神通7 Spiritual Powers 7

 神通7 （法眼淨—感念印度聖者對佛法的掛懷而寫出）

 

（特別在日本高知縣發文，由衷感謝日本學者對原始佛教的研究。）

 

真正證入初果的修行者，具備「法眼」，

能直接洞見因、緣、果，

從而產生具體而清楚的理解。

 

佛法傳入中國後，受到儒家思想的影響，

修行多被詮釋為修身養性。

 

「因、緣、果」被簡化為因果報應：

善有善報，惡有惡報。

 

因此，當面對傷害時，一位有修養的人不只是以自我克制來回應，

也可能會等待對方承受其業報。

 

然而，這樣的理解只會導向被動的等待。

更重要的是，對修行者與不修行者而言，並無實質幫助。

 

若要正確運用因、緣、果，

「緣」必須被啟動與運用。

學習者需要具備方法與思維能力，使條件轉化為結果，

從而改變自己的未來。

 

回到初果的「法眼淨」，

因為能看見因、緣、果之間完整的相互關聯，

 

因此，人性屬於劣根的方面也會轉變─

這是一種核心的心理轉化，已超越單純的道德修養。

 

具備這種洞見能力後，進展自然加快。

不再受慣性情緒驅使而行事，

整個生命的推進，可用「速度」來形容。

 

「初果 — 斷（破）三結（身見.戒取.疑）—成果.法眼淨

二果— 斷（破）三結、貪.瞋.癡薄—

證入初果後，啟動的因、緣、果真相，便足以扭轉人性。」

半寄

 

Spiritual Powers 7 

(Dharma Eye Clarity— In Gratitude to the Indian Sages for Safeguarding the Dharma)

 

(Posting especially from Kōchi, Japan, in sincere appreciation of Japanese scholarship on Early Buddhism.)

A practitioner who has realized the first stage of enlightenment possesses the Dharma Eye,

enabling direct insight into causes, conditions, and results,

and thus a concrete understanding.

 

After Buddhism entered China, influenced by Confucianism,

practice was framed as moral self- refinement.

 

“Causes, conditions, and results” was simplified to karma:

good is rewarded, evil is punished.

 

Thus, when facing harm, a cultivated person not simply responds with personal restraint, but may also wait for the other’s karmic consequences.

 

However, this interpretation leads only to passive waiting.

More importantly, it offers no real benefit for either practitioners or non-practitioners.

 

In proper application, “conditions” must be activated.

One must develop methods and thinking to bring conditions into results,

thereby changing one’s future.

 

With the Dharma Eye’s clarity at the first stage,

one sees the full interconnection of causes, conditions and results.

 

As a result, o human nature itself transforms—

This is a core psychological shift, beyond mere moral discipline.

 

With this capacity for insight, progress accelerates.

One no longer acts out of habitual emotions,

and the advancement of life is best described as speed.

 

First Stage — Eliminates (overcomes /transends) three fetters (self-view, ritual attachment, 

doubt); attaining enlightenment and Dharma Eye clarity and Dharma Eye clarity.

Second Stage — Three fetters eliminated (overcome /transended); greed, anger, and delusion are reduced. 

The insight into cause, condition, and result initiated at stream-entry is sufficient to transform human nature.

Master Banji

 

跨時空而來 A Message Across Time and Space

 跨時空而來

 

半寄群組發文：

18號晚上10點鐘，

剛剛有一位修行者來提醒我說：

「想」不是「識」的真正意思。

 

佛法中的「識」是指要夾帶到未來世的記憶，包括福與苦業，

意識裡有一切人世間緣份記憶的意思，

那裡面包含個人造作的福與惡業，及人脈關係。

 

「資料：南傳上座部 討論，

識 (viññāṇa)是知道有對象出現。

想 (saññā)是辨認那是什麼。 

 

上座部解釋：「「識」是知道有對象出現」

「想」是辨認那是什麼？」

 

半寄解釋：如做這樣的解讀，「想跟識」其實是難分難解的？

17號社團講課結束前的最後10分鐘，提出來講的問題。

 

不可思議！竟然有人會來告知我，

17號在竹科社團的講解，沒有講解完整，

害我起雞皮疙瘩。

 

那一位修行者用意念傳達說：

意識是一種大的記憶，

有力量的記憶才會儲藏在意識裡。

不是一般的「想」。

 

19號清晨5:20分

印度修行者他現在透過意念在跟我說：

當時的印度《唯識學》就是這樣發展的。

 

哈哈😄教授來了！

 

印度唯識學醞釀萌芽期（西元 2－3 世紀）：

 

部派佛教時期的「經部」提出種子說等心識理論，

為唯識思想奠定基礎。

 

大家可以想像，

西元2至3世紀的修行者

到現在的意念還這麼清楚，

印度的修行根本就是跨時空的

這實在是很可怕。

 

看來印度那一帶的讀者這麼多，

應該有聖者在指引吧！

 

他們看到我一直講「空法」都沒有講《唯識學》，

忍不下去了跳出來跟我指點，哈！

 

半寄

 

A Message Across Time and Space

Banjì group post:

At 10 p.m. on the 18th,
a practitioner just reached out to remind me:
“Perception is not the true meaning of consciousness.”

 

In the Dharma, consciousness refers to what carries forward into future lives—
a store of memory that includes karma (wholesome and unwholesome)
and all human relationships.

 

Reference (Theravāda):

Consciousness (viññāṇa): awareness of an object’s presence.
Perception (saññā): recognition of what the object is.

 

According to the Theravāda explanation:

“Consciousness knows that an object has appeared.”
“Perception recognizes what it is.” 

 

My view:
Under this explanation, perception and consciousness are difficult to distinguish.

 

This question was raised in the final ten minutes of my talk on the 17th.

Unbelievable—someone later came to tell me
that my explanation at the Hsinchu group was incomplete.
It gave me goosebumps.

 

That practitioner conveyed the message through thought:
Consciousness is a kind of vast memory.
Only powerful memories are stored within it—
it is not the same as ordinary “perception.”

 

At 5:20 a.m. on the 19th,
an Indian practitioner conveyed through thought:
“This is how Yogācāra developed in India.”

Haha—the professor has arrived.

 

The formative stage of Indian Yogācāra (2nd–3rd century CE):
The Sautrāntika school proposed “seed” theories of mind,
forming the basis of Yogācāra.

 

Imagine this—
practitioners from the 2nd–3rd century
whose thoughts can still be so clear today.
Indian practice truly seems to transcend time and space—
it’s honestly quite astonishing.

 

With so many readers from India,
perhaps there are realized beings guiding this.

 

They saw me speaking only about śūnyatā,
not Yogācāra—
and couldn’t hold back any longer, so they stepped in to point it out. Haha!

 

Master Banji

選擇 Choice

 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