---
title: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論 · 法派稱呼辯"
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/cmgn46hxh0o8jk104nwjv64c1"
---

### 法派稱呼辯

> Debate on Dharma Lineage Titles

客問蕅益子曰：出家法派，族姓宗譜也。子為不然，何邪？荅曰：世閒至親，莫如滴血；出世至親，莫如法道。法道本離名相，豈以名字為派哉？佛雖曰：「四河入海，皆失本名，四姓出家，同稱釋子。」此但一其姓耳，豈必更一其名？是故憍陳如，大迦葉，目犍連等，皆俗氏也，阿難陀，莎伽陀，阿那律等，皆俗名也。出家證果，當時咸以此稱之，後世亦以此傳之。然則別命法名，已非律制矣，況法派乎。其在東土，五祖下出二人，南曰惠能，北曰神秀，馬祖下出三人，西堂曰智藏，百丈曰懷海，南泉曰普願。且南嶽既名懷讓，百丈為其嫡孫，未嘗避之，宗門果有派乎？北齊師也，南嶽徒也，師名慧文，徒名慧思？慈雲、四明，同師寶雲，一名遵式，一名知禮，天台果有派乎？又宗門有大本小本，天台有大威小威，法名果足論乎？降而近世，雖法派之說已行，高尚者猶然弗屑。如密藏名道開，介山名傳如，對峰名真弘，澹居名法鎧，寒灰名如奇，皆不失為紫柏弟子，善知識果有派乎？巢松名慧浸，一雨名通潤，蘊璞名如愚，皆不失為雪浪弟子，法師果有派乎？惟其道無足傳，法無足授，不知戒律之當尊，不知紹繼之正務，為師者但貪眷屬，為徒者專附勢利，遂以虛名互相羈繫，師資實義埽地矣，豈不痛哉！客曰：法派之非，既聞命矣，法門兄弟，緇素無閒邪？荅曰：同門列為兄弟，豈惟不知出世法，亦不知世法者也。且如公卿也，百寮也，胥吏也，萬民也，皆天子臣庶也。然百寮不得呼公卿為兄弟，乃至萬民不得呼吏胥為兄弟，何也？分異故也。佛法亦爾，比丘之法，多已十夏者，為與和尚等，多已五夏者，為阿闍黎等。比丘尼之奉八敬法也，雖百夏，禮初學比丘足。夫比丘尼已入僧寶數，特以比丘為上眾，尼為下眾，其禮數懸絕如此，況式叉摩那但學法，未預眾僧法事者乎？又況沙彌，沙彌尼，但同僧利養，未入僧數者乎？欲稱比丘為兄弟，何異有司稱宰輔為兄弟也？又況優婆塞等，并無僧相，不得同僧利養者乎？欲稱沙彌為兄弟，何異民庶稱有司為兄弟也？且佛之初出世也，提謂長者，先受五戒，稱佛為師矣。五比丘後方師佛，提謂非兄，五比丘非弟乎？乃佛之授與三歸也，則曰：「歸依未來僧。」是不惟不敢以五比丘為弟，并不敢以五比丘為兄，以其歸依僧，則一切僧皆我師也，乃至最後須跋陀羅，亦我師也。今世俗士，擇一名德比丘禮事之，竊竊然矜曰：「吾某知識，某法師門人也。」彼知識法師者，亦竊竊然矜曰：「彼某居士，某宰官，歸依於我者也。」噫！果若此，則應曰，歸依佛，歸依法，結交一大德可也，可云歸依僧也與哉？須達多之初聞佛名，夜趨見佛也，甫聞說法，即證三果，已入勝義僧寶數矣。既而造精舍於祇桓，供佛及僧。凡新出家未知佛法者，須達多日為教授，必禮出家人足已，然後說法，寧惟不敢以教授師自居，不敢以兄自居，并不敢以弟自居，而兄視新出家人也。羅睺羅之出家也，以舍利弗為和尚，均提之出家也，亦以舍利弗為和尚，羅睺為比丘，均提尚為沙彌，不聞其稱羅睺為兄也。則住持二寶之體最嚴，亦猶朝廷之禮故也。朝廷無禮法，上下不辨，而天下亂；佛法無律儀，七眾不辨，而化道絕。可弗辯乎？

> A guest asked Master Ouyi: "Monastic Dharma lineages and clan genealogies—don't you approve of them? Why is that?" I replied: "In the worldly realm, the closest bond is blood relation. In the transcendent realm, the closest bond is the Dharma path. The Dharma path is fundamentally free of names and forms—why should it be bound by names as its lineage? Though the Buddha said, 'The four rivers, upon entering the sea, all lose their former names; the four castes, upon leaving home, are all equally called Shākyamuni's disciples,' this only unifies their surname—why must their given names also be unified? Thus, men like Kauṇḍinya, Mahākāśyapa, and Maudgalyāyana all retained their worldly surnames; Ānanda, Śakāditya, and Aniruddha all kept their worldly given names. After they left home and realized enlightenment, they were called by these names in their own time, and later generations passed them down likewise. To assign a separate 'Dharma name' already deviates from monastic regulations—how much more so a 'Dharma lineage'? "In China, the Fifth Patriarch had two successors: Huineng in the south and Shenxiu in the north. Mazu had three successors: Xitang (Zhizang), Baizhang (Huaihai), and Nanquan (Puyuan). Moreover, Nanyue was named Huairang, and Baizhang was his direct Dharma grandson—no one thought to avoid this. Did the Chan school truly have a lineage? Master Huìwen was the teacher of Nanyue (Huisi), yet their names shared no artificial pattern. Ciyun and Siming both studied under Baoyun; one was called Zunshi, the other Zhili. Did the Tiantai school truly have a lineage? Further, in Chan there were 'Daben' and 'Xiaoben'; in Tiantai, 'Dawei' and 'Xiaowei'—proving that a Dharma name is not worth dwelling upon. "In recent times, though the practice of Dharma lineages has spread, noble-minded people still disdain it. For example, Mizang (Daokai), Jieshan (Chuanru), Duifeng (Zhenhong), Danju (Fakai), and Hanhui (Ruqi) were all disciples of Zibo—did their true teacher depend on a lineage? Chao Song (Huijin), Yiyu (Tongrun), and Yunpu (Ruyu) were all disciples of Xuelang—did their Dharma master depend on a lineage? The problem arises when the teacher has no real Dharma to transmit, knows nothing of the precepts to be honored, and neglects the proper duty of carrying on the tradition. Such teachers merely covet followers; such disciples merely cling to status and profit. They bind each other with hollow names, while the true meaning of teacher-student relationship is trampled into the dust. Is this not painful?" The guest asked: "I have now accepted that Dharma lineages are wrong. But what about fellow disciples in the Dharma—should there be no distinction between monastics and laypeople?" I replied: "To call those of the same gate 'brothers' shows ignorance not only of the transcendent Dharma, but even of worldly principles. Consider: officials, ministers, clerks, and commoners are all subjects of the emperor. Yet ministers do not call clerks 'brothers,' and commoners do not call officials 'brothers.' Why? Because their stations differ. The same is true in the Buddha's Dharma. According to monastic law, a monk who has completed more than ten rainy seasons is on a level with his preceptor; a monk who has completed more than five rainy seasons is on a level with his teacher. A nun, even after a hundred rainy seasons, must bow to a novice monk upon ordination. Though nuns belong to the jewel of the Sangha, monks are the superior order and nuns the inferior—the disparity in protocol is this extreme. How much more so with a female trainee (śikṣamāṇā), who studies the rules but does not participate in Sangha affairs? Still more so with male and female novices (śrāmaṇera and śrāmaṇerī), who share in the Sangha's material support but are not counted among the Sangha? To call a monk 'brother' is as absurd as a clerk calling a prime minister 'brother.' And what of laymen (upāsaka), who lack monastic marks entirely and do not share in the Sangha's support? To call a novice 'brother' is as absurd as a commoner calling an official 'brother.' "Moreover, when the Buddha first appeared in the world, the elder Trapuṣa received the five precepts first, taking the Buddha as his teacher. The five monks took the Buddha as their teacher later. Was Trapuṣa not the elder brother, and the five monks not the younger brothers? Yet when the Buddha bestowed the Three Refuges, he said, 'Take refuge in the future Sangha.' He thus did not dare treat the five monks as younger brothers, nor did he dare treat them as elder brothers—because taking refuge in the Sangma means all monastics are my teachers. Even the last person, Subhadra, is my teacher. Today, worldly men select a virtuous monk to serve, and whisper proudly, 'I am a disciple of a certain master, a certain Dharma teacher.' That 'master' or 'Dharma teacher' likewise whispers proudly, 'That layman or official has taken refuge with me.' Tsk! If this is the case, they should say, 'I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Dharma, and I have made friends with a great virtuous one.' But can this be called 'taking refuge in the Sangha'? "When Anāthapiṇḍada first heard the Buddha's name, he rushed to see him at night. As soon as he heard the Dharma, he realized the third fruit of attainment and was counted among the noble Sangha. Later, he built the Jetavana monastery for the Buddha and the Sangha. Whenever newly ordained monks were ignorant of the Dharma, Anāthapiṇḍada would teach them daily. Yet he always bowed to the monastics before teaching. He never presumed to act as their teacher, never presumed to act as their elder brother, nor even dared to act as their younger brother—nor did he view the new monks as elder brothers. Rāhula, when he left home, took Śāriputra as his preceptor. Upaka also took Śāriputra as his preceptor when he left home. Rāhula was a monk, Upaka was still a novice, yet we never hear of Upaka calling Rāhula 'elder brother.' This shows that the distinction between the two jewels—the Buddha-realm and the Sangha-realm—is extremely strict, just like the rites of an imperial court. If imperial courts lose ritual and law, then higher and lower become indistinguishable, and the world falls into chaos. If the Buddha's Dharma loses discipline and rules, then the seven assemblies become indistinguishable, and the path of transformation is cut off. How can we fail to distinguish between them?"