---
title: "太虛大師全書．第二編　五乘共學 · （附）答生命研究之疑問"
description: "太虚大师著《太虛大師全書·第二編 五乘共學》成书于民国时期，是近代佛教革新运动的重要文献。作者太虚为民国高僧，倡导人间佛教。本编以五乘（人、天、声闻、缘觉、菩萨）佛法为框架，系统阐述佛教基本教义，强调人乘正法为出世之基，融通世间与出世间法。该书为现代佛教教育及人间佛教实践提供核心理论依据，在近代佛教复兴中具有承前启后的重要地位，是研究中国佛教现代化转型的必读经典。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmpjj907300dft1thmojwuwc4"
---

### （附）答生命研究之疑問

> (Appendix) Answers to Questions on the Study of Life

（季炎君之疑問）讀四月三十日，杭州報星期副刊，載有毛汶君記錄太虛法師「生命之研究」一文，不禁發生疑問。茲特臚陳意見如左，以供世之研究生命學者有以教之焉。

> (Question from Mr. Ji Yanjun) Upon reading the article "A Study of Life" by Master Taixu as recorded by Mr. Mao Wen in the Sunday Supplement of the Hangzhou Daily on April 30th, I cannot help but raise some questions. I now present my opinions as follows, in hopes that those who study the nature of life may offer their guidance.

原文主張『生命自在』之說：謂『有適當機會，則發現其現象』為生；否則為死。且以『物理有動靜兩種力』，以證明生命之隨動靜而生死焉。可見其所謂動靜云者，即此適當之機會也。說理未嘗不圓，然生命既屬自在，但有動機即發，何不自生自發，而必待父母配偶，以造端乎其動機？既待父母之配偶，以其造端乎動機，是主持此動機者，即原文所謂適當機會仍為父母也；即不能謂之自在，與『生命係由有生命物體而來』之說何異？矧機會之權能操之于父母，愛欲其生惡欲其死更影響於生命本身使其失卻自在耶？此疑問者一。又原文『不若「以生命本身為常存者」之說為當也』句，僅以寤寐夢覺等為喻，亦不能確實證明生命本身之常在。何以見之？例如醒後之人，對於夢中幻境，類能記憶。又如一人由杭州乘車至滬，車中一覺醒來已是北站，但此人既睹北站景物，同時亦能記憶杭州景物不失。故謂之生命本身常存，於理尚說得過去，而何以賦有真正本身常存之生命，一隔陰迷，即不能記憶前生之情事乎？常存之理，於何徵實哉？此疑問者二。

> The original text advocates the theory of "Life as Self-Existent," stating that "when there is an appropriate opportunity, the phenomenon manifests" as life; otherwise, it is death. It also uses "physical forces of motion and rest" to prove that life arises and perishes along with motion and rest. Thus, what they call motion and rest are precisely these appropriate opportunities. The reasoning appears coherent, but if life is indeed self-existent and manifests as soon as an impetus arises, why does it not arise and manifest on its own, instead requiring parents' pairing to initiate that impetus? Since it depends on parents' pairing to initiate the impetus, the one controlling this impetus—what the original text calls the "appropriate opportunity"—is still the parents. This cannot be called self-existence. How is this different from the theory that "life comes from living beings"? Moreover, the power of opportunity lies with the parents: their desire for life or death toward it further impacts life itself, stripping it of its self-existence. This is the first doubt. Furthermore, the original text's statement, "It is more appropriate to view life itself as eternal," only uses analogies like waking and sleeping and dreaming to support its claim, but it cannot truly prove the permanence of life itself. Why? For example, a person after waking can generally recall the illusory scenes from a dream. Another example: a person traveling from Hangzhou to Shanghai by train wakes up from a nap and finds themselves at North Station. This person can see the scenery of North Station and simultaneously remember the scenery of Hangzhou without losing it. Therefore, describing life itself as eternal seems plausible in logic. But why is it that those endowed with truly eternal life, once "confused by the barrier between lives," cannot remember their past-life experiences? Where is the proof of the permanence of life itself? This is the second doubt.

總而言之，不受動靜機會之支配而失其本來面目，而後謂之自在；不受境遇變幻之攪亂而失其湛明知覺，而後謂之常存，研究生命學者，其亦於此二點疑問加之意乎？否則，其所主張即不能成立。一七，五，一，季炎。

> In summary, only when we are not controlled by movement or stillness, or by circumstances, and thus do not lose our original nature, can we be called "at ease." Only when we are not disturbed by changing circumstances and do not lose our clear awareness can we be called "ever-present." Should those who study the nature of life pay attention to these two points? Otherwise, their claims cannot hold true. Written by Ji Yan on May 1, 1917.

一、佛明諸法，皆仗因託緣以生起。但云自在，如不明託父母所緣乃起為現行，則成實我之常執，而不明生命不常不斷之真相。

> The Buddha taught that all phenomena arise dependent on causes and conditions. If we speak of "self-mastery" without understanding that life manifests through conditions like parents and offspring, we fall into the eternalist view of a permanent self, failing to see the true nature of life as neither permanent nor annihilated.

二、醒能憶夢，而夢不必能憶醒，後一夢亦必不能憶前一夢。佛菩薩常覺而通宿命，如醒；異生類如前夢後夢相續，雖不相憶，而不容為相續不斷。

見海刊九卷五期