---
title: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論 · 藏性解難五則"
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/cmgn46fpf0npok104aeju066n"
---

### 藏性解難五則

> Five Cases Resolving the Treasury-Nature

隨緣那名不變，不變那得隨緣？一難非不變之體，安有隨緣之用？非隨緣之用，安顯不變之體？一解

> If one follows conditions, the nature is not unchanging; if it is unchanging, how can it follow conditions?<note place="inline">First Challenge</note>Without an unchanging essence, how could there be a function that follows conditions? Without a function that follows conditions, how could the unchanging essence be revealed?<note place="inline">First Explanation</note>

不變體常，隨緣用無常，還是一分無常，一分常？二難體不變故，妙用不變，體常用亦常；用隨緣故，舉體隨緣，用無常，體亦無常。常與無常，二鳥雙遊。二解

> The fundamental essence remains constant, yet as it adapts to conditions, its manifestations are impermanent. So is it partly impermanent and partly permanent? Since the essence does not change, its wondrous functions also do not change; thus both essence and function are permanent. And because functions follow conditions, the entire essence goes along with conditions—so functions are impermanent, and the essence is also impermanent. Permanence and impermanence: two birds flying together.

正隨緣時，不變安在？悟不變後，豈更隨緣？三難正隨緣，隨緣即不變，別無不變所在，如二月外無真月，二月即是真月。悟不變，不變隨悟緣，了了常無迷惑，如淨眼見真月，更不見二月。三解

> When we are truly going with the flow, where is the unchanging nature? After realizing the unchanging nature, does one still need to go with the flow? <note place="inline">Three Doubts</note> When truly going with the flow, the flow itself is the unchanging—there is no separate unchanging place to be found, just as there is no real moon apart from the two moons; the two moons are themselves the real moon. After realizing the unchanging, the unchanging goes with the flow of awakening, always clear and without confusion, just as a clear eye sees the real moon and no longer sees two moons. <note place="inline">Three Solutions</note>

月是能隨邪？見是所隨邪？四難就月為喻，真月不變，一二皆隨緣。真月隨人，見一見二，不變常自隨緣。見一見二，實無他月，隨緣常自不變，就見為論，見性不變，見一見二皆隨緣，見一是真見，見二是妄見。只一見體，而有真妄，不變常隨緣，真見妄見，總是見，隨緣常不變。四解

> Is the moon that which follows in error? Or is seeing that which follows in error? <note place="inline">Four Difficulties</note> Take the moon as a metaphor. The true moon does not change, while seeing it as one or two both occur according to conditions. The true moon follows each person, appearing as one or two, yet its unchanging nature always adapts to conditions. Whether seen as one or two, there is truly no other moon; as it adapts to conditions, it always remains unchanged. From the perspective of seeing, the nature of seeing does not change, though seeing one or two both happen according to conditions. Seeing one is true seeing; seeing two is false seeing. There is just one essence of seeing, yet it encompasses both truth and falsity. The unchanging always adapts to conditions; true seeing and false seeing—both are still seeing. As it adapts to conditions, it constantly remains unchanged. <note place="inline">Four Explanations</note>

月是能隨，即是所見，見是能見，即是所隨，名不二邪？五難此非不二。須知月不在天，見不在目。月在天，見在目，二物相遠，如何成見？又復月不來目，見不往天，月來目，天則無月，見往天，目則無見。然非月何見？非見何月？月若是見，復何名月？月若非見，云何見月？見若是月，復何名見？見若非月，月云何見？從此體會，方知能所不二。不二之性，即是不變。迷者謂二，悟知不二，總號隨緣，一性隨迷悟兩緣，迷悟總不改一性也。五解

> The moon is that which is followed, and thus is the perceived object. Seeing is that which perceives, and thus is that which follows. So is this not non-duality? <note place="inline">Fifth Difficulty</note> This is not non-duality. You must understand: the moon is not in the sky, and seeing is not in the eye. If the moon were in the sky and seeing in the eye, the two are far apart—how could seeing occur? Furthermore, the moon does not come into the eye, nor does seeing go to the sky. If the moon came into the eye, then the sky would have no moon. If seeing went to the sky, then the eye would have no seeing. Yet without the moon, what would there be to see? And without seeing, what would the moon be? If the moon were identical to seeing, what would we call "moon"? If the moon were not identical to seeing, how could we see the moon? If seeing were identical to the moon, what would we call "seeing"? If seeing were not identical to the moon, how could the moon be seen? Only by contemplating this can you realize that subject and object are not two. The nature of non-duality is precisely the unchanging. The deluded see duality; the enlightened know non-duality. All of this is called "following conditions." The single nature follows two conditions—delusion and enlightenment— Yet both delusion and enlightenment never alter the single nature. <note place="inline">Fifth Explanation</note>

## 靈峰蕅益大師宗論卷第四之三終

> Master Ou Yi's Treatise from Lingfeng, Volume 4, Part 3<note place="inline">End</note>