---
title: "太虛大師全書．第六編　法相唯識學 · ２　敘釋論義"
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/cmpjjc3ex02byt10nnynztrru"
---

### ２　敘釋論義

> Section 2: Commentary and Explanation

釋造論意三說：一、安慧等，二、火辯等，三、護法等。初安慧說三重：一、為於二空有迷謬者生正解故；二、生解為斷重障故；三、斷障為得勝果故。

　　　　　　　　　┌一、迷…………全不知（凡夫）
　　　　迷謬之料簡┤二、謬………有知而偏（二乘）
　　　　　　　　　└三、迷謬……外道

所知、即所了知，能了知是心，所了知是境；境非是障，但由法執覆蔽所知之境，遂成為障。故古德云：『所知不是障，被障障所知』。重障者、指二障之過失重，或就品類之多，指其最重者；如我執為煩惱障之重者，法執為所知障之重者。

生空正解，斷煩惱障中我執重障。法空正解，斷所知障中法執重障。由我執為本，煩惱障具足而生。由法執為本，所知障具足而生。然煩惱障中不但我執，所知障中亦有法愛、法恚及定障等，不止法執也。

> The correct understanding of the emptiness of self cuts off the heavy obstruction of attachment to self within the afflictions. The correct understanding of the emptiness of phenomena cuts off the heavy obstruction of attachment to phenomena within the obstacles to knowledge. Because attachment to self is the root, afflictions fully arise. Because attachment to phenomena is the root, obstacles to knowledge fully arise. However, within the afflictions there is not only attachment to self, and within the obstacles to knowledge there are also attachment to phenomena, aversion to phenomena, and hindrances to concentration—not just attachment to phenomena alone.

　　　　　　　　　┌凡夫外道……非勝非果
　　　　勝果料簡　┤二乘…………果而非勝
　　　　　　　　　│菩薩…………勝而非果
　　　　　　　　　└佛……………亦勝亦果
　　　　　　　　　┌凡外…………非真非解脫
　　　　真解脫料簡┤二乘…………解脫非真

　　　　　　　　　│菩薩…………真非解脫
　　　　　　　　　└佛……………亦真亦解脫
　　　　　　　　　┌凡外…………非大非菩提
　　　　大菩提料簡┤二乘…………菩提非大
　　　　　　　　　│菩薩…………大非菩提
　　　　　　　　　└佛……………亦大亦菩提

依述記例言：釋論中有初不說有義，中、後說有義者，則以初說為正。有初、中、後皆言有義者，則有二意：一意、諸說平等平等，二意、前略後廣，則後說為正。其初、中、後皆不說有義，如今釋造論意三說，則可同前皆說有義者例。但今就釋造論意三說，亦可以下之四法觀之。

> According to the commentary's convention: if an interpretation first does not mention a certain meaning, but later or at the end does, then the first interpretation is considered correct. If an interpretation mentions the meaning at the beginning, middle, and end, then there are two possibilities: first, all interpretations are equally valid; second, the earlier ones are concise while the later ones are detailed, in which case the later interpretation is considered correct. When the meaning is not mentioned at the beginning, middle, or end—as in the current three explanations of the intent behind composing this treatise—the same principle applies as when the meaning is mentioned throughout. However, regarding the current three explanations of the intent behind composing this treatise, they can also be examined through the following four principles.