。四空天以超出色籠為性，微細定心為德。我佛法中，藏教以真諦為性，擇滅無為為德。通教以諸法無生為性，體空智果為德。別教以離過絕非中道為性，所證法身般若解脫為德。圓教以不生不滅，常住真心，不縱不橫，三德祕藏為性，一心三智，妙合如來藏理為德。既德性一名厥義各別，故所具八義隨此皆異。儒但以洋洋發育為廣大，乃至仰事俯育為禮，如前說耳。老則以生天生地為廣大，杳冥昏默為精微，神鬼神帝為高明，專氣致柔為中庸，長於萬古為故，生一生二生三生萬為新，還淳返樸為厚，守雌守黑為禮。夜摩等天，各以境界倍增者為廣大，受用倍妙者為精微，不假日月為高明，十善攝散為中庸，劫初先成為故，果報變化為新，隨順善性為厚，具善三業為禮。魔天則以統攝欲界為廣大，超化無化為精微，威力自在居欲界頂為高明，不離塵勞為中庸，悟本命元為故，自在化現為新，愛網所攝為厚，眷屬莊嚴為禮。四禪各以捨下苦麤障為廣大，得上淨妙離為精微，安住勝處為高明，十禪支行為中庸，超歷大小諸劫為故，喜樂捨受相應為新，同一定體為厚，王臣民等差別為禮。無想天則以無諸想礙為廣大，體同木石為精微，居四禪上為高明，滅心心所為中庸，初半劫滅為故，後半劫生為新，順無動性為厚，次第令其心慮灰凝為禮。四空天則以體同太虛為廣大，微細心心所法為精微，遍超色縛為高明，不離心想為中庸，報境無有成住壞空為故，受用禪味為新，順無色性為厚，次第證入為禮。藏通二教，各有三乘，雖體析巧拙不同，同以無為涅槃離我我所、曠若虛空為廣大，超諸斷常有無、戲論妄想為精微，遠離三界、成一切智為高明，依戒而住、依念處行道為中庸，因緣法性、無有作者為故，觀諦觀緣、出生三乘道果為新，二乘別以警悟無常、速求出離為厚，攝身口意解脫業繫為禮。大士別以自愍愍他、願皆濟度為厚，三聚淨戒、上求下化為禮。別教則以無量四諦、十界因果為廣大，中道佛性、緣了修證為精微，迥超九界、佛眼種智為高明，從因緣境、歷修三觀為中庸，本覺無始為故，功德、智慧二種莊嚴為新，次第三慈為厚，歷侍諸佛、遍度九界、種種儀軌為禮。圓教則以介爾有心、三千具足，豎窮橫遍，無欠無餘為廣大，三千性相互具互遍、一色一香無非中道為精微，一心三智、照窮法界為高明，無作四念、一心三觀為中庸，即隨緣而不變為故，所以一切諸法無非性具，即不變而隨緣為新，所以權實因果、施設無方，心佛眾生三無差別為厚，所以上合無緣慈力，下合同體悲仰，而熾然常行與拔，上侍諸佛、下應群機為禮，所以性遮諸業，一切皆成無盡戒體，皆名無上道戒。是謂名同而義異也。

> When we speak of "virtue and nature" (de xing 德性), the names are the same but the meanings differ. Both include the eight qualities of vastness, subtlety, and so on; when they are the same, they share the same name. But the differences are as follows: - Confucianism takes "heavenly mandate" (tian ming 天命) as nature, and cultivation that aligns with heaven as virtue. - Daoism takes "spontaneous thusness" (zi ran 自然), which is reluctantly named the "Way" (dao 道), as nature, and returning to the nameless and formless as virtue. If we provisionally classify this as belonging to the celestial realm (tian sheng 天乘), this does not fully capture the distinctions within that realm. It might only correspond to the teachings of the Four Heavenly Kings and the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven. From far below in the human realm, these appear as "spontaneous" and "nameless and formless." Going higher, the four heavens of empty space—Yāma and so on—take spontaneity as nature, and the various states of concentration not yet attained in the desire realm, along with superior ten wholesome actions, as virtue. The Māra heaven takes the interconnectedness of life roots as nature, and the vast multiplication of treasures and the increase of jewel maidens as virtue. The first dhyāna heaven takes freedom from desire as nature, and the joy and bliss born of detachment as virtue. The second dhyāna heaven takes transcending reflection and evaluation as nature, and the joy and bliss born of concentration as virtue. The third dhyāna heaven takes the permanent absence of the water of joy as nature, and the wondrous bliss free from joy as virtue. The fourth dhyāna heaven takes non-movement as nature, and the purity of abandoning thoughts as virtue. The No-Thought Heaven takes the non-arising of a single thought as nature, and the cessation of mind and mental factors as virtue. The Four Formless Heavens take transcending the cage of form as nature, and the subtle concentrated mind as virtue. Within our Buddhist Dharma: - The Hīnayāna teachings (zang jiao 藏教) take ultimate truth (zhen di 真諦) as nature, and the unconditioned cessation of afflictions as virtue. - The Universal Teaching (tong jiao 通教) takes the non-arising of all dharmas as nature, and the wisdom and fruit of realizing emptiness as virtue. - The Distinct Teaching (bie jiao 別教) takes the Middle Way that is free from faults and beyond extremes as nature, and the realized dharma-body, prajñā, and liberation as virtue. - The Perfect Teaching (yuan jiao 圓教) takes the unborn and undying, everlasting true mind, neither vertical nor horizontal, the secret treasury of three virtues as nature, and the single mind with three kinds of wisdom, wondrously uniting the principle of the tathāgatagarbha, as virtue. Thus, since the single name "virtue and nature" has different meanings in each case, the eight qualities it encompasses also differ accordingly. Confucianism describes vastness in terms of "overflowing and developing," and so on, while the subtleties and rituals are as previously discussed. Daoism defines vastness as "generating heaven and earth," subtlety as "dim and dark," lofty illumination as "spirit of spirits and sovereign of demons," the middle way as "concentrating vital energy and reaching gentleness," ancientness as "enduring from myriad ages," novelty as "generating one, two, three, and all things," depth as "returning to simplicity and purity," and ritual as "keeping to the feminine and dark." The heavens of Yāma and so on define vastness as doubling the spheres of experience, subtlety as doubling the wondrous enjoyment, lofty illumination as needing no sun or moon, the middle way as collecting scattered thoughts through the ten wholesome actions, ancientness as being first to arise at the beginning of the kalpa, novelty as the transformation of results, depth as following the wholesome nature, and ritual as having the three wholesome karmas. The Māra heaven defines vastness as controlling the entire desire realm, subtlety as transcending both the transformed and the untransformed, lofty illumination as dwelling at the peak of the desire realm with mighty power, the middle way as never leaving the dust of worldliness, ancientness as awakening to the original life root, novelty as freely manifesting, depth as being bound by the net of love, and ritual as adorning retinues. The four dhyāna heavens define vastness as abandoning lower suffering, coarseness, and obstruction, subtlety as attaining higher purity, wonder, and freedom, lofty illumination as resting peacefully in a superior state, the middle way as practicing the ten dhyāna factors, ancientness as surpassing the various great and small kalpas, novelty as corresponding to joy, bliss, and equanimity, depth as sharing a single stillness, and ritual as distinctions among ruler, ministers, and people. The No-Thought Heaven defines vastness as having no obstructive thoughts, subtlety as being like wood and stone, lofty illumination as dwelling above the four dhyānas, the middle way as extinguishing mind and mental factors, ancientness as the first half-kalpa's cessation, novelty as the later half-kalpa's arising, depth as following the non-motion nature, and ritual as gradually making mind and awareness ash-cold. The Four Formless Heavens define vastness as being like great emptiness, subtlety as the subtle mind and mental factors, lofty illumination as fully transcending the bonds of form, the middle way as never leaving mental thought, ancientness as the result having no formation, dwelling, decay, or emptiness, novelty as enjoying the taste of dhyāna, depth as following the formless nature, and ritual as progressively realizing each stage. In the Hīnayāna and Universal teachings, each has three vehicles. Despite differences in the coarseness or subtlety of realization and analysis, they all share: - vastness as unconditioned nirvāṇa, free from self and possessions, vast like empty space, - subtlety as transcending the extremes of permanence and impermanence, existence and non-existence, and the vain imaginings of conceptual speculation, - lofty illumination as transcending the three realms and achieving all-knowledge, - the middle way as dwelling in precepts and walking the path of mindfulness, - ancientness as the nature of dependent arising, without a creator, - novelty as observing truths and conditions, giving rise to the three vehicles' paths and fruits. For disciples of the two vehicles, depth is specifically awakening to impermanence and swiftly seeking liberation, and ritual is controlling body, speech, and mind, escaping the bonds of karma. For bodhisattvas, depth is pitying both self and others and vowing to rescue all, and ritual is the three pure precepts, seeking enlightenment above and transforming beings below. In the Distinct Teaching: - vastness is the immeasurable four noble truths and the causes and results of the ten realms, - subtlety is the middle-way Buddha-nature, and cultivation of conditions and awakening, - lofty illumination is transcending the nine realms with Buddha-eye and seed-wisdom, - the middle way is cultivating the three contemplations from the realm of causes and conditions, - ancientness is the beginningless original awakening, - novelty is the two kinds of adornment—merit and wisdom, - depth is the three kinds of loving-kindness in sequence, - ritual is serving all Buddhas, saving all beings of the nine realms, and performing various rituals. In the Perfect Teaching: - vastness is that the single mind, in the smallest instant, contains the three thousand realms, reaching vertically to the highest and horizontally across all, lacking nothing, - subtlety is that the natures and characteristics of the three thousand realms inter-contain and inter-pervade, and that every color and fragrance is none other than the middle way, - lofty illumination is the single mind with three kinds of wisdom, illuminating the entire dharma-realm, - the middle way is the four applications of mindfulness that are effortless, and the single mind with three contemplations, - ancientness is thusness following conditions yet unchanging—hence all dharmas are of this nature without exception, - novelty is thusness unchanging yet following conditions—hence the provisional and real causes and results are set forth without limitation, - depth is the non-difference between mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—hence it aligns above with unconditional compassion and below with shared compassionate empathy, while busily practicing giving and protection, - ritual is serving above the Buddhas and responding below to all beings—hence all karmas, whether nature-based or obstructive, become endless precept substances, all called unsurpassed path-precepts. This is called "same names, different meanings."

言名義俱同而歸宗異者，不論儒、老，色、無色定，乃至藏、通、別、圓，欲以至德凝道，必道問學以尊之，欲真實學問，必尊德性以道之；欲證德性之廣大，必盡精微以致之，欲證德性之精微，必致廣大以盡之；欲證德性之高明，必道中庸以極之，欲證德性之中庸，必極高明以道之；欲證德性之故，必知新以溫之，欲證德性之新，必溫故以知之；欲證德性之厚，必崇禮以敦之，欲證德性之禮，必敦厚以崇之。是名義俱同。然如此問學，各尊其所謂德性，故儒成人閒之聖，與天地參；老成天道之聖，為萬化母；乃至藏、通成三乘之聖，永超生死，別教成圓滿報身之聖，永超方便，圓教成清淨法身之聖，方為真能盡性。是歸宗永異。

> Though the terms and meanings may appear the same, where they ultimately lead is radically different. Whether it is Confucianism, Daoism, the meditative states of form and formlessness, or the four teachings of the Tripitaka, Shared, Separate, and Perfect, those who wish to solidify the Way through supreme virtue must first honor learning through inquiry. Those who seek true learning must honor their virtuous nature to walk the Way. Those who wish to realize the vastness of virtuous nature must exhaust subtle details to achieve it; those who wish to realize the subtlety of virtuous nature must expand into vastness to complete it. Those who wish to realize the loftiness of virtuous nature must embody the Mean to reach its height; those who wish to realize the Mean of virtuous nature must reach its loftiness to embody it. Those who wish to realize the foundation of virtuous nature must renew it through reviewing the old; those who wish to realize the freshness of virtuous nature must review the old to know the new. Those who wish to realize the depth of virtuous nature must honor ritual to make it substantial; those who wish to realize the ritual of virtuous nature must be substantial to honor it. In these respects, the terms and meanings are indeed the same. Yet, when it comes to such learning through inquiry, each tradition merely honors what it calls virtuous nature. Thus, Confucianism perfects the sage who transcends the human world, joining with Heaven and Earth; Daoism perfects the sage of the Heavenly Way, who becomes the mother of all transformations; the Tripitaka and Shared teachings perfect the three-vehicle sage, forever transcending birth and death; the Separate teaching perfects the sage of the complete reward body, forever transcending expedient means; and the Perfect teaching perfects the sage of the pure Dharmakaya, which alone can truly realize one's nature. In this ultimate destination, they are eternally different.

言對絕二妙者，若以人望天，以欲界望色界，展轉乃至以別望圓，則彼廣大之外更廣大，精微之內更精微，高明之上更高明，中庸之中更中庸，故之前更故，新之後更新，厚亦彌厚，禮亦彌周。若以圓視別，以別視通，乃至以天視人，則彼廣大精微等，皆悉有名無義。故以下望上，傳傳皆妙；以上視下，法法皆麤。此對待明妙也。絕待明妙者，為實施權，開權顯實，若別、若通、若藏，若天、若人，究竟同歸一乘。圓人受法，無法不圓，則法法皆妙。既知此理，方許論揀論收，能融能會耳。

> Now, as for the two kinds of wondrousness realized through relative comparison, consider this: When a person looks up at the heavens, or when a being in the realm of desire looks up to the realm of form—and so on, step by step, until a person of the Distinct Teaching looks up to the Perfect Teaching—then within what is already vast, there is something vaster. Within what is already subtle, there is something subtler. Above what is already lofty, something loftier. Within what is already balanced, something more balanced. Before the old, the older. After the new, the newer. The substantial becomes more substantial; the refined becomes more refined. But if one from the Perfect Teaching looks down at the Distinct Teaching, or from the Distinct Teaching looks down at the Universal Teaching—and so on, down to heaven looking at humanity—then all those qualities of vastness, subtlety, loftiness, and balance become mere names without real meaning. Thus, when looking upward from a lower perspective, each stage is wondrous. When looking downward from a higher perspective, each teaching appears coarse. This is the wondrousness revealed by relative comparison. Now, as for the wondrousness of absolute transcendence: For the sake of those who are ready, provisional teachings are established; then for those who are ripe, the provisional is opened to reveal the ultimate. Whether it is the Distinct Teaching, the Universal Teaching, or the Storehouse Teaching, whether it is the heavenly or the human vehicle—all ultimately converge into the One Vehicle. When a person of perfect capacity receives the Dharma, no teaching fails to be perfect; thus, every teaching is wondrous. Only after understanding this principle can one properly discuss which teachings to select and which to include, and truly integrate and comprehend them all.

後約跡約權揀收等者，揀之則全非，儒是世法，佛出世故。又此云天命為性，《易》云太極生兩儀，並屬非因計因，不知正因緣法，見論所攝。夫婦父子等，恩愛牽連，愛論所攝。老子天法道，道法自然，是無因論，不知正因緣法，亦見論攝。收之，則儒於五乘法門，屬人乘攝，所明五常，合於五戒。其餘諸法，半合十善，尚未全同金輪王法也。老屬天乘，未盡天中之致，已如前說。究而言之，總不及藏教之出生死，況通別圓邪？然此直約跡約權耳，若約實約本融會者，此方聖人，是菩薩化現，如來所使。《大灌頂經》云「佛先遣三聖，往化支那，所立葬法，南洲中最。三聖法化若在，如來正教，亦賴以行。」而《列子》具明孔子讚佛之語，老子騎牛出關，欲訪大覺，既聞示寂，歎息而返。經史所載，彰明若此，後人不達，紛紛起諍，豈理也哉。然三聖不略說出世教法，蓋機緣未至，不得不然。且如五天機熟，佛乃示生，而初倡《華嚴》，在會聾啞，不惟須說《阿含》，以為漸始，兼立人天戒善，以作先容。況此地機緣，遠在千年之後，縱說出世法，誰能信之。故權智垂跡，不得不示同凡外。然即此儒典，亦未嘗不洩妙機，後儒自莫能察，及門亦所未窺。故孔子再歎顏回好學，今也則亡，深顯曾子以下，皆知跡而不知本，知權而不知實者也。何謂所洩妙機？如《易經．繫辭傳》云「易有太極，是生兩儀，兩儀生四象，四象生八卦。」此語最可參詳。夫既云易有太極，則太極乃易之所有，畢竟易是何物，有此太極。儻以畫辭為易，應云太極生天地，天地生萬物，然後伏羲因之畫卦，文周因之繫辭，何反云易有太極？易有太極，易理固在太極之先矣。設非吾人本源佛性，更是何物？既本源佛性，尚在太極先，豈得漫云天之所賦？然不明言即心自性，但言易者，以凡夫久執四大為自身相，六塵緣影為自心相，斷斷不能理會此事，故悉檀善巧，聊寄微辭。當知易即真如之性，具有隨緣不變、不變隨緣之義，密說為易。而此真如，但有性德，未有修德，故不守自性，不覺念起，而有無明。此無始住地無明，正是二種生死根本，密說之為太極。因明立所，晦昧為空，相待成搖之風輪，即所謂動而生陽。堅明立礙之金輪，即所謂靜而生陰。風金相摩，火光出現，寶明生潤，水輪下含，即所謂兩儀生四象也。火騰水降，交發立堅，為海為洲，為山為木，即所謂四象生八卦，乃至生萬物也。名相稍異，大體宛同，順之則生死始，逆之則輪迴息。故又云易逆數也。亦既微示人以出世要旨矣。老子「道生天地」，意亦相同，但亦不明言即心自性，皆機緣未熟耳。且易傳「寂然不動，感而遂通」一語，即寂照無二之體。而「乾坤其易之門」一語，即流轉還滅，逆順二修之關。以性覺妙明，本覺明妙，非干修證，不屬迷悟。而迷則照體成散，寂體成昏，逆涅槃城，順生死路，全由此動靜兩門，是名逆修，亦名修惡。悟則借動以覺其昏，名之為觀，借靜以攝其散，名之為止，逆生死流，順涅槃海，亦由此動靜兩門，是名順修，亦名修善。然修分順逆，性無增減。又雖善惡皆本於性，而道必昇沈。如斯祕旨，豈異圓宗？菩薩現身，信非虛倡，習而不察，過在後儒。又既知宣聖祕密微談，兼秉《法華》開顯妙旨，即此《中庸》，便可作圓頓佛法解釋。「天命之謂性」者，天非望而蒼蒼之天，亦非忉利夜摩等天，即《涅槃經》第一義天也。命非命令之解，即第八識執持色身相續不斷之妄情也。謂生滅與不生滅和合，而成阿賴邪識，此識即有生之性，以全真起妄，天復稱命；以全妄是真，命復稱天。全真起妄，即不變而隨緣；全妄是真，即隨緣而不變也。「率性之謂道」者，此藏性中具染淨善惡一切種子，若率染惡種子而起現行，即小人之道，亦名逆修；若率淨善種子，而起現行，即君子之道，亦名順修。道二，仁與不仁而已矣，正合此意，亦合台家性具宗旨。「修道之謂教」者，小人之道修除令盡，君子之道修習令滿，此則聖賢教法，惟欲人返逆修而歸順修，即隨緣而悟不變也。三句合宗，頭正尾正，凡一文一字，皆可消歸至理矣。以要言之，若得《法華》開顯之旨，治世語言，資生產業，乃至戲笑怒罵，豔曲情詞，尚順實相正法，況世閒理性之談邪然此是智旭之中庸，非子思之中庸也。如大慧杲禪師，以此三句，作法報化三身，亦只是宗杲之中庸耳。儻子思實知宗杲、智旭之中庸者，孔子急當印之。胡顏淵死，一慟傷心，自稱天喪，且追憶之，再歎今也則亡邪。昔孟子歷敘見知聞知之道，結云「然而無有乎爾，則亦無有乎爾。」是孟子尚不肯以曾子、子思為見知者，何況孔子。彼一以貫之之傳，但的示尊德性之真實問學，如此，乃下手發足之方，非到家消息。又跡中權理之一，非本中實理之一也。今約三聖立教本意，直謂同可，以無非為實施權故也。約三教施設門庭，直謂異可，以儒老但說權理，又局人天，佛說權說實，皆出世故也。約權則工夫同而到家異，謂亦同亦異可也。約實則本不壞跡，跡不掩本，謂非同非異可也。惺谷壽禪師云：「為門外人說同，否則以為異端；為入門人說別，否則安於舊習；為升堂人說亦同亦別，以其見理未諦，須與微細剖析，令知同中有異，異中有同；為入室人說非同非別，麤言細語，皆第一義，又何儒釋可論。」斯言得之，以其次第順於四悉檀故。然細論說法方便，則四句之中，一一皆具四悉，又貴臨時善用，不得固執斯言為死法也。

> Then let us discuss the distinction between their provisional teachings and expedient means. When examined for differences, Confucianism is entirely different—it is a worldly teaching, while Buddhism is transcendent. Furthermore, the Confucian notion that "Heaven's decree is nature" and the \*Yijing\*'s statement that "the Supreme Ultimate generates the Two Modes" both fall under the category of mistaking a false cause for a true one. They fail to recognize the proper teaching of causes and conditions and are included in the category of erroneous views. The bonds of affection between husband and wife, father and son, etc., are entangled by love and fall under the category of attachment to love. Laozi's statement that "Heaven follows the Dao, and the Dao follows nature" is a form of causelessness—he does not recognize the proper teaching of causes and conditions, and this too is included in erroneous views. When considered for what they include, Confucianism, within the framework of the Five Vehicles, belongs to the Human Vehicle. Its teachings on the Five Constant Virtues correspond to the Five Precepts. Its other teachings are partially in accord with the Ten Good Deeds but are not yet fully equivalent to the Dharma of a Golden Wheel-Turning King. Laozi's teachings belong to the Heavenly Vehicle, but they do not fully capture the essence of the heavens, as previously explained. Ultimately, neither reaches the level of the \*Hinayana\* teachings, which can transcend birth and death—how much less do they reach the \*Shared\*, \*Distinct\*, or \*Perfect\* teachings? However, this discussion is only from the perspective of their provisional teachings and expedient means. If we consider their true essence and fundamental level, then the sages of this land are manifestations of bodhisattvas, sent by the Tathāgata. The \*Mahā-Abhiṣeka Sūtra\* states: "The Buddha first dispatched three sages to transform China. The burial customs they established are the most excellent in Jambudvīpa. If the transformative teachings of these three sages remain, then the Buddha's true teachings can also rely on them to be propagated." Furthermore, the \*Liezi\* clearly records Confucius's words of praise for the Buddha. Laozi, riding an ox out of the pass, intended to visit the Great Awakened One. Upon hearing of the Buddha's nirvāṇa, he sighed and returned. Historical classics record this clearly. If later people fail to understand and create disputes, how can this be reasonable? Yet, these three sages did not fully explain the transcending teachings because the conditions were not ripe—it was unavoidable. Moreover, when the conditions in the Five Regions of India matured, the Buddha manifested his birth. Initially, he taught the \*Avataṃsaka Sūtra\*, but even those present at the assembly remained deaf and blind. He then had to teach the \*Āgamas\* as a gradual beginning and establish the precepts and good deeds for humans and gods as a preliminary method. The conditions in this land were thousands of years away—even if the Buddha had taught transcendent teachings, who would have believed them? Therefore, through their expedient wisdom, the sages manifested as ordinary beings or followers of other paths. Even the Confucian classics occasionally reveal subtle mysteries, but later Confucians failed to recognize them, and even Confucius's disciples did not understand them. Hence, Confucius sighed again: "Yan Hui loved learning—now he is gone." This deeply shows that those below Zengzi only knew the traces but not the origin, only the expedients but not the true essence. What are these revealed subtle mysteries? For example, the \*Xici Commentary\* to the \*Yijing\* states: "The Yi has the Supreme Ultimate. This generates the Two Modes. The Two Modes generate the Four Symbols. The Four Symbols generate the Eight Trigrams." This statement deserves careful consideration. Since it says "the Yi has the Supreme Ultimate," then the Supreme Ultimate is something that pertains to the Yi. Ultimately, what is the Yi, which possesses this Supreme Ultimate? If we take the hexagrams and words as the Yi, it should say "the Supreme Ultimate generates Heaven and Earth, and Heaven and Earth generate the myriad things. Then Fu Xi drew hexagrams based on this, and King Wen and the Duke of Zhou appended words." Why does it instead say "the Yi has the Supreme Ultimate"? The Yi has the Supreme Ultimate, so the principle of the Yi certainly exists before the Supreme Ultimate. If this is not the original Buddha-nature, what else could it be? Since the original Buddha-nature exists even before the Supreme Ultimate, how can we casually say that it is bestowed by Heaven? However, the text does not explicitly state that it is the mind's self-nature; it only uses the term "Yi." This is because ordinary beings have long been attached to the four elements as their physical bodies and the reflections of the six sense-objects as their minds. They can by no means comprehend this matter. Therefore, through skillful expedients (\*upāya\*), a subtle indication was given. One should know that the Yi is the nature of Suchness, possessing the meanings of "unchanging yet according with conditions" and "according with conditions yet unchanging." It is secretly called "Yi." This Suchness has only the nature of virtues, not cultivated virtues. Hence, it does not abide in its self-nature, ignorance arises, and there is \*avidyā\*. This beginningless, abiding ground of ignorance is precisely the root of two kinds of birth and death. It is secretly called the "Supreme Ultimate." Due to the illumination of understanding, an object is established. Obscurity becomes space. The wind wheel that arises from mutual dependence and agitation corresponds to "movement generating yang." The solid metal wheel established through fixing and obstructions corresponds to "stillness generating yin." The rubbing of wind and metal produces fire-light. The moisture from brilliance generates the water wheel beneath—this corresponds to "the Two Modes generate the Four Symbols." Fire rises, water descends, interacting to create solid forms—seas, continents, mountains, and trees—this corresponds to "the Four Symbols generate the Eight Trigrams" and then the myriad things. The names differ slightly, but the general meaning is remarkably similar. Following this flow leads to the beginning of birth and death; reversing it leads to the cessation of the cycle. Hence, the \*Yijing\* also says, "The Yi is a reverse counting." This is already a subtle indication of the essential teaching of transcendence. Laozi's statement "the Dao generates Heaven and Earth" is similar in meaning, but he also does not explicitly state that it is the mind's self-nature, all because the conditions were not yet ripe. Furthermore, the phrase in the \*Yijing\* commentary, "Serene and unmoving, yet when stimulated, it penetrates," refers to the essence of stillness and illumination as non-dual. The phrase "The \*qian\* and \*kun\* are the gate of the Yi" indicates the gate of the flow and return—the two cultivations of reversal and accord. The essence of nature's illumination is wonderfully bright; the fundamental illumination is marvelously bright. It is not a matter of cultivation and realization, nor does it pertain to delusion or enlightenment. In delusion, the illuminating essence scatters, and the still essence darkens, turning against nirvāṇa and following the path of samsara. This all depends on the two gates of movement and stillness, called "reverse cultivation" or "cultivation of evil." In enlightenment, one uses movement to awaken from dullness, called "contemplation," and uses stillness to focus scattering, called "cessation." One turns against the stream of samsara and follows the ocean of nirvāṇa, also through these two gates of movement and stillness, called "accordant cultivation" or "cultivation of goodness." Although cultivation has reversal and accord, the nature has no increase or decrease. Although good and evil both originate from the nature, the path inevitably leads to ascent or descent. Such profound secrets—how could they differ from the Perfect Teaching? That the bodhisattvas appear as these sages is certainly not a false claim. The failure to contemplate this thoroughly is the fault of later Confucians. Now that we understand the secret and subtle talks of Confucius, combined with the marvelous purport of the \*Lotus Sūtra\*, we can interpret the \*Doctrine of the Mean\* itself according to the Perfect and Sudden Teaching. "What Heaven decrees is called nature" — "Heaven" here does not refer to the blue sky above, nor to the Trāyastriṃśa or Yāma heavens, but to the "First Principle Heaven" of the \*Nirvāṇa Sūtra\*. "Decree" is not the interpretation of a command, but the deluded grasping of the eighth consciousness that continuously holds the physical body together. It refers to the combination of the conditioned and the unconditioned that forms the \*ālaya\* consciousness. This consciousness is the nature of birth, where the whole truth arises as delusion, hence "Heaven is called decree." In terms of the whole delusion being truth, "decree is also called Heaven." The whole truth arising as delusion is "unchanging yet according with conditions"; the whole delusion being truth is "according with conditions yet unchanging." "Following nature is called the Dao"—this treasury of the nature contains all seeds, both pure and impure, good and evil. If one follows the seeds of impurity and evil to manifest activity, this is the path of the petty person, also called "reverse cultivation." If one follows the seeds of purity and goodness to manifest activity, this is the path of the superior person, also called "accordant cultivation." There are only two paths: benevolence and non-benevolence—this perfectly matches this meaning and also accords with the Tiantai teaching on the nature's inclusion of both. "Cultivating the Dao is called teaching"—the path of the petty person is to be cultivated and eradicated; the path of the superior person is to be cultivated and perfected. This is the teaching of sages and worthies, only wanting people to turn from reverse cultivation to accordant cultivation, to realize the "unchanging" within "according with conditions." If these three sentences are integrated, the head is correct and the tail is correct—every single word and letter can be traced back to the ultimate principle. In summary, if one attains the revealing purport of the \*Lotus Sūtra\*, even worldly speech, productive work, and business, even jokes, anger, and romantic songs, accord with the true form of the correct Dharma—how much more so do the talks on worldly principle? However, this is Zhixu's \*Doctrine of the Mean\*, not Zisi's \*Doctrine of the Mean\*. When the Chan master Dahui Zonggao interpreted these three sentences as the three bodies (Dharmakāya, Sambhogakāya, and Nirmāṇakāya), that was merely Zonggao's \*Doctrine of the Mean\*. If Zisi had actually known the \*Doctrine of the Mean\* as understood by Zonggao and Zhixu, then Confucius would have immediately endorsed him. Why then, when Yan Hui died, did Confucius grieve deeply, declare that Heaven was destroying him, and lament again, "Now he is gone—there is none left?" Earlier, Mencius narrated the lineage of those who saw and knew the Way, concluding, "Yet there is none at present—and so there will be none." Mencius would not even consider Zengzi and Zisi as "those who saw and knew," let alone Confucius. The transmission of "one pervading all" was merely a true indication of venerating the virtuous nature through real inquiry and learning. It was the method of beginning the practice, not the final arrival at the goal. Moreover, it was the "one" of principled teaching within the provisional traces, not the "one" of the true essence within the fundamental level. Now, if we consider the original intention of the three sages in establishing their teachings, we can directly say they are the same, because all of them are "employing expedients for the sake of the true." If we consider the gateways of their teachings' establishments, we can directly say they are different, because Confucianism and Daoism only teach principled expedients, and are limited to humans and gods, while Buddhism teaches both expedient and true principles, and is transcendent. From the perspective of expedients, their efforts are the same, but their arrival at the goal differs—we can say they are both the same and different. From the perspective of the true essence, the fundamental does not impair the traces, nor do the traces obscure the fundamental—we can say they are neither the same nor different. The Chan master Xinggu Shou said: "For those outside the gate, speak of sameness, otherwise they will think it is a heterodox teaching. For those entering the gate, speak of difference, otherwise they will cling to their old habits. For those who have ascended the hall, speak of both sameness and difference, because their understanding of principle is not yet precise and requires detailed analysis to recognize that sameness contains difference and difference contains sameness. For those who have entered the inner chamber, speak of neither sameness nor difference, because coarse talk and subtle words are all the ultimate truth—how can there be anything to discuss about Confucianism and Buddhism?" This statement is correct, as its sequence accords with the four modes of \*siddhānta\* (teaching according to individual capacity). However, if we examine the skillful means of teaching in detail, each of these four statements includes all four \*siddhānta\*. Moreover, it is crucial to skillfully apply them according to the occasion and not to cling rigidly to this statement as a fixed principle.

## 靈峰蕅益大師宗論卷第三之二

> Chapter 3, Part 2 of the Collected Writings of Master Ouyi of Lingfeng

## 靈峰蕅益大師宗論卷第三之三

> Master Ou Yi's Treatise, Volume 3, Part 3