2026年7月13日 星期一

神通2 Spiritual Powers 2

神通2

 

在佛法「四聖果」裡面訴求的「三明六通」,是指修行者證悟後,擁有對自身生命完全清楚的本事。

 

所有的事都是清楚與明白才能再往前走的,

如果修行者有過入定的經驗,入定的經驗就會改變你的感官知覺,

 

這不是訴求文字能夠解決的問題,

這是一種肉身經由入定改變了原本對自我感官的認知。

 

但這種認知也會隨著個人有入定基礎以後,能再注入多少的資源,

例如佛法的「無我」修持,

在感官透過入定改變先前的經驗後,如何提升「無我」思考從粗糙到細膩的觀察,

智力沉思與昇華間,時刻考驗修行者的內心世界。

 

一位正確的佛法修行者,從觀察無我、無常,掌握了對自身與周遭的一切緣起(條件)及變動,

進而達到明白的目的破身見,破疑。

 

隨著對生命的疑惑越來越少,該清楚的佛法自然會展現,通過輕盈讓心神通達,這個就是神通的由來。

半寄


 

Spiritual Powers 2

 

In the Four Stages of Enlightenment, the “Three Knowledges and Six Powers” refer to complete clarity about one’s own life after awakening.

 

Clarity is the basis for progress.

Experiences of meditative absorption (samādhi) transform sensory perception.

 

This transformation cannot be conveyed through language.

It is a direct shift in bodily experience, altering how one perceives the self and the senses.

 

With a foundation in meditation, further development depends on continued cultivation.

 

In practicing non-self, the practitioner refines contemplation from coarse to subtle after the senses have been transformed.

 

The mind is continually tested between intellectual understanding and inner realization.

 

By contemplating non-self and impermanence, a practitioner understands dependent conditions and change, thereby breaking self-view and doubt.

 

As doubt diminishes, the Dharma becomes clear.

When the mind becomes light and free, it functions smoothly—this is what is called spiritual power.

 

Master Banji

 



神通 1Spiritual Powers

 神通1

 

讀者想看有關於神通印度最古老的記載,

印度有很多宗教傳說是非常混亂的,

請讀者自己當資料看看就好!

 

「神通」在佛教裡面的意義,是一種修行者能量正常的啟發。

我個人的看法是修行者擁有能力後去解決自己的事情

(宿命明(通)加因、緣、果),為首要的條件。


不是下面的資料這麼混亂、還有無所不能的。

 


簡而言之,佛陀還是比較傾向於人類智慧如:「緣起法則」的說明,


「神通」如果訴諸於「三明(天眼明、、宿命明、漏盡明)六通」的生命明白,又另當別論了!

半寄


 

(以下A I資料)

 

在佛陀時代(約西元前6至5世紀)之前的奧義書(Upanishads)與更早的吠陀(Vedas)、梵書(Brahmanas)文獻中,確實有大量關於「超自然能力」或「神秘力量」的記載。不過,當時的婆羅門教並不使用佛教後來所標準化的「神通」這個詞,而是用不同的概念來描述。

 

我們可以從幾個層面來看佛陀之前婆羅門文獻對這類能力的記載與理解:

 

1. 核心概念:從「祭祀魔力」到「苦行與瑜伽」

 

在婆羅門教的演變中,超自然力量的來源經歷了兩大階段:

 

吠陀與梵書時代:祭祀的力量(Bráhman)

早期的婆羅門相信,透過極其精準、毫無差錯的祭祀儀式、持誦咒語(Mantra),可以產生一種強大的神秘力量,足以撼動宇宙、驅使諸神、降雨、治病或詛咒敵人。

這種力量與其說是個人的「超能力」,不如說是對宇宙規律(Rta)的操控權。

 

奧義書時代:苦行(Tapas)與瑜伽(Yoga)

 

到了佛陀前夕的奧義書時代,思想發生了「內化」。婆羅門與森林隱修士(Sramanas)發現,透過極端的肉體苦行(Tapas,字面意思是『生熱』)和冥想控制,體內累積的「熱能」可以轉化為驚人的神力。

 

2. 早期文獻中記載的具體能力

 

在早期奧義書中,已經開始出現類似後來佛教「六神通」的超自然狀態描述:

 

《歌者奧義書》(Chandogya Upanishad):

書中提到,當一個人真正體悟到「梵我如一」(個人的靈魂與宇宙本源合一)時,他就獲得了「自王」(Svaraj)的狀態。

在這種狀態下,他可以「在一切世界中隨意遊行」,並且「心想事成」——只要他想到祖先,祖先就會出現;想到什麼享樂,什麼就會現前。這非常接近後來的「神足通」與「意生身」的雛形。

 

《廣林奧義書》(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad):

記載了聖者大師們能夠透過冥想得知他人的心思、預知死亡,甚至在死後將靈魂引導至不同的梵天世界。

書中也提到某些仙人具有「遠視」或聽聞神靈聲音的能力。

 

《鷓鴣氏奧義書》(Taittiriya Upanishad):

提及透過修持特定法門,修行的婆羅門可以獲得「神聖的視力」與宇宙的全面知識。

 

3. 「悉地」(Siddhi)概念的萌芽

 

雖然在經典的《瑜伽經》(Yoga Sutras)系統化提出八大悉地(Asta Siddhi,如身體變大、變小、隱形、輕身飛行等)是佛陀之後的事,

但其基本觀念在佛陀之前的仙人(Rishi)傳說中早已成形。

 

文獻中經常記載古代仙人因為「苦行」而擁有令諸神恐懼的力量,例如:

詛咒與祝福:仙人的一句話(Vak)具有絕對的真實性,說出的詛咒(Sapa)連天神都無法逃脫(如仙人廣博、大自在天等傳說)。

飛行與隱形:在《百道梵書》等古老文獻中,已經有聖者能夠御風而行、肉身進入天界的記述。

 

4. 佛陀之前的婆羅門如何看待這些能力?

 

與後來佛陀對神通的「警惕」態度不同,早期的婆羅門教文獻對這些力量的看法相當直接:

 

它是「真理與梵合一」的自然副產品,也是祭祀/苦行成功的最高驗證。

在早期奧義書中,擁有這些超自然力量被視為生命達到圓滿、解脫(Moksha)的體現。

他們認為,既然「我」就是宇宙的本源(梵),那麼掌握宇宙的各種轉化能力、突破物理限制,自然是理所當然的。

這也解釋了為什麼在早期的佛教阿含經中,經常可以看到佛陀與各派婆羅門、苦行者(如迦葉三兄弟)「比試神變」的情節。

這說明在佛陀的時代背景下,社會上普遍已經承認並流傳著婆羅門或隱修士擁有超自然神秘力量的傳統與記載。



 

Spiritual Powers1

 

Some readers are interested in the earliest Indian accounts of spiritual powers.

However, many Indian traditions are complex and inconsistent,

so they should be viewed only as reference.

 

In Buddhism, spiritual powers are simply a natural outcome of practice.

 

I believe that once practitioners gain such abilities, their priority is to resolve their own lives—

understanding past lives through causes, conditions, and results.

It is not about chaotic or all-powerful abilities.

 

In essence, the Buddha emphasized human wisdom, especially dependent origination.

If spiritual powers are understood through the Three Knowledges and the Six Powers,

then the meaning is different.

 

Master Banji

 

(AI Data Below)

 

Clear and Easy English Version (AI Material)

Before the time of the Buddha (around the 6th–5th century BCE), the Upanishads, as well as earlier texts such as the Vedas and the Brahmanas, already contained many descriptions of supernatural or mystical powers. However, early Brahmanical traditions did not use the later Buddhist term “spiritual powers.” Instead, they used different ideas to describe such abilities.

 

We can understand these early views from several aspects:

 

1. Core Idea: From Ritual Power to Asceticism and Yoga

In Brahmanical development, the source of supernatural power went through two main stages:

Vedic and Brahmana Period: Power of Ritual (Bráhman)
Early Brahmins believed that by performing rituals perfectly and reciting mantras correctly, they could produce a powerful force. This force could influence the universe, control the gods, bring rain, heal illness, or curse enemies.
This was not seen as a personal “superpower,” but rather as control over the cosmic order (Rta).

Upanishadic Period: Ascetic Heat (Tapas) and Yoga
By the time just before the Buddha, ideas became more internal. Brahmins and forest renunciants (śramaṇas) believed that through intense ascetic practices (tapas, meaning “heat”) and meditation, inner energy could be accumulated and transformed into great spiritual power.

 

2. Types of Abilities in Early Texts

Early Upanishads already describe states similar to what Buddhism later called the “six supernormal powers”:

Chandogya Upanishad
When a person realizes the unity of the self and the ultimate reality (Brahman), they reach a state called “self-rule” (Svaraj).
In this state, they can move freely in all worlds and fulfill their wishes. For example, if they think of their ancestors, the ancestors appear; if they desire something, it manifests. This is similar to later ideas like psychic travel or mind-made bodies.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
This text describes sages who can know others’ thoughts, foresee death, and guide souls after death to different heavenly realms.
It also mentions abilities such as distant vision and hearing divine voices.

Taittiriya Upanishad
It explains that through certain practices, a Brahmin practitioner can gain “divine sight” and comprehensive knowledge of the universe.

 

3. Early Development of the Idea of Siddhi

Although the Yoga Sutras (compiled after the Buddha) later systematized the “eight siddhis” (such as becoming large or small, invisibility, and flying), these ideas already existed earlier in legends of ancient sages (rishis).

Many texts describe sages gaining powerful abilities through ascetic practice, even causing fear among the gods. For example:

• Curses and blessings: A sage’s words were believed to have absolute power. Even gods could not escape a curse.
• Flying and invisibility: Some early texts describe sages traveling through the air or entering heavenly realms in their physical bodies.

 

4. How Did Pre-Buddhist Brahmanism View These Powers?

Unlike the Buddha’s more cautious attitude toward supernatural powers, early Brahmanical traditions viewed them quite positively:

• They were seen as natural results of realizing truth and unity with Brahman.
• They were also considered proof that rituals or ascetic practices were successful.
• In early Upanishadic thought, possessing such powers was seen as a sign of fulfillment and liberation (moksha).

 

The idea was simple: if the self is identical with the ultimate reality (Brahman), then having control over the universe and transcending physical limits is natural.

This also helps explain why, in early Buddhist texts, the Buddha is often described as competing in miraculous displays with Brahmins and ascetics.

It shows that, in the Buddha’s time, society already widely accepted the idea that Brahmins and renunciants possessed supernatural powers.

 

安心 Calmness

 安心

 

有讀者說:

中國禪宗六祖大師,

638 年-713 年)

不是說:「本來無一物,何處惹塵埃?」

 

意思是說:六祖也說了空

是的,禪宗有很多這樣的語錄,但是都是一些隻字片語,

如德山禪師

西元 782年至865年

青龍疏抄的「三心了不可得」,

 

但是去貫穿這個思想的邏輯,是沒有的,

當然你可以說:「三心了不可得」就是引用漢傳《金剛經》

 

前面說過了,近代人用了大量的資源去挖掘出《雜阿含經》的整個系列,

如果佛學者不是已經被所謂的大、小乘,做了心理上的侵略,

 

《雜阿含經》是佛陀語錄記載最多的,

而且是有邏輯系統,讀《雜阿含經》,

才是對佛法最直接了當窺全貌及修行內容。

 

當然,一般的佛教信仰是不需要讀這麼多的,

請不用擔心。

半寄

 

Calmness

 

Some readers noted that the Sixth Patriarch, Huineng

(638–713), once said,

“Originally there is not a single thing—where could dust alight?”

 

In other words, the Sixth Patriarch also spoke of śūnyatā.

However, most Chan sayings are brief and fragmentary.

For example, Deshan Xuanjian (782–865) mentioned 

“the three minds cannot be obtained,” a phrase drawn from the Diamond Sutra.

 

Yet these ideas are not developed into a complete logical system.

 

In contrast, modern research has reconstructed the full body of the Saṃyukta Āgama.

If Buddhist scholars had not been psychologically influenced by the division between so-called Mahāyānaand Hīnayāna,

they would recognize that the Saṃyukta Āgamapreserves the largest number of the Buddha’s teachings and presents them in a structured and logical way.

Studying it offers the most direct understanding of Buddhism as a whole.

 

That said, such study is not required for ordinary religious faith—

there is no need to worry.

 

Master Banji

2026年7月12日 星期日

半寄 空的觀點Banji’s Perspective on Śūnyatā

半寄「空的觀點」:

之前文章寫過了,


在大腦畫一個「一」,


那就不是空法,也不是佛法。


如果是「如來藏心」-梵我


印度婆羅門教早就對這個概念論述

完整,

佛陀說:祂有新的證悟,


這個發現就是「因緣法」,「四聖果」解脫法。



「在提供的「空觀點」資料2部分:


批判佛教(Critical Buddhism)論

 

戰(袴谷憲昭、松本史朗):

20
世紀 80 年代末,這兩位學者

 

在東大與駒澤大學引發了震驚國際佛學界的論戰。



他們提出一個激進的觀點:「如來藏(佛性)思想不是佛教」。


他們認為,真正的佛教精神是龍樹**「緣起與空」**——即徹底否

 

定任何本質、基質(Dhatu)或宇宙大我的存在。


他們批判東亞傳統的「本覺思想」(人皆有佛性、萬物皆是真如)實

 

質上是變相的「神我本體論」(梵我如一)。」

 

 

我最初閱讀這些資料時,感到非常困惑,也無法做出判斷。


現在回頭看,這幾乎像是一個巨大的錯誤。


這其實是一場關於婆羅門思想是否進入佛教的爭論。


台灣的印順法師寫的叢書裡面,很大部分也繞在這裡,


「如來藏心」-梵我的思想爭辯摧殘近代的佛教,

 

應該說:自古就禍延至今。



等我走出以「真如」、「如來藏心」的爭論時,


才發現印度宗教文獻資料就可以指出這些思想屬於婆羅門傳統。


然而,卻有無數的人力與資源投入在這場爭論之中。


還有什麼比這更荒謬的事情嗎?



或者,真正的問題是:

佛學者對於「因緣法」及「四聖果」的內容,


實在是太陌生了?



(有讀者說:佛法是講「無我」,那是沒錯!


但能接受「無我」思想的學習者太少,

 

到最後還是要發展出「真空妙有」來?


就說來說去永遠說不清,


還是願意動一點大腦的大德們,自己去努力吧!)


半寄

 

 

Banji’s Perspective on Śūnyatā

 

As I wrote in previous articles:

If the mind creates a fixed “one,”
then it is neither śūnyatā nor Buddhism.

 

If it refers to a “Tathāgatagarbha mind”
—the idea of Brahman—
Indian Brahmanical traditions had already explained this concept completely.

 

 

The Buddha taught that he discovered something new.

That discovery was dependent origination and the liberation teaching of the Four Stages of Enlightenment.

 

 

According to the section On Critical Buddhism (Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō) in The Perspective of Śūnyatā — AI Research Notes 2:

 

In the late 1980s, these two scholars from the University of Tokyo and Komazawa University initiated a debate that attracted international attention.

 

They proposed the view:

“Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) thought is not Buddhism.”

They argued that the true meaning of Buddhism is Nāgārjuna’s teaching of dependent origination and śūnyatā—the rejection of any permanent essence, foundation, or universal self.

 

They criticized the East Asian doctrine of original enlightenment as a modified form of Brahmanical ontology.

 

 

When I first studied these materials, I was confused and unable to reach a conclusion.

Looking back now, it almost appears to be a great mistake.

It was a conflict over whether Brahmanical thought had entered Buddhism.

 

 

A large part of Master Yinshun’s writings in Taiwan also focused on this issue.

The debate over the “Tathāgatagarbha mind” and Brahmanical ideas has greatly damaged modern Buddhism.

 

In fact, this problem has continued from ancient times until today.

 

 

After I moved beyond the arguments about “True Suchness” and “Tathāgatagarbha mind,” I realized that Indian religious literature already indicates that these ideas belong to Brahmanical thought.

 

 

Yet countless people and resources were spent debating this issue.

What could be more absurd than this?

 

 

Or is it that Buddhist scholars were not sufficiently familiar with dependent origination and the Four Stages of Enlightenment?

 

 

(Some readers say that the core of Buddhism is “non-self,” and this is correct.

Yet only a small number of people can truly accept this teaching.

Consequently, ideas such as “true emptiness and wondrous existence” emerge as a way to explain it.

Those who are willing to think a bit more deeply should examine and understand it themselves.)


Master Banji