法眼淨—本文紀念目犍蓮尊者Dhamma-Eye Clarity — Commemorating Venerable Maudgalyāyana

 法眼淨—本文紀念目犍蓮尊者

 

我個人一直在「斷（破）身見」裡面用功，

 

當然加入佛法考古資料，各國佛學精英的研究，

還有世界各國對道德邏輯方面的主要論述。

 

看那麼多，只為了把資訊變成修行佛法用的工具，

撬開屬於「身見」精神與肉體的層面。

 

我個人認為，整個修行的功力加深與實現證悟，

從初果直至四果一直是繞著「斷（破）身見」在執行的，

由破身見至進入無我的修證體系。

 

從證入初果得法眼淨，修行者開始在過去、現在、未來之間，

不論是現實面或是修行面，有了具體的「法眼淨」用於解開問題，

 

修行者如果沒有「法眼淨」的力量，整個修行的速度及其進展會顯得遲緩，

 

「法眼淨」等同運算方面的能力，

用佛法洗禮後出現的法眼，

其中看見的內容能快速明白因、緣、果，

幫助修行者更進一步的取得進展。

 

正如數學運算能力的進步，促使了物理學的突破，並進而改變人類文明的面貌；同樣的，

 

佛法初果須陀洹（Sanskrit: Srotāpanna）

其證入所得的「法眼淨」在修行者身上具備同等的功能，

很多講述還有文字內容不能傳達的事實面，

用「法眼淨」看去一目了然於因、緣、果的關聯，

 

這種法眼親眼看見的力量，

會奠定不可動搖的修行基礎，除了安慰修行上的疲憊，也帶來佛法深層次再次邁進的動力。

 

 

『法眼淨』的能力，對於印度民族本身擁有的數理頭腦而言，

我相信這種不同於印度傳統宗教所證得的能力，

 

一定帶給佛陀時代的修行者一種程度不一屬於大腦精神的愉悅。

 

對身見——「我」的看法，佛陀提出因緣條件來破解我們對身體還有精神的原有認知，

(佛陀—約為公元前563年－前483年（或前566年－前486年），活了80或81歲。)

這經由佛陀實際證悟的教學說明，啟動了當時人類文明的一大進展。

 

對當時付出血肉聖軀把佛法流傳下來的聖者們，致上最深的敬意！

 

半寄

（以下有關「法眼淨」經文提供：

例如雜阿含302經、雜阿含281經等）：

「爾時，世尊（或尊者舍利弗等）為其種種說法，示、教、照、喜。……爾時，某某聞佛所說，遠塵、離垢，得法眼淨。

時，某某見法、得法、知法、入法，度諸疑惑，不由於他，於諸法律得無所畏。從座起，整衣服，為佛作禮，合掌白佛言：『我今已度！我從今日歸依佛、歸依法、歸依僧，盡壽作優婆塞（或求出家），證知我！』）

 Dhamma-Eye Purification — Commemorating 

 

Venerable Maudgalyāyana

 

 

My practice has been consistently directed toward 

 

breaking the view of self-identity.

 

This includes engaging with Buddhist archaeological evidence, 

international scholarship, 

 

and global theories of moral reasoning.

 

The aim is to convert knowledge into functional tools for practice—

 

specifically, to penetrate both the psychological and physical structures of self-identity.

 

I hold that the entire progression of practice—from stream-entry to 

 

arahantship—operates around the dismantling of this view.

 

Through breaking self-identity, 

 

one enters the experiential framework of non-self.

 

With the attainment of stream-entry, the practitioner realizes “Dhamma-eye 

 

purification,” gaining an operational capacity to address issues across temporal dimensions—past, present, and future—within both lived experience and practice.

 

In the absence of Dhamma-eye , the overall speed and development of a practitioner’s progress become noticeably constrained.

 

The Dhamma-eye can be understood as a form of cognitive processing ability. Refined through the Dhamma, it enables rapid recognition of causal structures—causes, conditions, and results.

This accelerates further development.

 

Analogous to how advances in mathematical computation have enabled breakthroughs in physics and reshaped human civilization, the Dhamma-eye acquired at stream-entry (Srotāpanna) fulfills a parallel function within spiritual cultivation.

Many aspects of reality that resist verbal explanation become immediately evident through this mode of direct seeing.

This establishes a stable and irreversible foundation, alleviates fatigue in practice, and generates momentum for deeper realization.

 

Given the strong analytical tradition in Indian thought, this capacity—distinct from attainments in other religious systems—must have brought practitioners in the Buddha’s time a certain degree of intellectual and mental pleasure, although the experience would have varied from person to person.

 

In addressing the notion of self, the Buddha employed conditionality to deconstruct conventional assumptions regarding body and mind.

(The Buddha lived approximately 563–483 BCE, or 566–486 BCE, to the age of 80–81.)

Through realized teaching, he initiated a significant advancement in human intellectual history.

 

I extend my deepest respect to the noble ones who preserved and transmitted the Dhamma at great personal cost.

 

Master Banji

 

AI Data on Dhamma-Eye Purification

For example, in Saṃyukta Āgama Discourses 302 and 281:

 

At that time, the Buddha (or Venerable Śāriputra, and so forth) taught the person the Dharma in various ways, explaining it, instructing them, illuminating its meaning, and bringing them joy.

 

After hearing the Buddha’s teaching, that person became free from dust and defilements and attained the purification of the Dhamma-eye.

 

At that moment, the person saw the Dhamma, attained the Dhamma, understood the Dhamma, and entered the Dhamma. They overcame all doubts without relying on another person, and gained complete confidence in the Dharma and Vinaya.

 

Then they rose from their seat, adjusted their robe, paid respect to the Buddha, and with palms joined, said:

 

“I have now crossed over. From this day onward, I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Dhamma, and I take refuge in the Saṅgha. For the rest of my life, I will live as a lay follower (or I seek ordination). May you bear witness to this.”

 

 

 

 

我見AI資料提供AI Data on Self-view

 「我見」AI資料提供

 

在佛陀時代（約西元前 6 世紀的古印度），思想界極其活躍，史稱「六十二見」或「百家爭鳴」。

當時主流的非佛教宗教（統稱為「外道」）對於「我」（Ātman / Soul / 自我 / 靈魂）的看法，

主要可以劃分為三大陣營。

 

當時印度的哲學家們都在爭論：「到底有沒有一個永恆的『我』？

如果有，它長什麼樣子？」以下是當時各派核心的「我見」對比：

 

1. 婆羅門教（奧義書傳統）：正統的「常我見」

當時正統的婆羅門教思想（以《奧義書》為核心）主張「梵我一如」。

 

核心觀點：他們認為每個人體內都有一個永恆不變、純粹、至高無上的靈魂，叫做「小我」（Ātman）。

 

特徵：這個「我」是常住不滅的（常）、快樂清淨的（樂）、能主宰生命的主體（主宰）。

 

當修行者看透物質世界的虛幻，讓這個「小我」與宇宙的終極神聖本源「大梵」（Brahman）合一時，就能獲得永恆的解脫。

 

佛教的稱呼：這在佛教中被歸類為「常見」（執著有一個永恆不滅的實體）。

 

2. 沙門思潮：非正統派的多元「我見」

除了婆羅門教，當時有許多不承認《吠陀經》權威的自由思想家（沙門）。

 

其中以佛陀常提及的「六師外道」最具代表，

他們對「我」的看法走向了兩個極端：

 

斷滅論（唯物主義 / 順世派）

代表人物：阿耆多·翅舍欽婆羅（AjitaKesakambali）。

核心觀點：

人是由地、水、火、風四大元素四大合成的。

 

根本沒有靈魂，也沒有「後世的我」。

 

特徵：人死後身體消散，意識也隨之徹底滅絕（四大分散）。

 

既然沒有死後的我，因果報應也就不存在，活著應該及時行樂。

佛教的稱呼：這在佛教中被歸類為「斷見」（執著人死如燈滅，否定因果延續）。

 

宿命論與宿作因（邪命外道、耆那教）

代表人物：末伽梨·拘舍羅（Makkhali Gosala，邪命外道）、尼乾陀·若提子（Nigantha Nataputta，耆那教）。

 

核心觀點：生命中有一個靈魂（耆那教稱為 Jiva），這個「我」被物質的「業」所污染和束縛。

 

特徵：他們認為這個「我」必須透過極端的苦行（如不穿衣服、拔頭髮、斷食），

把過去世累積的惡業「燒光」，靈魂才能恢復清淨，升到宇宙頂端獲得自由。

 

佛陀觀察了以上所有理論後，提出了顛覆性的「緣起性空」與「無我」（Anātman）。

 

 

佛陀認為，其他宗教之所以陷入「常、斷」

兩邊的爭論，是因為他們誤把「五蘊」（色身、感受、思想、意志、意識）

的某一部分，當成了永恆的「我」。

 

佛陀說：如果是「我」，它應該能完全自我主宰、不生病、不變老、不痛苦。但實際上，我們的身心隨時在變（無常），

而事實是包括生命的條件都是變化不固定（無常）的，

 

其中沒有一個可以主宰的「我」。

 

佛陀時代的印度宗教，不是執著於一個「永恆不滅的真我」（常見），

 

就是落入「死後什麼都沒了的虛無主義」（斷見）。

 

 

而佛教的「初果」，正是因為親自證悟了身心現象的無常，

徹底打破了上述所有外道的「我見」（斷身見），才得以踏出解脫的第一步。

AI Data on Self-view

 

During the time of the Buddha (around the 6th century BCE in ancient India), the intellectual world was extremely active. This period is often described as the era of the “Sixty-Two Views” or a time of “many competing schools of thought.”

 

Among the non-Buddhist traditions of that time (collectively referred to as “outside paths”), their views about the “self” (Ātman / soul / personal identity) can be broadly divided into three major groups.

 

At that time, Indian philosophers were debating a central question:

“Is there an eternal self? And if so, what is it like?”

Below is a clear comparison of the main views of the self:

 

1. Brahmanism (Upanishadic Tradition): The Orthodox View of an Eternal Self

 

The orthodox Brahmanical tradition, centered on the Upanishads, taught the idea of the unity of Brahman and Ātman.

 

Core view:

They believed that within each person there exists an eternal, unchanging, pure, and supreme soul called the Ātman (the “inner self”).

 

Characteristics:

This self is permanent (unchanging), blissful and pure, and the true controller of life.

 

When a practitioner sees through the illusion of the material world and realizes the unity of this inner self (Ātman) with the ultimate cosmic reality (Brahman), they attain eternal liberation.

 

Buddhist classification:

This is called the view of “eternalism” — the belief in a permanent, unchanging entity.

 

2. Śramaṇa Movements: Diverse Non-Orthodox Views of the Self

 

In addition to Brahmanism, there were many independent thinkers (Śramaṇas) who did not accept the authority of the Vedas.

 

Among them, the most representative are the “Six Teachers of Non-Buddhist Paths,” frequently mentioned by the Buddha. 

Their views on the self tend toward two extremes:

 

(a) Annihilationism (Materialism / Hedonism)

Representative: Ajita Kesakambali

 

Core view:

A person is composed of the four elements: earth, water, fire, and air.

 

There is no soul, and no self that continues after death.

 

Characteristics:

After death, the body breaks apart and consciousness is completely extinguished.

 

Since there is no self after death, there is no karmic consequence. Therefore, one should enjoy life while it lasts.

 

Buddhist classification:

This is called “annihilationism” — the belief that everything ends completely at death, denying moral continuity.

 

(b) Determinism and Karmic Bondage (Ājīvika and Jain Traditions)

Representatives: Makkhali Gosala (Ājīvika), NiganthaNataputta (Jainism)

 

Core view:

There is a soul (in Jainism called jīva), but it is bound and polluted by material karma.

 

Characteristics:

They believed that the soul must undergo extreme ascetic practices (such as nudity, hair-plucking, and fasting) to burn off accumulated past karma.

 

Only then can the soul become pure again and rise to the highest state of freedom.

 

After examining all these theories, the Buddha proposed a radically different teaching: dependent arising and emptiness, and the doctrine of non-self (Anātman).

 

The Buddha pointed out that other traditions fell into the extremes of “eternalism” and “annihilationism” because they mistakenly took some part of the five aggregates (body, feeling, 

perception, volition, and consciousness) to be a permanent self.

 

The Buddha taught:

If something were truly the self, it should be fully under one’s control — not subject to illness, aging, or suffering.

 

But in reality, both body and mind are constantly changing (impermanent).

All conditions that make up life are unstable and ever-changing.

 

Within them, there is no independent, controlling self.

 

Thus, religious views in India at the time of the Buddha were either attached to the idea of an eternal, unchanging self (eternalism),

or fell into the view that nothing remains after death (annihilationism).

 

In Buddhism, the attainment of the first stage of awakening (stream-entry) begins precisely when one directly realizes the impermanent nature of body and mind,

and completely breaks through all these wrong views of self — cutting off the “view of self” — thereby taking the first true step toward liberation.