六祖壇經3-佛法對照Platform Sutra 3 – Compared with Buddhist Teachings

六祖壇經3-佛法對照

 

當學者都寫出修行需要實際的經驗時，

我個人年輕時看到這，都覺得汗顏！

 

「中村元視角：他強調原始佛教所論「無我」主要針對五蘊中的“我執”（mama, mamaṭṭhā）或“我見”，

 

並未完全否定“我”作為主體經驗—a pragmatic “無我”是為了修行解脫之道  。」

 

「並未否定「我」作為主體經驗」

顧及實際生活，在現實生活運作與修行之間做出界限的判別與解讀。

 

半寄

 

以下AI資料：   中村元《原始佛教：其思想與生活》一書   一、「無我」（Anatta）   中村元視角：他強調原始佛教所論「無我」主要針對五蘊中的“我執”（mama, mamaṭṭhā）或“我見”，並未完全否定“我”作為主體經驗—a pragmatic “無我”是為了修行解脫之道  。   《阿含經》支撐： 「色無常…苦即非我，非我者亦非我所…受、想、行、識亦然」；觀此則離貪愛，得解脫  。 「所見、受、想…若是非我、非我所，則無所取著，自覺涅槃」  。   比較： 中村認為「無我」並非一句否定 ātman 的頓悟，而是一種對五蘊「非我・非我所」的實際觀照，是修行上通向「自利利他」與正智慧的方便法。   中村強調： 涅槃是真實ultra-concrete的解脫境界，不是形而上之“梵我合一”，而是因緣法則下五蘊滅盡的“滅盡寂靜”。

Platform Sutra 3 – Compared with Buddhist Teachings

 

When I was young, I used to feel embarrassed whenever scholars wrote that true practice requires real personal experience.

 

Nakamura Hajime’s view: He said that when early Buddhism talked about “non-self,” it was mainly about breaking attachment to the five aggregates—things like thinking “this is mine” (mama) or “this is me.” (mamaṭṭhā)

 

It didn’t completely deny the sense of “self” in our daily experience.

Rather, it presents “non-self” as a practical method aimed at liberation.

 

The idea of “not denying the self as personal experience” helps us to distinguish between the functioning of everyday life and the inward path of spiritual practice.

It means we can understand when to act as a normal person in society, and when to let go during practice. It offers a balanced understanding of how to navigate both realms.

 

Master Banji

 

AI Data   From Nakamura Hajime’s Primitive Buddhism: Its Thought and Way of Life   1. “Anatta” – The Doctrine of Non-Self Nakamura’s Interpretation: Nakamura emphasized that the doctrine of “anatta” (non-self) in early Buddhism is primarily aimed at the clinging to self in relation to the five aggregates—what is called “mama” (mine) and “mamaṭṭhā” (this is myself).   He argued that early Buddhism did not absolutely deny the existence of a subjective self, but proposed a pragmatic non-self view as a method for liberation.   Canonical Evidence from the Āgama Scriptures: ● “Form is impermanent... thus it is suffering and not self. What is not self is also not mine… The same applies to feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness.” ● “Whatever is seen, felt, or thought—if it is not-self and not mine—then there is nothing to be attached to. One realizes Nirvana through such insight.”   Comparative Analysis:  Nakamura viewed “anatta” not as a single moment of enlightenment that denies ātman    (the soul), but as an ongoing insight into how the five aggregates are “not-self” and “not   mine.”  This is a skillful means (upāya) leading toward wisdom and benefiting both self and   others.    Nakamura further emphasized:  Nirvana is a real and concrete state of liberation—not a metaphysical merging with   Brahman or some absolute self.  Rather, it is “the cessation and peace” that comes from the complete ending of the five   aggregates in accordance with the law of dependent origination.

 

 

 

大家好！

 

如果問我楞嚴咒心的威力，那我只能說那也是有修證的修行者做的「變現」，

例如；虛雲老和尚。

 

南禪精舍持誦《般若心經》至少能直接複習「無我」，加強對佛法的熟悉度，

 

或只打坐檢查自己對「無我、無常」的思維增進程度。

個人強調過，從佛法的善根具足開始，就會有能力往上走。

 

半寄

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

Regarding the power of the Shurangama Mantra(commonly recited by Chinese Buddhist practitioners as part of their morning liturgy), I would say it is a manifestation brought forth by the realization of accomplished practitioners, such as the Venerable XuYun.

 

At NanZen Vihara, chanting the Heart Sutra is at least a way to help revisit the teaching of “non-self” and and deepen their understanding of Buddhist teachings.

 

Alternatively, one may simply meditate to examine the extent how their understanding of “non-self” and “impermanence” has improved.

 

I have emphasized that when one possesses fully developed wholesome roots in the Dharma, they will naturally be able to advance further on the spiritual path.

 

Master Banji

六祖壇經2 The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch 2

六祖壇經2

 

從第一次世界大戰後，考古學便展開蓬勃的演奏，

 

以華人的學者到佛教的印順長老而言，

當觸及經典的正確性時，都有著他們一定程度的厚道，

我個人的看法是；

研究之後還要展開美麗的文學詞彙去修辭，怕傷及學佛大眾的心理，是否又把自己的研究給吞了下去？

 

而這裡面比較重要的是，「他們大都不是修行者」不可能觸及經文修持的正確性。

 

日本中村源先生（なかむら はじめ / Nakamura Hajime，

1912年-1999年，是日本著名的東洋哲學家、佛教學者、印度哲學研究者，也是20世紀亞洲哲學界最具影響力的人物之一。）

 

寫過的《東方民族思維的方法》一書，

內容帶到的問題「語意與字源」探索已經算是最深入了！

 

修行路線的正確性探索，必得有「入法與入定，」的經驗，

我個人當時在看《六祖壇經》36對法，就覺得這太欺負人了，

怎麼會有這種東西出現在經典裡面，

緊接著看完胡適先生的考據後，就沒回頭再還過《六祖壇經》。

 

我個人對虛雲老和尚有著幾十年的疑惑，

以虛老的功力而言，

他看《楞嚴經》的時候，虛老本身的法眼及其家世背景的文字能力，怎麼不會覺得這文字是不對的？

而其所敘述的修持證悟更是人間夢境？

 

最近重新把《愣嚴經》拿出來寫，

有一個想法，

或許他們身處戰亂已無暇去管這個，

也或許研究之路是一條漫長道路，

 

不是只擁有入定的功力就可以切入的。

半寄

以下AI資料：   中村元的語意與字源分析特色   詞源：出發理解思想 他認為很多東方思想的誤解，來自以西方語彙強行對應，而未細究原語的深層含義。 例：「自由」一詞的分析 現代漢語的「自由」來自日文翻譯西文 liberty、freedom。 中村元指出，在東方語境裡，「自由」在古代多為「任性」「不受約束」的負面含義，與西方政治哲學中的「自由權」是不同的。 他強調，東方的「自由」應從「自主內省」與「不執著」的角度理解（例如佛教的「離執」、儒家的「無所畏懼」）。

 

The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch 2

 

After World War I, the field of archaeology began to flourish.

 

Chinese scholars, including Buddhist figures like Master Yin Shun, tended to be relatively kind or reserved when addressing the accuracy of Buddhist scriptures.

 

In my view, after conducting their research, many of them resorted to elegant rhetoric, perhaps to avoid hurting the feelings of Buddhist practitioners. But in doing so, did they end up suppressing the truths their research uncovered?

 

A key issue here is that most of them were not spiritual practitioners, and thus were unlikely to fully grasp the experiential accuracy of the scriptures.

 

Nakamura Hajime (1912–1999), a prominent Japanese philosopher, scholar of Buddhism, and researcher of Indian thought, was among the most influential Asian intellectuals of the 20th century.

 

In his book Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples, he explored issues of semantics and etymology with remarkable depth.

 

To truly assess the accuracy of a spiritual path, one must have first-hand experience in entering the Dharma and meditative absorption.

 

When I read the 36 Dharma Pairs in the Platform Sutra, I felt it was almost absurd—how could something like that exist in a canonical text?

 

After reading Hu Shih’s textual analysis, I never returned to the Platform Sutra.

 

I’ve also had long-standing doubts about Master Xu Yun.

 

Given his high level of spiritual cultivation and strong literary background, how could he read the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and not notice its problematic language?

 

And the descriptions of awakening in theŚūraṅgama Sūtra —were they perhaps closer to dreams than reality?

 

Recently, I’ve taken up the Śūraṅgama Sūtraagain to write about it.

 

It occurred to me that perhaps they were too caught up in the chaos of war to investigate these issues properly,

 

or perhaps scholarly inquiry is a long path—one that requires more than just the ability to enter meditative states.

 

Master Banji

AI Data   Nakamura Hajime’s Semantic and Etymological Analysis   Etymology as a Starting Point Nakamura believed that a proper understanding of philosophical thought must begin with examining the original terms used. He argued that many misunderstandings of Eastern philosophies result from imposing Western vocabulary onto them, without carefully investigating the deeper meanings of the original Eastern words.   Example: The word “freedom” The modern Chinese term “自由” (freedom) is derived from the Japanese translation of Western words such as liberty and freedom. According to Nakamura, in ancient Eastern usage, “自由”often carried a negative connotation, meaning “willfulness” or “lack of restraint.” This differs significantly from the Western political-philosophical notion of individual liberty.   He stressed that the Eastern concept of “freedom” should be understood in terms of “self-governance through introspection” and “detachment,” such as the Buddhist idea of letting go of attachments or the Confucian notion of fearlessness.

 

 

 

六祖壇經The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch

六祖壇經

 

大家好！

 

胡適先生對中國《六祖壇經》的考據，年輕時候看過，我對其中的36對法最大的感受是：

它在教中國的黒白子「對弈」圍棋。哈哈😆

 

半寄

 

以下AI資料 一、胡適怎麼說《六祖壇經》？ 胡適在他的研究著作〈中國禪宗史〉（特別是〈《壇經》的偽書考據〉章節中），對《六祖壇經》提出了以下幾個核心看法：   1. 非慧能親自撰寫 胡適認為，《壇經》不是慧能的口述記錄，更不是他親筆撰寫，而是由其弟子或再傳弟子根據傳說與講話所編纂。原因包括：  •文風流暢，類似唐中晚期文人筆法；  •引用許多後出經論（如《金剛經》與般若思想的綜合使用）；  •有濃厚的禪宗後期思想風格（特別是與神會學派的風格接近）；  •具有教內宣傳與正統化意圖。   2. 版本混雜，後人加工痕跡明顯 胡適注意到《六祖壇經》有多種版本（如敦煌本、宗寶本、惠昕本等），文字、篇章、用語皆有不同，認為這是後人不斷增修的結果。  •他特別重視敦煌寫本（現藏英國大英博物館），認為它是現存最早、最接近    初形態的版本。  •敦煌本中稱慧能為「南宗第六祖」，而不是整個禪宗第六祖，這與後來全國    正統「六祖」的稱號有所差異。   3. 《壇經》是一部宗教文學傑作 胡適並不否認《壇經》的文學與宗教價值，他說： 「《壇經》雖為偽作，然其為中國佛教最偉大的宗教文學之一，則不可否認。」 他認為《壇經》是一部宗教心靈上的大作，表現了中國禪宗成熟時期的精神高度。   4. 思想上具南宗色彩，乃宗派建構產物 胡適指出，《壇經》大量突顯「南宗頓悟」與「北宗漸修」的對立，尤其在神秀與慧能的對話故事中明顯誇大對比。他認為這反映的是慧能門下，特別是神會門人對正統話語權的爭奪，即是後來「南宗成為正統」的歷史改寫。   胡適的結論：  •《六祖壇經》是慧能思想的後期建構，而非其原始語錄；  •它是一部融合宗教宣傳、文學加工與宗派建構的綜合性文本；  •雖非歷史實錄，但卻對中國佛教思想與文化影響深遠，堪稱「宗教文學經    典」。   引用胡適語錄（選段）： 「《壇經》這一部書是一部宗教小說，也是一部宗教宣傳書，它之所以成為中國佛教第一經，不在它的真實性，而在它的影響力。」

 

 

The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

I read Mr. Hu Shih’s textual research on the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch when I was younger.

What struck me most was the 36 sets of paired concepts—it felt as if the sutra was teaching Chinese players how to play a game of Go with black and white stones. Haha 😆

 

Master Banji

 

AI Data   Hu Shih’s Analysis of the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch In his scholarly work A History of Chinese Chan Buddhism, especially in the chapter titled “Textual Criticism of the Platform Sutra as a Forgery,” Hu Shih presented the following key arguments:   1. Not Authored by Huineng Hu Shih asserted that the Platform Sutra was neither written nor dictated by Huineng. Rather, it was compiled by his disciples or later generations based on oral traditions and anecdotes. He supported this claim with several observations:   ● The writing style resembles that of literati from the mid to late Tang dynasty. ● It includes references to later Buddhist texts, such as the Diamond Sutra and concepts from Prajñāpāramitā philosophy. ● The ideas reflect the later developments of Chan thought, particularly those aligned with Shenhui’s school. ● The text appears to serve a promotional purpose, elevating Huineng as a central figure in Chan orthodoxy.   2. Textual Variants Reveal Layers of Editing Hu Shih observed that there are multiple versions of the Platform Sutra, including the Dunhuang manuscript, the Zongbao version, and the Huixin version. These versions differ in vocabulary, structure, and doctrinal emphasis, suggesting repeated revisions and interpolations.   ● He emphasized the significance of the Dunhuang manuscript (held in the British Museum), which he considered the earliest and most authentic version. ● This version refers to Huineng as the “Sixth Patriarch of the Southern School,” not of Chan Buddhism as a whole, indicating that the notion of Huineng as the universal Sixth Patriarch was a later development.   3. A Masterpiece of Religious Literature Despite classifying the Platform Sutra as inauthentic, Hu Shih acknowledged its literary and religious significance. He remarked:   “Although it is a forgery, the Platform Sutra is undeniably one of the greatest religious literary works in Chinese Buddhism.” He viewed it as a profound spiritual text, representing the height of Chan Buddhist expression in China.   4. Sectarian Doctrine and Historical Reconstruction Hu Shih emphasized that the Platform Sutra strongly promotes the Southern School’s doctrine of sudden enlightenment, in contrast to the Northern School’s gradualist approach. This is especially evident in the dramatic portrayal of the debate between Huineng and Shenxiu, where the ideological contrast appears deliberately exaggerated. Hu Shih argued that this reflects the agenda of Huineng’s followers—especially those affiliated with Shenhui—to rewrite Chan history in favor of the Southern School and secure its legitimacy.   Hu Shih’s conclusions: ● The Platform Sutra is not the original words of Huineng, but a later creation based on his ideas. ● It functions as a complex work of religious propaganda, literary stylization, and sectarian formation. ● While not a historical record, it has had a lasting impact on Chinese Buddhist philosophy and culture, and can rightly be regarded as a “classic of religious literature.”   Selected quote from Hu Shih: “The Platform Sutra is both a religious novel and a work of religious propaganda. Its status as the foremost scripture of Chinese Buddhism lies not in its factual truth, but in its enduring influence.”

 

泰國佛教3-愣嚴經感想Thai Buddhism 3-Reflections on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

泰國佛教3-愣嚴經感想

 

提供一段楞嚴經經文，

平實而論，

如果這一段經文跟《阿含經》對比

能夠順利解出來，

那是牽強附會，

 

但《楞嚴經》整部經文都是這種文字，

 

已經說過漢系的佛法可以隨解說者講解到合理狀況，

但這種文字到底要算什麼？

 

用中文解釋也不通，

用原始佛法解釋更一個字都對不上，

 

讀者可以試想：

如這經文是大陸內地最擅長的綾羅繡寫，

 

那麼我們是不是在讀一本從文字混淆到羅織瑰麗

卻不知所以的內容？

 

現代社會受教育的程度已經很高了，自己去對比吧！我不想再說。

 

半寄

 

Thai Buddhism 3-Reflections on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

 

Consider a passage from the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.

Honestly speaking, trying to align it with the Āgama Sutras feels like forcing a connection.

 

The entire Śūraṅgama Sūtra follows this same kind of language and style.

 

It is often claimed that the Chinese Buddhist tradition can interpret texts to appear coherent.

But what kind of writing are we actually dealing with here?

 

The entire Śūraṅgama Sūtra is composed in this elaborate and obscure style.

 

Even when explained in Chinese, it remains unclear.

From the perspective of early Buddhism, not a single concept aligns.

 

One might consider this:

The scripture is composed in the richly embroidered, brocade-like language favored by mainland Chinese writers—

beautiful and intricate in appearance, but bewildering in meaning.

 

In a modern society where education is widespread, anyone can examine and comparefor themselves.

I’ve said enough.

 

Master Banji