五四運動The May Fourth Movement

 讀者們好！

五四運動

我已經寫完我個人對佛法的研究。

今天討論的趙元任先生對中國漢字的影響，（請讀者自己去找影集）
重播了五四運動那時候大家都在討論的中國問題，
雖然這個話題已經很遠了！
但如果重提這個話題，我還是想問；為什麼當時的知識分子，投入那麼多研究，卻沒有人敢把內心的話講出來？

我如果不是去讀其他國家的資料，實在很難相信整個當時的中國知識分子對自己的研究，竟然又縮回去，用其他話語去掩蓋研究的事實，
至少他們對佛學是這樣對待的！

五四運動時，每一個人都在問中國怎麼了？
把罪怪到文字，把罪怪到醬缸上面？
但不願意清楚說出來的研究事實，要算什麼？

我不是學者，不想指責這些，但這些問題的清楚，對我個人有著極大的影響。
提供參考！

上面這些大方向的看法，我也都寫過了，讀者們慢慢去細讀。

半寄

The May Fourth Movement

 

Hello, readers,

 

I have finished writing my personal research on Buddhism.

 

Today, I would like to discuss the influence of Yuen Ren Chao on Chinese characters (readers may consult relevant materials independently). It recalls the broader debates on China that emerged during the May Fourth Movement.

 

Although this topic feels distant today, I still want to ask: why did the intellectuals of that time, despite extensive research, refrain from expressing their genuine conclusions?

 

If I had not read materials from other countries, I would find it hard to believe that Chinese intellectuals of that era would retreat from their own findings and instead cover them up with different narratives. At least, this is how they treated Buddhist studies.

 

During the May Fourth Movement, everyone was asking: what had gone wrong with China? Some blamed the written language, others blamed cultural traditions. But if the conclusions of research are not clearly stated, what value do they really have?

 

I am not a scholar, and I do not intend to criticize. However, achieving clarity on these issues has had a profound personal impact on me.

 

I offer these reflections for your consideration.

 

The broader perspectives mentioned above have already been discussed in my previous writings; readers are encouraged to examine them in detail.

 

Master Banji

清楚明白Clarity and Understanding

 清楚明白

前台灣高雄市文獻會主委退休的洪招祥居士，
有一次很驕傲的跟我說：有人請他講佛學讀書會，他說不行，他對佛法不了解，
他有在南禪讀書會上課，是我在讀書會上的教學，讓他知道他不可以講那些佛法。

（他說：如果沒有上我的課，他大概會跟別人一樣，認為自己會講佛學了！）

以他是文獻會主委退休的資歷，講佛學對他而言並不是什麼困難的事，

但因為是我在教學中的指出，他很清楚佛法裡面有實證的範圍意思，不是他可以講的。

有這句話就夠了！
我只要求，沒辦法修入佛法，至少也要清楚明白，
這是對佛法最基本的尊重態度。
半寄

 

Clarity and Understanding

 

Mr. Hong Zhaoxiang, a retired director of the Kaohsiung Historical Society, once told me proudly:

 

He had been invited to speak at a Buddhist study group, but he declined, saying he did not truly understand the Dharma.

 

Having attended the NanZen study club, he said my teaching helped him realize that he was not in a position to speak on Buddhism.

 

(He said that without my class, he would have assumed he could already speak on Buddhism, just like everyone else.)

 

Given his background, giving such a talk would not have been difficult.

 

However, through my instruction, he came to understand that Buddhism involves domains of direct realization—things that cannot be explained casually.

 

That alone is sufficient.

 

My only request is this: even if one cannot enter into true practice, one should at least have clarity.

 

This is the most basic respect for the Dharma.

 

Master Banji

 

 

 

是見受不？2 Do You Hold That View? 2

 是見受不？2

有讀者說：還以為我會把「一切法不受」，解釋一下。

這個問題的範圍涉及層面太廣大，
下面AI的資料看起來好像就已經是解釋，事實上是完全不對的，

試想；一個把印度學問全部精研過的大學問家，
提出「一切法不受」，
這句話代表他經得起印度各思想家提出的詰難（質疑與挑戰）。

（長爪梵志：約西元前6世紀至前5世紀的人物，

外號由來： 因與姐姐（舍利弗之母）辯論落敗，
發誓不精通一切學問絕不剪指甲，導致指甲留得極長，
故被當時人稱為「長爪梵志」，意指留長指甲的修行者）。

這裡面有演算過的思想，有經得起詰難的思考，

我個人認為，印度提出的邏輯思想，包含禪定裡面的生理與心理活動，是世界上其他民族不曾涉及的，

印度文化在禪定裡面把人體跟心理活動，演化成他們自己特殊的見解，

而這些見解似乎不是表面文字，就能解釋完的，

除了發展禪定以外，其中的思想邏輯對辯也是他們的文化特色，要在這一系列的精密思考裡面辯論勝出，是非常不容易的，

而這些背景被簡化成有邊、無邊，還有佛教的中道思想，

這種簡化掩蓋了實體思想的內容，

如果把這些內容再變成，他為什麼認為是「有」？

又為什麼是認同「無」？或是「中道」？

這些想法內容裡面要界定與成立什麼？

這樣思考範圍就加大了！

後代的學佛者，能在這些用印度邏輯配合人體跟心理範圍的修持活動中，得到什麼滋潤，都是可以想一想的。

但要在這邊解釋這些，恐怕是辦不到的。
（但我寫過的佛法裡面，也大部分解答了）

半寄

（以下AI資料）

在佛陀時代，印度思想界處於「百家爭鳴」的混亂期。當時有一派學者認為，任何關於世界本質的定論（如：世界有常、無常、有邊、無邊）都是一種束縛。

• 不落兩邊：為了不被任何觀點扣住，「一切法不受」成為一種防禦性的哲學立場。

• 心理動機：他們認為只要產生「見解」（View/Opinion），就會產生執著與煩惱。因此，最保險的方法就是宣告「我不接受任何觀點」

Do You Hold That View? 2

 

A reader suggested that I might explain the statement “not accepting any dharmas.”

 

However, the scope of this issue is extremely broad.

The AI Data below may appear explanatory, but it is in fact fundamentally inaccurate.

 

Just consider this:

a great scholar who had mastered the entire body of Indian knowledge

put forward the statement “not accepting any dharmas.”

Such a statement implies that he could withstand challenges from all other thinkers of his time.

 

(Long-Claw Brahmin: a figure roughly dated to the 6th–5th century BCE.He earned his nickname after losing a debate with his sister—Śāriputra’s mother—and vowing not to cut his nails until he had mastered all knowledge. His nails grew extremely long, hence the name.)

 

This statement reflects not a casual assertion, but a conclusion reached through rigorous reasoning and stroang debate.

 

In my view, Indian thought developed very advanced systems of logic, including detailed observations of both the body and the mind in meditation.

Other cultures have rarely explored this to the same depth.

 

Indian meditation traditions formed unique ideas about how the body and mind function.

These ideas cannot be fully explained by superficial linguistic explanation.

Beyond meditation itself, dialectical reasoning and debate were also central cultural features.

To prevail within such a refined system of thought is no easy task.

 

Yet over time, all this has been simplified into categories such as “finite” and “infinite,” or into the Buddhist idea of the Middle Way.

Such simplifications conceal the substance of the original thought.

 

If we instead ask:

Why did they assert “existence”?

Why did they affirm “non-existence”?

Why propose the “Middle Way”?

What exactly were they trying to define and establish?

Then we can see how wide this topic really is.

For modern Buddhist practitioners, it is worth thinking about what we can learn from these traditions that combine logic with deep inner practice.

 

A full exposition of these issues is not feasible here.

(Though much of it has already been addressed in my own writings on the Dharma.)

 

Master Banji

 

AI Data:

During the Buddha’s time, the Indian intellectual world was in a state of intense diversity, with many competing schools of thought. One group of thinkers held that any fixed conclusion about the nature of the world—such as whether it is permanent or impermanent, finite or infinite—becomes a kind of limitation.

 

• Avoiding extremes: In order not to be bound by any single viewpoint, they proposed the idea of “not accepting any dharmas” as a defensive philosophical strategy.

• Psychological motive: They believed that the moment one forms a “view” or opinion, attachment and mental suffering follow. Therefore, the safest approach was to say, “I do not accept any view.”