---
title: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論 · 儒釋宗傳竊議"
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/cmgn46hxh0o8lk104lntme0p6"
---

### 儒釋宗傳竊議有序

> On the Transmission of the Confucian and Buddhist Traditions<note place="inline">With Preface</note>

大道之在人心，古今唯此一理，非佛祖聖賢所得私也。統乎至異，匯乎至同，非儒、釋、老所能局也。剋實論之，道非世閒，非出世閒，而以道入真，則名出世；以道入俗，則名世閒。真與俗，皆跡也，跡不離道，而執跡以言道，則道隱。故曰：「形而上者謂之道，形而下者謂之器。」又曰：「君子上達，小人下達。」嗚呼！今之求道於跡者，烏能下學而上達，直明心性，迥超異同窠臼也？夫嘗試言之。道無一，安得執一以為道？道無三，安得分三教以求道？特以真俗之跡，姑妄擬焉，則儒與老，皆乘真以御俗，令俗不逆真者也；釋乃即俗以明真，真不混俗者也。故儒與老主治世，而密為出世階；釋主出世，而明為世閒祐。至於內丹、外丹，本非老氏宗旨，不足辯。然則，言儒，而老與孔皆在其中矣；言釋，而禪與教皆在其中矣。故但云儒釋宗傳竊議。

> The Great Way exists within the human mind—this truth has never changed from ancient times to the present. It is not something that saints or Buddhas can keep to themselves. The Way unites all that is diverse and brings all that is different into harmony; it cannot be confined to Confucianism, Buddhism, or Daoism alone. To speak precisely: the Way is neither worldly nor otherworldly. Yet if one uses the Way to enter truth, it is called "transcending the world"; if one uses the Way to engage with everyday life, it is called "being in the world." Both "truth" and "convention" are just manifestations. Manifestations do not exist apart from the Way, but if you cling to the manifestations and speak of the Way through them alone, the Way becomes hidden. Hence it is said: "What is formless and above is called the Way; what is concrete and below is called the vessel." It is also said: "The noble person ascends to the subtle, the petty person descends to the coarse." Alas! Those who seek the Way through its manifestations today—how can they ever learn the basics and rise to the highest understanding? How can they directly realize the true nature of mind and transcend all categories of "same" and "different"? Let me try to explain. The Way has no "oneness"—so how can you seize upon one thing and call it the Way? The Way has no "threeness"—so how can you split it into three teachings and seek it that way? Yet, based on the manifestations of truth and convention, I will speak provisionally: Confucianism and Daoism both ride on truth to guide worldly life, ensuring that the worldly does not reject the true. Buddhism, on the other hand, uses worldly life to illuminate truth, ensuring that truth is not confused with the worldly. Therefore, Confucianism and Daoism mainly govern society, yet secretly serve as steps toward transcendence; Buddhism mainly aims at transcendence, yet clearly serves as a blessing to the world. As for so-called "inner alchemy" or "outer alchemy," these are not the original intent of the Daoist tradition and not worth debating. That said: when we speak of Confucianism, both Laozi and Confucius are included within it; when we speak of Buddhism, both Chan and doctrinal schools are included within it. This is why I call this work "A Private Discussion on the Confucian and Buddhist Traditions."

儒之於道學也久矣，上古無文字，無可徵，可徵始於堯、舜。堯允執厥中，舜危微精一，皆心外無法，故天地賴以位，萬物賴以育，貫徹古今萬世，不能踰其道也。嗣禹，皋陶之見知，湯之聞知，不過還知此心此理而已。知之則近見亦可，遠聞亦可，不以遠近為親疏也。乃韓愈云：「堯以是傳之舜，舜以是傳之禹。」嗟嗟！是何物也，可互相傳乎？譬諸射樹，的而專注之，先有巧力者先中，後有巧力者後中，或在同時，或在異世，貴各中的而已矣。的非可傳也，巧非可傳也，力非可傳也，謂之曰見知聞知則可，謂以是相傳可乎哉？

> Confucianism has long studied the Way. In ancient times, before written records existed, there was nothing to verify. Verifiable evidence begins with Yao and Shun. Yao upheld "holding fast to the Mean," while Shun spoke of "the subtle, perilous mind, refined and unified." Neither placed anything beyond the mind; Heaven and Earth depended on this for their order, and all things relied on it for their growth. This principle pervades all ages, and no era can surpass it. Later, Yu, Gao Yao, Tang—those who understood through direct encounter or through hearing—simply recognized this same mind and this same principle. Once understood, whether one encounters it nearby or hears of it from afar, distance does not determine closeness or estrangement. But Han Yu said, "Yao passed this to Shun, and Shun passed this to Yu." Oh! What kind of thing is this, that can be passed on? It's like shooting at a tree or a target with focused intention. Those with superior skill and strength hit first; those with lesser talent hit later. Some may hit simultaneously, others in different times—the important thing is that each one hits the mark. The target cannot be passed along; skill cannot be transmitted; power cannot be transferred. We may speak of "knowing through encounter" or "knowing through hearsay," but can we truly speak of it as something handed down?

見知不唯禹、皋也，凡稷，契，伯益等皆見而知之者也。聞知不唯湯也，伊尹耕於有莘之野，樂堯、舜之道，則於湯為見知，於堯、舜、禹等亦為聞而知之者也。

> Those who saw and knew were not only Yu and Gao, but also Ji, Qi, Boyi, and others who saw and knew them directly. Those who heard and knew were not only Tang. When Yi Yin plowed the fields of Youshen, delighting in the Way of Yao and Shun, he was someone who saw and knew Tang, but also heard and knew Yao, Shun, Yu, and the rest.

文王既沒，武周又逝，柱下史聞而知之。孔子問禮，歎為猶龍，則於老聃又為見而知之，門人推崇厥師，不復齒及老氏，孟子亦蹈其舊轍耳。

> After King Wen passed away and King Wu and the Duke of Zhou departed, the Historian of the Pillar (Laozi) heard of the Way and understood it. Confucius, when inquiring about rituals, sighed and compared Laozi to a dragon. Thus, Confucius personally knew and understood Laozi's teachings. But Confucius's disciples revered their own master so highly that they no longer mentioned Laozi. Mencius followed this same pattern as well.

顏於孔，誠見知也，但繼孔學，又先孔亡，不同太公之於文王，伊尹之於湯，禹之於舜也，故孟子不言之。

> Confucius was a man of sincere and profound understanding. However, he continued the teachings of those before him and passed away even before Confucius himself. He was not like Grand Duke Wang to King Wen, Yi Yin to King Tang, or Yu to Shun. Therefore, Mencius did not speak of him.

顏淵死，子哭之慟，再歎今也則亡。故古人云：「顏子沒，而聖學亡。」非虛語也。孟子曰：「然而無有乎爾，則亦無有乎爾。」蓋亦不敢虛妄承當者歟？

> When Yan Hui died, the Master wept bitterly, lamenting again that such a person no longer existed. Thus the ancients said, "When Yan Hui passed away, the sage's teachings were lost." This was no empty statement. Mencius said, "Since there is no one like this anymore, then truly there is no one." Was this not an expression of his humble unwillingness to falsely claim such a legacy?

老氏之學，蓋公等得其少分以治漢，漢則大治。孔、孟之學，漢代絕響。

> The teachings of Laozi—figures like Lord Cao—grasped a small part of it and applied them to govern the Han dynasty, and the Han dynasty was greatly governed. As for the teachings of Confucius and Mencius, they had vanished during the Han dynasty.

北宋周濂溪《定性書》云「性者，剛柔善惡中而已矣。」《太極圖說》云「太極本無極也。」細玩二語，真得孔顏心法者也。後儒紛紛解釋，罕有知其語脈者。且云，《定性書》可以不作。噫，可哀矣！即及門之士，明道似曾子、子思，伊川似子夏而已。

> The Song dynasty scholar Zhou Dunyi said in his \*Treatise on Establishing Character\*: “Human nature is simply a matter of firmness, gentleness, goodness, evil, and the mean between them.” In his \*Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate\*, he said: “The Supreme Ultimate is fundamentally the Non-Ultimate.” If you carefully ponder these two statements, you will find they truly capture the essence of the teaching transmitted from Confucius to Yan Hui. Later scholars have offered myriad interpretations, yet few have grasped the underlying thread of meaning. Some even go so far as to say that the \*Treatise on Establishing Character\* need not have been written. Alas, how lamentable! Even among the direct disciples at his gate, the best we have is Cheng Hao, who is comparable to Zengzi and Zisi, and Cheng Yi, who is no more than a Zixia.

南宋陸象山，先立乎其大者，乃得孟氏心法者乎？然不信太極無極，展轉撥之，紫陽又展轉救之。吾觀撥者救者，皆非實知周子也。

> During the Southern Song dynasty, Lu Xiangshan prioritized establishing the great foundation, thereby grasping Mencius's method of the mind. However, he did not believe in the concepts of the Supreme Ultimate (Taiji) and the Non-Ultimate (Wuji), repeatedly refuting them. In response, Ziyang (Zhu Xi) repeatedly defended these concepts. As I see it, both the refuter and the defender did not truly understand Master Zhou (Zhou Dunyi).

王陽明龍場大悟，提致良知三字，為作聖真訣，雖曰顏子復生，不亦可乎？

> When Wang Yangming came to a great awakening at Longchang, he presented the three words "extending innate knowledge" as the true secret to becoming a sage. Even if we said Yan Hui had been reborn, would that not be fitting?

釋之於道學也，十方三世，無不徹也，此界此時，則始於釋迦，繼於迦葉、難陀等也。其在震旦，則遠公造《法性論》，羅什歎其未見佛經，能知佛理。北齊慧文大師，讀龍樹《中論》，悟圓頓心宗，二並可稱聞而知之。菩提達磨大師，受記東化，可稱見而知之。

> In the study of the Way, the teachings penetrate all realms across the ten directions and three times. In this world, during this era, they began with Shakyamuni, followed by Kashyapa and Nanda. In China, Master Huiyuan composed the \*Treatise on the Nature of Dharma\*, and Kumarajiva praised him for understanding Buddhist principles without having seen the sutras. During the Northern Qi dynasty, Master Huiwen read Nagarjuna's \*Middle Treatise\* and awakened to the perfect and sudden mind school—both can be called those who knew the truth through hearing. Bodhidharma, receiving a prophecy to teach in the East, can be called one who knew it through direct insight.

遠公後，凡修淨業得往生者，皆見知聞知之流類也。有人僅立蓮宗七祖，但約行化最專者耳。然四明尊者、慈雲懺主等，何嘗不以淨土行化。而智者大師《十疑論》，飛錫法師《寶王論》，天如禪師《淨土或問》，楚石禪師《懷淨土詩》，妙協法師《念佛直指》，尤於淨土法門有功。至若近世，則幽溪師《生無生論》，袁中郎《西方合論》，皆遠公之的裔也。

> After Master Huiyuan, all who cultivated Pure Land practices and achieved rebirth in the Pure Land belonged to the same tradition of those who witnessed, heard, and understood the path. Some people only established the Seven Patriarchs of the Pure Land tradition, focusing solely on those who were most specialized in teaching and transforming others. However, Masters Siming and Ciyun, among others, also taught and guided people through the Pure Land practice. Works such as \*Ten Doubts\* by Master Zhiyi, \*The King of Jewels Treatise\* by Master Feixi, \*Questions and Answers on the Pure Land\* by Master Tianru, \*Poems on Recollecting the Pure Land\* by Master Chushi, and \*Direct Pointers on Buddha Recitation\* by Master Miaoxie all brought great benefit to the Pure Land teaching. In more recent times, works such as \*The Treatise on Birth Without Birth\* by Master Youxi and \*The Western Commentary\* by Yuan Zhonglang are direct spiritual descendants of Master Huiyuan.

達磨傳至六祖，乃有南嶽、青原二甘露門，門似二，道無二也，二則毒藥，非甘露也。又數傳而為五宗，人有五，宗非五也，五則枝條，非宗本也。譬如阿耨達池，一水流為四河，歸於大海，河有四，水無四也。今不知池之一，不知水之一，不知海之一，獨從四河闊狹、曲直、遠近起見，互相是非，可謂智乎？

> From Bodhidharma to the Sixth Patriarch, there emerged the two gateways of sweetness: Nan-yue and Qing-yuan. Though they appear as two gates, the Way is not two. If there were two, that would be poison, not sweetness. Passed down further, they became the Five Houses. There are five people, but the tradition is not five. If there were five, they would be branches, not the root of the tradition. It is like the Anavatapta Lake: one single stream flows into four rivers, all returning to the great ocean. There are four rivers, but the water is not four. Today, people do not know the oneness of the lake, the oneness of the water, or the oneness of the ocean. They only cling to views about the width, narrowness, bends, straightness, or distance of the four rivers. They argue with each other, judging right and wrong. Can this be called wisdom?

繼北齊者，有南嶽思大師，出《大乘止觀法門》四卷，真圓頓心要也。次有天台顗大師，出三種《止觀》，《法華玄義》、《文句》，及《維摩》、《仁王》、《金光明》、《普門品》、《十六觀》等疏，於是教觀大備。歷五傳至荊溪，其道中興。又八傳至四明，道乃重振。此後裂為三家，漸式微矣。

> After the Northern Qi Dynasty, Master Nanyue (Huineng) of the Southern Mountain Tradition wrote the \*Great Vehicle Practice of Calming and Illumination\* in four volumes—a true and sudden direct mental instruction. Then Master Tiantai (Zhiyi) authored three kinds of \*Practice in Calming and Illumination\*, the \*Profound Meanings of the Lotus Sutra\* and its commentary, as well as commentaries on the \*Vimalakirti Sutra\*, the \*Sutra of Humane Kings\*, the \*Golden Light Sutra\*, the \*Universal Gate Chapter\*, and the \*Sixteen Meditations\*. With these works, the teachings and practices were fully established. After five transmissions, Master Jingxi revived the lineage. After another eight, Master Siming brought it back to prominence. Later, the tradition split into three branches, gradually declining in influence.

唐玄奘法師，遍遊天竺，學唯識宗於戒賢法師，盡其所知，旁搜其所未知，廣大精微，真彌勒、天親之子，釋迦文佛之遠孫也。慈恩基師，雖實繼之，然觀所撰《法華玄贊》，則靈山法道恐未全知，無怪乎《唯識》一書，本是破二執神劍，反流為名相之學，亦可悲矣。

> Master Xuanzang of Tang traveled throughout India, studying the Yogacara school under Master Shilabhadra. He thoroughly grasped all that was known in that tradition and extensively investigated what was unknown, achieving a knowledge that was vast, profound, and precise. He was truly a spiritual heir to Maitreya and Vasubandhu, a distant descendant of the Buddha himself. Though Master Kuiji of Ci'en Temple succeeded him, examining his \*Profound Commentary on the Lotus Sutra\* reveals he may not have fully understood the Dharma of Vulture Peak. It's no wonder that the Yogacara teachings—originally a sharp sword to cut through attachment to self and phenomena—devolved into a mere scholarly study of concepts. How lamentable this is.

賢首法藏國師，得武后為其門徒，聲名藉甚，疏晉譯《華嚴經》，經既未備，疏亦草略，故不復傳。所傳《起信論疏》，淺陋支離，甚失馬鳴大師宗旨，殊不足觀。方山李長者，有《新華嚴經論》，頗得大綱。清涼觀國師，復出疏鈔，綱目並舉，可謂登雜華之堂矣。後世緇素，往往獨喜方山，大抵是心粗氣浮故耳。不知清涼，雖遙嗣賢首，實青出於藍也。圭峰則是荷澤知見宗徒，支離矛盾，安能光顯清涼之道？

> National Teacher Fazang of the Xianshou tradition gained great renown after Empress Wu became his disciple. He wrote a commentary on the Jin Dynasty translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra, but since the sutra itself was incomplete, his commentary was also sketchy and has not been transmitted. His transmitted \*Awakening of Faith Commentary\* is shallow and disjointed, greatly missing the essence of Master Asvaghosa's teachings, and is hardly worth reading. Layman Li Tongxuan of Fangshan wrote \*A New Treatise on the Avatamsaka Sutra\*, which captures the general outline well. National Teacher Chengguan of Qingliang subsequently produced both a commentary and a sub-commentary, covering both the main points and details—truly a masterful work that enters the hall of the Avatamsaka's splendor. Later generations of monastics and laypeople often favor Li Tongxuan alone, generally due to their coarse minds and impatient temperaments. They fail to recognize that although Chengguan traces his lineage back to Fazang, he actually surpasses his predecessor. As for Guifeng Zongmi, he belongs to the intellectual lineage of Heze Shenhui; his teachings are disjointed and self-contradictory—how could they possibly illuminate Chengguan's path?

禪宗自楚石琦大師後，未聞其人也，庶幾紫柏老人乎。壽昌無明師，亦不愧古人風格。

> After Master Chushi Qi of the Chan sect, I haven't heard of anyone else who matched his caliber—perhaps Old Man Zibo came close. Master Wuming of Shouchang also lived up to the legacy of the ancients.

台宗絕響已久，百松覺公稱為鳴陽孤鳳，僅出《三千有門頌略解》，及《楞嚴百問》耳。幽溪繼之，一時稱盛，然《唯生無生論》，足稱完璧，而自所最得意《圓通疏》，殊為不滿人意，何哉？但能趺坐書空，作妙法蓮華經字，脫然西逝，則誠蓮華國裏人矣。

> The Tiantai school had fallen silent for a long time. Master Baishong Jue was called a "solitary phoenix at dawn" and produced only the \*Brief Explanation of the Verse on the Three Thousand Gates of Existence\* and the \*One Hundred Questions on the Shurangama Sutra\*. Master Youxi followed him, briefly reviving the school's prominence. His treatise \*The Doctrine of Only Suchness and No Creation\* was indeed a flawless work, yet his \*Complete Commentary on Perfect Penetration\*, the text he was most proud of, was nonetheless disappointing. Why was that? Still, it could be said that he sat in meditation, writing the characters of the \*Sutra of the Wonderful Lotus Flower\* in the air with his finger, and departed this life peacefully, facing the West—truly a person of the Lotus Land.

雲棲宏大師，極力主張淨土，讚戒、讚教、讚禪，痛斥口頭三昧，真救世菩薩也。憨山清大師，擴復曹溪祖庭，晚年掩關念佛，晝夜課六萬聲，故坐逝後，二十餘年，開龕視之，全身不散，遂與六祖同留肉身，人天瞻仰，得非蓮宗列祖乎？

> Master Hong of Yunqi Monastery was a strong advocate of the Pure Land path. He praised the precepts, praised the teachings, and praised Chan meditation, while vigorously condemning mere intellectual understanding without real practice. He was truly a bodhisattva who came to save the world. Master Hanshan Qing restored the ancestral Caoxi Monastery. In his later years, he entered retreat and chanted the Buddha's name in seclusion, reciting sixty thousand times daily, both day and night. After he passed away while sitting in meditation, more than twenty years later, when his shrine was opened, his whole body remained intact. Thus, his physical remains were preserved alongside those of the Sixth Patriarch, revered by both gods and humans. Could he not be considered one of the patriarchs of the Pure Land tradition?

或曰：佛祖之道，必師資授受，方有的據，否則法嗣未詳，終難取信。無名子應之曰：譬諸世主，桀非傳自大禹，紂非傳自成湯者乎？身苟無道，天子而不若匹夫矣。今之雖有師承，顛覆如來教戒者，何以異此？漢之高祖，明之太祖，並起草莽，誰授以帝位乎？苟得其道，匹夫而竟開大統矣。今之雖乏師承，能自契合佛祖心印者，亦奚不然？必如子論，是但許有見而知之，不許有聞而知之者矣，可乎哉？且子又不聞，有師資具足，皆不足齒及者乎？譬如俳優及相搏者，豈無師資授受，然不過戲劇及鬥諍法耳。吾故曰：執跡以言道，則道隱，譬諸射者，期各中的焉耳。十方三世，唯此一的，常住不變，何俟於傳？巧之與力，存乎其人，父不能得之子，子不能得之父，有何所傳？或見而知之，或聞而知之，及其知之一也，正知其不可傳者也。謂有可傳，則不至於戲劇鬥諍不止，非佛祖聖賢之道也已。

> Someone said: "The Buddha's Way must be passed down from teacher to disciple to have authentic proof; otherwise, if the lineage is unclear, it's hard to gain trust." The Nameless One replied: "Consider worldly rulers: was the tyrant Jie descended from the great Yu? Was the tyrant Zhou from the sage-king Cheng Tang? If a ruler himself lacks virtue, even an emperor is no better than a commoner. How is this different from those today who, despite having a teacher-student lineage, betray the Buddha's teachings? Think of Han Gaozu and Ming Taizu—both rose from humble origins. Who bestowed the throne on them? If they grasped the Way, commoners could found a dynasty. Likewise, today, those who lack a direct lineage but spontaneously align with the Buddha's heart-seal are no different. According to your reasoning, you only allow those who have \*seen\* the Way to know it, not those who have \*heard\* of it—can that be right? Moreover, haven't you heard that there are teachers and disciples both \*seemingly\* complete yet utterly unworthy of mention? Consider actors and wrestlers—they certainly have teacher-disciple transmissions, but those are merely games and fights. Thus I say: if you cling to outward forms to speak of the Way, the Way becomes hidden. It's like archers—each aims to hit the target. Across all directions and ages, there is only this one target, everlasting and unchanging. What need is there for 'transmission'? Skill and strength lie in the individual; a father cannot pass them to his son, nor a son to his father. What is there to transmit? Whether one knows the Way through seeing or through hearing, when they truly \*know\* it, it is the same—and precisely this knowing is what cannot be transmitted. To claim it can be transmitted leads nowhere but to games and fights—that is not the Way of the Buddhas and Sages."