---
title: "太虛大師全書．第十一編　宗依論（上） · 十三　似現比之概觀"
description: "太虚大师（释太虚）是民国时期倡导人间佛教的革新领袖。本书为《太虚大师全书》第十一编宗依论（上），成书于民国年间。内容系统辨析佛教经典与宗派的依止理论，涵盖经论判释、教相判释及修行次第，旨在会通各宗、融贯中西。作为太虚大师佛学思想体系的核心著作之一，此书对现代佛教义学建构与人间佛教实践具有奠基性地位，是研究近代佛教转型的重要文献。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmpjjhtur000lt192lk0rrdoh"
---

### 十三　似現比之概觀

> Chapter 13: Overview of Seeming Inference

非真莫辨乎似，而似亦可顯真。常俗之似現量、似比量，多由錯覺及隨憶念分別之所習成；學者之似現量、似比量，多由幻覺及隨計度分別之所習成。常俗既非無幻覺及少分之隨計度分別，學者亦非無錯覺及少分之隨憶念分別。幻覺不知其幻，即為錯覺之錯。若愛恩斯坦相對論，則庶幾能明幻覺之為幻覺，而漸除於幻覺境上錯執為實之妄計。知其為幻而觀其幻，如吾人之觀電影然，亦何害乎。詩歌、音樂、圖畫、戲劇等文藝，皆覺其為幻而樂其幻者；愚者執為實事，則迷謬矣。故常俗曰人、曰佛陀、曰瓶、曰地球，而正知者亦隨順之曰人、曰佛陀、曰瓶、曰地球，稱名雖同，而愚者各執為實物──事──，正知者了其為假名──理──，猶愚者執電影為實，智者則知其為幻影，固倜然不同也。為此今正知現實者，雖同此現實而與一般學者之所知不同；亦猶同此現實，而學者所知與常俗不同。然現實正知者，固希望常俗間之妄執謬習，能漸為學者間一分正理之所改轉。同時尤希望學者間一分謬執，能漸為現實正知者之所改轉。於是由似現比謬知，漸成真比量之正知。依真比量之正知，而內觀人間，外察萬有，盡一切現實界，久之直覺皆如電影之幻，或增或損之種種迷謬執，無力再得生起。由是漸能引發離執障之真現量智，顯現證知一切事義自相之離言境──真如──，現知現實──現量實相──，自悟悟他。夫人間知識之猶在幼稚謬似之程度內，稍能虛心不躁之學者，當無不自知且公認之。則未可執今世初步科學方法，而自限知識之進步。且當精進於更進步之現實主義方法──高等科學方法──，求真正之知識，豈非今之學者所應努力者乎！

> What is not true cannot be distinguished by what merely resembles it—yet what resembles it can still reveal the truth. Among ordinary people, apparent perception and apparent inference are mostly formed through illusions and habits of discriminative memory. Among scholars, apparent perception and apparent inference are mostly formed through hallucinations and habits of discriminative reasoning. Ordinary people are not entirely free of hallucinations or a small measure of discriminative reasoning, nor are scholars entirely free of illusions or a small measure of discriminative memory. When one fails to recognize a hallucination as a hallucination, that itself is an illusion's error—mistaking it for reality. If we consider Einstein's theory of relativity, it comes close to clarifying that hallucinations are indeed hallucinations, gradually removing the false clinging that mistakes them for substantial realities on the hallucinatory plane. To perceive the illusion as illusion and observe it as such—just as we watch a film—what harm is there? Poetry, music, painting, drama, and other arts are all enjoyed as illusions by those who recognize them as such; fools clinging to them as actual facts fall into confusion and error. Thus ordinary people speak of "person," "Buddha," "bottle," "earth," and those with right knowledge also follow along, saying "person," "Buddha," "bottle," "earth." Though the names are the same, fools cling to each as a concrete object—an entity—whereas those with right knowledge understand them as provisional designations—principles. Just as fools take a film to be real while the wise recognize it as mere illusion, the difference is fundamentally distinct. For this reason, one who now rightly knows reality, though sharing the same reality, understands it differently from ordinary scholars. Likewise, within the same reality, scholars' understanding differs from that of the common folk. Yet those who rightly know reality certainly hope that the false clinging and mistaken habits of ordinary people can gradually be transformed by a portion of sound reasoning among scholars. At the same time, they especially hope that certain mistaken attachments among scholars can gradually be corrected by those who rightly know reality. Thus, from apparent perception and inference that are erroneous, one gradually moves toward right knowledge grounded in sound inference. Based on such right knowledge from sound inference, one turns inward to observe the human realm and outward to examine all phenomena, covering the entire sphere of reality. In time, direct intuition reveals everything as illusion, like a film, and the various deluded clingings—whether adding to or subtracting from reality—lose all power to arise again. Gradually, this leads to the awakening of true direct perception, free from attachment and obstruction, directly realizing the ineffable realm of suchness—the self-nature of all things and events—and directly cognizing reality as it truly is, awakening oneself and awakening others. Among human knowledge still at a childish, erroneous stage, any scholar with even a modicum of humility and patience would surely recognize and openly admit this. Thus one should not cling to today's preliminary scientific methods and limit the progress of knowledge. Rather, one should diligently advance toward more progressive methods of realism—higher scientific methods—seeking true knowledge. Is this not the very endeavor to which today's scholars should devote themselves?