選擇
（佛法專有名詞喪失了人的角色）
我認為，許多資深的佛法修行者，
尤其是那些努力追求證悟的人——往往被專有名詞所束縛。
他們之後又必須花費大量時間試圖從中抽離，這實在令人感到可惜。
昨天上課時，我提到自己曾學過西方哲學史。
當我重新閱讀佛教的「四聖果」，並看到「色愛」與「無色愛」時，內心深受震撼。
身體與心靈的解脫，一直都是哲學中的核心問題。
雖然印度佛教使用「色界」與「無色界」這些術語，但對我而言，它們其實直接指向對肉體與精神的解脫，
而無需依附於印度複雜的宇宙觀架構。
（在印度佛教中，「色界」（Rūpa-dhātu）與「無色界」（Ārūpya-dhātu）
不僅僅是宇宙論上的分類，更是一套有結構的心理訓練與禪定發展階梯。
印度佛教將這些源自古印度的世界觀，納入其修行體系之中。）
北傳佛教建立了十地菩薩的體系，但並未明確使用「色愛」與「無色愛」這些專有名詞。
AI 的說法通常是，因為菩薩必須留在世間利益眾生。
但問題是，若已解脫「無色愛」，是否就代表永遠不再回來？
關於「無生法忍菩薩」的概念，我過去已經討論過。
我主要的疑問是：
為什麼一個達到最高境界的修行者，反而像是失去了自由，被迫在「入涅槃」與「再來人間」之間做選擇？
從現代的角度來看，似乎一位成就者在臨終前，必須交代自己是要入涅槃，還是再來一世，
彷彿這樣才算完成使命。
對我而言，這種說法顯得相當荒謬，甚至帶有某種侵犯性。
真正的證悟者本來就極為稀少。
然而，佛經卻被過度以專有術語分析到無所不及的不留餘地，
這使我對學術性的探討產生強烈的質疑。
如果修行者必須超越生與死才能達到成功，
那麼他的去處，還應該由自己來決定，
為什麼一定要界定一位修行者的最終結果？
這類討論，只是在浪費時間。
可以確定的是，佛學研究已經在文字上耗費了太多精力。
半寄
Choice
（Buddhist terms has stripped away the human element.)
I believe that many experiemced Buddhist practitioners—especially those striving for realization—become bound by technical terminology.
They then spend excessive time trying to break free from it, which is quite a pity.
Yesterday in class, I mentioned that I had studied the history of Western philosophy. When I revisited the Buddhist “Four Stages of Enlightenment” and encountered “attachment to form” and “attachment to the formless,” I was deeply shocked.
The liberation of body and mind has always been a core philosophical problem.
Although Indian Buddhism uses the terms “Form Realm” and “Formless Realm,” to me they directly indicate liberation from the physical and the mental, without needing the complex framework of Indian cosmology.
(In Indian Buddhism, “Form Realm” (Rūpa-dhātu) and “Formless Realm” (Ārūpya-dhātu) are not simply cosmological categories, but structured stages of mental discipline and meditative development.
Indian Buddhism incorporates these pre-existing ancient Indian worldviews into its framework of spiritual practice.)
Mahayana Buddhism presents the Ten Bodhisattva Stages, but does not explicitly use the terms “attachment to form” and “attachment to the formless.”
AI explanations often say this is because bodhisattvas must remain engaged in the world to benefit others.
But does liberation from “formless attachment” mean one never returns?
The concept of the “Bodhisattva of non-arising” has been discussed before.
My main concern was this:
Why does someone who reaches the highest level of practice seem to lose freedom, being forced to choose between nirvana and returning again?
From a modern perspective, it appears that an accomplished practitioner must declare whether they will enter nirvana or return in another life before death, as if this were required to complete their mission.
To me, this feels rather absurd—even intrusive.
True realization is already rare.
Yet Buddhist texts are analyzed to exhaustion through terminology. This leads me to strongly question academic approaches.
If one must transcend both life and death to succeed,
should others still decide one’s destination?
Why insist on defining a practitioner’s final outcome?
Such discussions only waste time.
It is certain that too much effort in Buddhist studies has already been spent on words.
Master Banji
