---
title: "太虛大師全書．第六編　法相唯識學 · 一　佛教機上之本論觀"
description: "太虚大师是民国时期佛教改革领袖，本书为《太虚大师全书》第六编，系统阐述法相唯识学。成书于二十世纪上半叶，正值佛教复兴与中西思想碰撞之际。主要内容包括对唯识经典的系统解读、八识理论、种子与现行关系、转识成智的修行次第，以及唯识观在现实生活中的应用。该书是太虚大师佛学思想的核心部分，以现代学术方法整理传统唯识教义，强调理性分析与实证修持并重，对现代唯识学研究具有重要奠基作用，被视为中国近代唯识宗复兴的权威代表作之一。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmpjjc3ew02bft10na4ye0s2k"
---

### 一　佛教機上之本論觀

> Chapter 1: The Foundation of Buddhist Practice

先觀佛教二字，就一往談，緣所現之身謂之佛，佛所說之法謂之教。次觀佛，含人與法，其人為地上菩薩現者，即他受用身，為二乘及六道凡夫現者，即變化身；其法即法性身、自受用身及平等所流之聲教，故佛是人佛，而教是法佛，佛與教皆是佛。次觀教，含言與身，言者佛之所說，身者佛之所現，故教是言教，而佛是身教，教與佛皆是教。然言佛教，不過名之與相，佛是名、詮覺者之相，教是名、詮文義之相，合而言之，無上正遍覺之五蘊和合假者、流出之文字言說及所詮義理，謂之佛教。

> First, let us consider the two characters "Fo Jiao" (Buddhism). In a general sense, the one who appears in this world by virtue of conditions is called the Buddha (Fo), and the Dharma spoken by the Buddha is called the Teaching (Jiao). Next, examining the Buddha more closely, "Buddha" encompasses both the person and the Dharma. The person, as manifested by bodhisattvas on the ground of enlightenment, is the Enjoyment Body for others; as manifested for practitioners of the Two Vehicles and ordinary beings in the Six Realms, it is the Transformation Body. The Dharma consists of the Dharma-body, the self-enjoyment body, and the sounds of teaching that flow equally from them. Therefore, the Buddha is the person who embodies Buddhahood, and the Teaching is the Dharma-Buddha—both the Buddha and the Teaching are aspects of Buddhahood. Next, let us examine the Teaching, which encompasses both speech and body. Speech refers to what the Buddha has spoken; body refers to what the Buddha has manifested. Hence, the Teaching is a teaching through words, while the Buddha is a teaching through action; both the Teaching and the Buddha are forms of the Teaching. Yet, when we speak of "Buddhism," it is merely a name and a form. "Buddha" is a name denoting the form of an enlightened one, and "Teaching" is a name denoting the form of textual meaning. Taken together, Buddhism is the harmonious aggregation of the Five Aggregates of the supreme, perfectly enlightened one—the written and spoken words, along with the principles they convey. This is what we call Buddhism.

佛教由機，昔有二說：龍軍、無性等說：佛之圓圓果海，唯大定智悲，離形色文義相。但由佛果大悲願力，其善根成熟之有情於自心上現起形色文義相。然不言眾生教而名佛教者，以攝歸佛之本願力，故云佛教。護法、勝子等說：教由有情機感佛無漏心上現文義相，宜聞法者託為本質而現於自識上，然聞者於本質不能親緣，但託為本質而緣其自識相分。

> In Buddhism, the teachings arise from two classical perspectives. According to Nagasena and Asanga, among others, the Buddha's perfect and complete enlightenment is a state of pure meditative concentration, wisdom, and compassion, free from any forms, sounds, or conceptual constructs. However, through the power of the Buddha's compassionate vows, beings whose virtuous roots have matured perceive forms, sounds, and meanings within their own minds. Although these teachings are not communicated by sentient beings, they are called the Buddha's teachings because they ultimately stem from the power of his original vows. Conversely, according to Dharmapala and Jinaputra, teachings arise when sentient beings, stirred by their spiritual capacities, encounter the Buddha's undefiled mind, which manifests forms and meanings. Those who are ready to hear the Dharma use this as a foundation, and these manifestations appear within their own consciousness. Yet, listeners cannot directly perceive this foundational reality; they rely on it as a basis while experiencing only the reflections within their own minds.

近歐陽竟無居士，宗護法等立論，故於瑜伽真實品敘略云：「托質圓音，教則唯一，聞者識上，乘則有三」。但此義亦不可執定，所以者何？若就龍軍等說，佛果上本無能詮所詮之文義相，是無質可托；而護法等則佛心上文義由機感現，眾生之機感不同，則所托之質，亦各不同；如小機感佛心上現小教，大機感佛心上現大教，是則所托教不可定一。聞者如為一類頓機，不由小而入大，則所成乘，亦不能定三。然淨名經云：『佛以一音演說法，眾生隨類各得解』者，是就佛之平等意樂而說。佛之本願，如法華經言，皆以一乘平等濟度眾生，終不以二乘、三乘相度，此則以乘攝於平等意願，故教可說一。但因眾生差別機感不同，而聞佛言教，各自成乘，此則以教攝歸眾生機感，故乘可說三。然有從初發心，或是頓教大乘，或不定性，聞法遂歸大乘，斯又可說乘惟是一。以是義故，眾生之機可一可三，而乘與教，亦可說三說一，但得所說合理，不必執定。

> Recently, lay scholar Ouyang Jingwu and others, following the teachings of Dharmapala and his school, argued that although the Buddha's teaching is fundamentally one, listeners receive it in three different vehicles based on their capacities. This view, however, should not be taken as absolute. Why? According to Nagasena and others, the Buddha's enlightenment itself has no inherent words or meanings to express—there is no fixed substance to rely upon. Dharmapala, on the other hand, held that the words and meanings in the Buddha's mind arise in response to sentient beings' capacities. Since these capacities differ, the substance they rely upon also differs. For instance, those with lesser capacities perceive lesser teachings in the Buddha's mind, while those with greater capacities perceive greater teachings. Thus, the teaching itself cannot be fixed as one. Similarly, if a listener is of an abrupt or sudden type, not progressing from lesser to greater, then the vehicle they accomplish cannot be fixed as three either. Yet the Vimalakirti Sutra says, "The Buddha teaches the Dharma with a single voice, and sentient beings each understand it according to their own kind." This refers to the Buddha's impartial intention and delight. The Buddha's original vow, as stated in the Lotus Sutra, is to save all beings equally through the One Vehicle, never using two or three vehicles as the ultimate means. From this perspective, since all vehicles are subsumed under the impartial vow, the teaching can be spoken of as one. However, because sentient beings' differing capacities and perceptions lead them to attain various vehicles upon hearing the Buddha's words, the vehicles can be spoken of as three when the teaching is understood as conforming to sentient capacities. Still, from the very start of their aspiration, some beings belong to the sudden Mahayana path or have indeterminate natures, and upon hearing the Dharma, they directly enter the Great Vehicle. Thus, it can also be said that the vehicle is only one. Therefore, sentient beings' capacities may be spoken of as either one or three, and both the teaching and the vehicle may be described as three or one. As long as the explanation accords with reason, one need not cling to any fixed position.

凡眾生善根性欲之心理，即謂之機。然言眾生之機，有一性無別者，有五性差別者。言一性者，謂一切眾生皆有佛性也。言五性者，即一、無性，二、聲聞性，三、緣覺性，此名三無佛性，謂此三種性皆不能成佛也。四、不定性，五、如來性，此名二有佛性，謂此種性皆可成佛也。如來性是決定成佛，而凡言皆可成佛者，即就不定種性言也。然此一性五性別者，蓋以佛性二字，詮義不同。一、佛之性，此性即真如體。謂佛性即遍法界之平等真如，不但有情，無情亦依為性。如古德云：『翠竹黃花，皆有佛性』。禪宗，或問如何是佛？曰：『乾屎橛』。又曰：『有時以一莖草作丈六金身，有時以丈六金身作一莖草』等。則遍法界皆是佛性，何有一眾生而無之？以是故說眾生一性。二、佛即性，此又分二：一、謂心性，性者、是自相義，如火熱為自相，水濕為自相，地堅為自相，風動為自相，而心即以覺為其自相——如起信論云本覺——故此佛性即指心之自相。此心自相不及於無情，故就此言佛性，雖可云一性，而僅限於有情眾生。而清涼疏亦謂：在無情曰法性，在有情曰佛性。二、即法空智種，謂無法空智之種子，不能起法空智之現行，不起法空智之現行，不能斷所知障，不能斷所知障，不能成佛。故以此為佛性，以此而衡一切有情，則無二空智種者，謂之無性；無法空智種者，謂之聲聞性或緣覺性；兼有二空智種者，謂之不定性；具法空智種者，謂之如來性。由是可說眾生有五性差別。然論智種之具不具，復有二門：一、現實如是門：謂依眾生一剎那現行心，觀過去之過去，或未來之未來，皆不離此一剎那心；若此現前一剎那心無如來性，則盡未來際亦不能成佛。如是就現前一念心上，具不具二空智種等，則可說決定有五性差別。二、展轉增上門：不論現前一念之心或具不具，但由佛之平等意願為增上緣，務使一切眾生決定成佛，如法華言：唯有一乘法，佛種從緣起。雖無現具佛種，而有佛之增上緣、或菩薩等各各互為增上，亦得新起法空智種；依唯識之新熏種義，亦不相違。由是則五性可決定可不決定，應說有情非一非五性。了達此義，則於一性五性之說無惑，可進論由有情五性之機，感佛五乘之教，由佛五乘之教，應有情五性之機。

> The psychological dispositions and capacities of all sentient beings are what is called "capacity" (ji). However, when we speak of sentient beings' capacities, there is a view that all share one single nature, and another view that there are five distinct natures. The view of one nature holds that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. The view of five natures is as follows: first, those without Buddha-nature; second, those of the Śrāvaka (listener) nature; third, those of the Pratyekabuddha (solitary realizer) nature—these three are called "the three without Buddha-nature," meaning that beings of these three types cannot attain Buddhahood. Fourth, those of indeterminate nature; fifth, those of Tathāgata nature—these two are called "the two with Buddha-nature," meaning that beings of these types can attain Buddhahood. Those of Tathāgata nature are certain to attain Buddhahood, while the statement that "all can attain Buddhahood" refers to those of indeterminate nature. The distinction between the one-nature and five-nature views arises because the term "Buddha-nature" carries different meanings. First, "the nature of Buddha"—this nature is the essence of Suchness (tathatā). It means that Buddha-nature pervades the entire Dharma realm as the equal and universal Suchness. Not only sentient beings, but even insentient things depend on it as their nature. As the ancient masters said: "Green bamboos and yellow flowers all possess Buddha-nature." In the Chan tradition, when asked "What is Buddha?", some answered: "A dried piece of dung." Others said: "Sometimes a single blade of grass is made into a sixteen-foot golden body; sometimes a sixteen-foot golden body is made into a single blade of grass." Thus, the entire Dharma realm is Buddha-nature—how could any sentient being lack it? For this reason, it is said that sentient beings have one nature. Second, "Buddha as nature itself"—this is further divided into two: 1. Mind-nature. Here, "nature" means intrinsic characteristic. Just as fire has heat as its intrinsic characteristic, water has wetness, earth has solidity, and wind has movement, so the mind has awareness as its intrinsic characteristic—as the Awakening of Faith describes it as original awakening (benjue). Thus, this Buddha-nature refers to the mind's intrinsic characteristic. This mind-nature does not extend to insentient things. Therefore, when speaking of Buddha-nature in this sense, although it can be called one nature, it is limited to sentient beings. The Commentary on the Avatamsaka Sūtra by Qingliang also states: "In insentient things it is called Dharma-nature; in sentient beings it is called Buddha-nature." 2. The seed of the wisdom of emptiness of dharmas. Without the seed of this wisdom, one cannot activate the function of realizing the emptiness of dharmas. Without activating this function, one cannot cut off the obstacle to knowledge (jñeyāvaraṇa). Without cutting off the obstacle to knowledge, one cannot attain Buddhahood. Thus, this is considered Buddha-nature. When assessing all sentient beings by this criterion: those without the seeds of either wisdom of emptiness of self or dharmas are called "without nature"; those without the seed of the wisdom of emptiness of dharmas are called "of Śrāvaka nature" or "of Pratyekabuddha nature"; those with seeds of both wisdoms are called "of indeterminate nature"; those with the seed of the wisdom of emptiness of dharmas are called "of Tathāgata nature." From this, it can be said that sentient beings have five distinct natures. Regarding whether the seeds are present or not, there are two approaches: 1. The approach of how things actually are in the present: Examining a sentient being's mind in a single moment, we see that whether we look to the past or the future, nothing transcends this present moment of consciousness. If this present moment of consciousness lacks the Tathāgata nature, then throughout all future time, one cannot attain Buddhahood. Thus, based on whether the present moment of mind possesses the seeds of the two emptiness wisdoms, it can be definitively said that there are five distinct natures. 2. The approach of progressive enhancement: Regardless of whether the present moment of mind possesses the seeds or not, through the Buddha's impartial vow as a contributing condition, all sentient beings are led to certain Buddhahood. As the Lotus Sūtra says: "There is only the one vehicle; Buddha-seeds arise from conditions." Even if one does not presently possess the Buddha-seed, through the Buddha's contributing influence, or through bodhisattvas mutually supporting one another, the seed of the wisdom of emptiness of dharmas can newly arise. This is consistent with the Consciousness-Only doctrine of seeds newly perfumed. From this perspective, the five natures may be definite or indefinite—it should be said that sentient beings are neither strictly one nature nor strictly five natures. Understanding this, one is no longer confused about the one-nature and five-nature teachings and can proceed to discuss how sentient beings of five different natures respond to the Buddha's five vehicles of teaching, and how the Buddha's five vehicles of teaching correspond to the five natures of sentient beings.

總括以上所談，約有二端：一曰、機感佛而教起，二曰、佛施教以應機。就第一論，賢首家判教，曾說教起因緣有十，今約言教起之要有三：一、佛本願故，如契經偈云：『毘盧遮那佛，願力周沙界，一切國土中，恆轉無上輪』——此則本無教起之相。二、法如是故，如經云：『法性遍一切處』；又云：『一切法皆是佛法』等——此則亦無法與非法之分別。故此二是普遍因，尚不足以言教起之因緣。三、機所感故，則因有機感佛，而佛亦因機施教，於是方有教起之可言。就第三論，亦可分二：初、就佛施教說，則佛見一切眾生皆有佛性，皆可成佛，如是則機是一性，故教亦唯一。次、就機所感說，則機有五性，而教亦因之有五乘，如人天乘被無性機，乃至佛乘被如來機等。

本論雖菩薩造，亦宗本佛之聖教而來，則本論所被何機，亦即知由何機所感。今觀本論多言五性——由阿賴耶識中無漏種子具不具等；又論首即談阿賴耶識，乃小乘所未建立，是為不共大乘。則知其所被機，為頓悟之菩薩性，為回小向大之不定性，不被無性人天及聲聞、緣覺等性。因是亦知此論由不定機及菩薩機而感來。但論中所談，亦有小乘因之得悟者，故此論可云：正被菩薩，兼被二乘。