---
title: "靈峰蕅益大師宗論 · 裂網疏自序"
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/cmgn46k3s0opmk104crcsn6b1"
---

### 裂網疏自序

> Preface to the Commentary on "Shattering the Net"

佛祖之道，以心傳心，菩薩造論通經，亦唯此一大事。故云「十方諦求，更無餘乘。」縱曲為群機，從實施權，說種種道，如三草二木，受潤不同，而能潤之雨，原只一味。故云「如食石蜜，中邊皆甜。」又云「粗言及細語，皆歸第一義。」豈應封文失旨，橫執名相，剖判虛空也哉？且如彌勒世尊，跡居補處，本必難思，無著、天親，既是龍華輔弼，與文殊、普賢何異？至馬鳴、龍樹，並金口授記，傳佛心宗，其所著述，定不互相乖異。乃後世講師，輒妄判曰：天親《識論》，立相始教；龍樹《中論》，破相始教；馬鳴《起信》，終教兼頓，並未是圓。嗚呼！其亦不思甚矣。夫天親宗《瑜伽》，而立唯識，先以唯識破我法二執，次明識亦如幻，非真實有，故亦名破色心論。目之為立相教，可乎？龍樹依甚深般若，遍蕩四性情執，以顯法性。故曰「欲具足一切佛法者，當學般若。」又曰「若以無此空，一切無所作，以有空義故，一切皆得成。」目之為破相教，可乎？馬鳴以一心真如門，顯甚深般若，隨智說；以一心生滅門，顯瑜伽八識，隨情說。真如即一真法界，統事理而泯絕事理者也；生滅即全理所成之事，全事無性之理也。二門不離一心，無一生滅非全體真如，無一真如不全具生滅，即事事無礙法界也。謂其不同《唯識》、《中論》，仍非圓極一乘，可乎？況經論中，並謂真如與一切法，如水與波，不一不異，誠證具在，何容偏執？蓋若言定一，則真如不生滅，應一切法亦不生滅，或一切法生滅，應真如亦生滅，固不可。若言定異，則真如非即一切法之實性，應在一切法外別有方隅，不常不遍，尤為不可。故《起信》謂真如受熏者，譬觸波時，即觸於水，所以破定異之執，初未嘗言真如隨熏轉變也。《唯識》謂真如不受熏者，譬波動時，溼性不動，所以破定一之執，初未嘗言別有凝然真如也。《唯識論》云「不同餘宗，離色心等有實常法名曰真如。」又云「真如，即是唯識實性。」明文彰灼若此。後人乃以凝然真如，誣謗唯識，罪何如哉！然則，《唯識》所謂「真故相無別」，即《起信》一心真如門也；「俗故相有別」，即起信一心生滅門也。《楞伽經》云「諸識有三種相，謂轉相，業相，真相。」《宗鏡》釋云「起心名轉，八俱起故，皆有生滅，故名轉相。動則是業，八識皆動，盡名業相。八之真性，盡名真相。」由此觀之，《起信》、《唯識》，皆宗《楞伽》，明矣。宗本既同，則諸名義自不相違。註疏家不能以義定名，漫爾依名定義，致令二論乖同水火，可不哀哉！此《大乘起信論》，藏有二本，唐本更文顯義順，舊既流通梁本，私心弗敢自專，敬以鬮決於佛，拈得宜解唐本，遂殫一隙微明，剖盡兩宗迷執。門人成時，請名為《裂網疏》。

> The path of the Buddhas is transmitted from mind to mind. When bodhisattvas compose treatises or explain sutras, it is solely for this one great matter. Thus it is said: "Seek with all your might in the ten directions—there is no other vehicle." Even if they skillfully adapt to different capacities, setting aside the ultimate truth to teach provisional methods, and speak of various paths—like the three types of herbs and two kinds of trees, each receiving moisture differently—the rain that nourishes them is just one flavor. Therefore it is said: "It is like eating rock honey—sweet in the middle and at the edges." And again: "Coarse words and refined speech both return to the ultimate truth." How then could we cling to words and miss the meaning, stubbornly grasping at names and appearances, dissecting empty space as if it were solid? Consider Maitreya, the World-Honored One, who resides in the provisional position of the next Buddha, yet his essence is unfathomable. Asanga and Vasubandhu, as his assistants in the Dragon Flower Assembly, are no different from Manjushri and Samantabhadra. As for Ashvaghosha and Nagarjuna, both were foretold by the Buddha's golden mouth and transmitted the mind-seal of the Buddhas. Their writings certainly do not contradict each other. Yet later teachers recklessly and wrongly judge: Vasubandhu's "Consciousness-Only Treatise" establishes characteristics as the initial teaching; Nagarjuna's "Middle Treatise" refutes characteristics as the initial teaching; Ashvaghosha's "Awakening of Faith" is the final teaching that also includes the sudden teaching—none of which is the perfect teaching. Alas! How thoughtless this is! Vasubandhu, relying on Yogacara, established Consciousness-Only. First he used Consciousness-Only to refute the attachments to self and dharmas; then he showed that consciousness itself is like an illusion, not truly existent. Thus his work is also called the "Treatise Refuting Form and Mind." Can it be called a teaching that establishes characteristics? Nagarjuna, relying on the profound Perfection of Wisdom, thoroughly eliminated attachments to the four natures to reveal Dharma-nature. Thus it is said: "Those who wish to perfectly possess all Buddha-dharmas should study the Perfection of Wisdom." And again: "If there were no emptiness, everything would be impossible. Because emptiness exists, all things can be accomplished." Can it be called a teaching that refutes characteristics? Ashvaghosha used the single mind's True Suchness gate to reveal the profound Perfection of Wisdom, speaking according to wisdom; he used the single mind's arising-and-ceasing gate to reveal the Yogacara eight consciousnesses, speaking according to ordinary understanding. True Suchness is the single true Dharma-realm, which unifies principle and phenomena while transcending both. Arising-and-ceasing is the phenomena produced by that very principle, phenomena that have no inherent nature apart from the principle. These two gates are not separate from the single mind. There is no arising-and-ceasing that is not entirely True Suchness; there is no True Suchness that does not fully include arising-and-ceasing. This is precisely the Dharma-realm of non-obstruction between all phenomena. Can it be said that this differs from the "Consciousness-Only Treatise" and the "Middle Treatise," and is still not the perfect ultimate One Vehicle? Furthermore, the sutras and treatises all say that True Suchness and all dharmas are like water and waves: neither identical nor different. Clear evidence abounds—how can we stubbornly cling to a one-sided view? If we say they are definitely identical, then since True Suchness is unborn and unceasing, all dharmas should also be unborn and unceasing; or, since all dharmas arise and cease, True Suchness should also arise and cease. This is certainly impossible. If we say they are definitely different, then since True Suchness is not the very nature of all dharmas, it should exist somewhere separate from all dharmas, not being constant or universal. This is even more impossible. Thus the "Awakening of Faith" says that True Suchness receives "perfuming": this is like saying that when you touch a wave, you are touching the water itself. This refutes the attachment to definite difference; it never claimed that True Suchness is transformed by perfuming. The "Consciousness-Only Treatise" says that True Suchness is not affected by perfuming: this is like saying that when waves move, their wet nature does not move. This refutes the attachment to definite identity; it never claimed there is a separate, unmoving True Suchness.<note place="inline">The "Consciousness-Only Treatise" says: "Unlike other schools, it does not posit a real, permanent dharma separate from form and mind, calling it True Suchness." It also says: "True Suchness is precisely the nature of Consciousness-Only." This is clearly and directly stated. How can later people falsely accuse Consciousness-Only of positing an unmoving True Suchness? What a sin this is!</note> Thus, the "Consciousness-Only Treatise" says: "From the ultimate perspective, characteristics have no distinctions"—this is the single mind's True Suchness gate of the "Awakening of Faith." "From the conventional perspective, characteristics have distinctions"—this is the single mind's arising-and-ceasing gate of the "Awakening of Faith." The Lankavatara Sutra says: "The consciousnesses have three kinds of characteristics: the characteristic of transformation, the characteristic of activity, and the characteristic of true nature." The "Mirror of the Source Treatise" explains: "The arising of a thought is called 'transformation'—since all eight consciousnesses arise, they all have arising and ceasing, thus they are called the characteristic of transformation. Movement is 'activity'—the eight consciousnesses all move, thus they are all called the characteristic of activity. The true nature of the eight consciousnesses is called the characteristic of true nature." From this we can see that the "Awakening of Faith" and the "Consciousness-Only Treatise" both take the Lankavatara Sutra as their source—this is clear. Since their source is the same, their various terms and meanings are naturally not contradictory. Commentators, unable to determine meanings based on terms, recklessly fixed meanings based on names, causing the two treatises to be set against each other like fire and water. How lamentable! This "Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana" has two Chinese editions. The Tang edition is clearer in expression and more coherent in meaning. Since the Liang edition has long been in circulation, I did not dare to decide on my own authority. Respectfully consulting the Buddha by drawing lots, I obtained the instruction to explain the Tang edition. Thus, with the faint light of a single insight, I have exposed and dissolved the attachments of both schools. My disciple Chengshi requested that I name this work "The Net-Rending Commentary."