回應 Response

回應

 

讀者好！

 

我知道《雜阿含經》就有很多修行者生病的記載，

 

但口誦的經文記載表示，那時候都是佛陀親口所説，

用漢語的思想就是佛陀在世，佛陀說了算，

 

那時候看《雜阿含經》沒有激起太大的衝突感，

 

更應該說：因為佛陀在世，還沒有把佛法神化（話）掉。

 

看「大天五事」已經是佛陀涅槃後一百年的事，

看到當時佛教這麼強烈的分裂歷史，

心中對佛法修行要實際清楚的想望，一下子激盪起來，

「原始教典」是當經典在研究，

那時（已近40年前）自己功力也還不足，沒有想要跨進去的動力。

 

這是我個人的經歷，當然佛法這麼多，觸動個人心裡章節，都是不一樣的。

 

半寄

 

Response

 

Dear readers,

 

The Saṁyukta Āgama records many instances of practitioners experiencing illness.

 

As orally transmitted texts, these accounts are framed as the Buddha’s own words. Within a Chinese interpretive framework, this often implies that while the Buddha was alive, his authority defined the Dharma.

 

For this reason, my early reading of the Saṁyukta Āgamadid not evoke much inner tension.

 

More precisely, it may be said that since the Buddha was still alive at that time, the Dharma had not yet been overly idealized or mythologized.

 

In contrast, the “Five Points of Mahādeva” appeared about a hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa. When I encountered the intense divisions within early Buddhism during that period, it stirred in me a strong desire for a clear and practical understanding of Buddhist practice.

 

As for the “early scriptures,” I approached them mainly from an academic perspective. At that time—nearly forty years ago—my own level of understanding was still limited, and I did not feel motivated to delve deeper into them.

 

This reflects only my personal journey. The Dharma is vast, and what resonates with each person inevitably differs.

 

Master Banji

真不是幻覺3 Not an Illusion 3: (The Challenge of Metaphors)

真不是幻覺3

（譬喻ㄧ詞的重重困境）

昨天稍微提了一下部派佛教的「大天五事」。

困難1.

這種在現實裡發生的嚴重糾紛，是無法用「譬喻」來解釋的，

我在研讀佛法過程中，因為都是中文文言文，讀入過深，面對現實根本無法適應，

當看到「大天五事」時的唐突與抵觸至今印象深刻，而這還事涉佛法證果的問題，

這不是用「譬喻、比諭」可以帶過的，我該怎麼辦呢？

2.重新解讀佛經，面對那麼龐大的經典，那是要命的事！

3.總有一個方法吧！

那就是從實修下手，就知道怎麼判斷了！

真實的體驗，再加上既有的經典指引，應該可以找出一個脈絡吧！

釐出一個頭緒，好像把自己從泥沼裡拉出來。

至今，看到「意識跟幻覺」一起的「譬喻」形容，已經不能接受，

不要認為我對佛法是不恭敬的，

那是錯的！

佛陀為了教育旁人用了「譬喻法」，但譬喻是打個比方的解讀，

可以隨著時代的成熟，再做另外的解釋。

如果唯識學解釋的「夜間看到繩子會當成蛇」的恐怖，

我用的方法是；那就是看夜間的100遍繩子，跟夜間的100遍蛇，

去做辨別，不再譬喻裡面打轉。

我寫過佛法「四聖果」證悟的層次，裡面是沒有矛盾的，

我們內部思考過這個問題的有社長純德，

及甫考上他台大母校資管博士班的志強，

志強跟我說：他也是一直在找佛法的矛盾點，找不到，佩服了！

在一流的地方，與一流的人才討論，

思緒飛越而去，讓人愉快到極點。

半寄

 

Not an Illusion 3: (The Challenge of Metaphors)

 

Yesterday, I briefly mentioned the “Five Points of Mahādeva” in early Buddhism.

 

Difficulty 1

Serious disputes that actually happened in real life cannot be explained away with “metaphors.”

 

During my study of Buddhism, I was immersed in classical Chinese texts for so long that I gradually lost my ability to relate to reality. So when I first encountered the “Five Points of Mahādeva,” the shock I felt is still vivid today.

After all, this issue concerns the attainment of realization in Buddhism.

 

This is not something that can simply be glossed over with metaphors or analogies. So what should I do?

 

Difficulty 2. Reinterpreting the vast body of Buddhist scriptures is extremely difficult.

Difficulty 3. There must be a solution.

 

My solution is to begin with actual practice. Practice helps me develop the ability to judge and understand.

 

With real experience, supported by the guidance of scriptures, we should be able to find a clear direction.

 

This process feels like pulling oneself out of a swamp.

To this day, I can no longer accept metaphors that equate “consciousness” with “illusion.”

Please don’t mistake this as disrespect toward Buddhism—that would be wrong.

 

The Buddha used metaphors as teaching tools, but they are only comparisons, not literal truth.

 

As times evolve, interpretations can also evolve.

For example, Yogācāra uses the metaphor of mistaking a rope for a snake in the dark.

My approach is simple: observe a rope many times at night, and also observe a snake many times—learn to distinguish them directly, instead of getting stuck in metaphors.

 

I have written about the four stages of enlightenment in Buddhism, and there are no contradictions in that framework.

Among those who have discussed this issue with me are President Chunde and Xiaoqiang, who was just admitted to a PhD program in Information Management at National Taiwan University.

Xiaoqiang once told me he had tried to find contradictions in Buddhism but failed. He was deeply impressed.

 

Discussing ideas with top minds in a top environment allows thoughts to soar freely—

it is an immensely joyful experience.

 

Master Banji

 

 

AI資料提供About “Hallucination” (AI-Provided Information)

 

（有關幻覺 A I資料提供）

在佛法（佛教思想史）中，要探討「幻覺」這個概念何時出現，我們需要先釐清一個關鍵的語言與觀念轉變：

在漢譯佛典與梵文原典中，

通常不會直接使用現代心理學或漢語的**「幻覺」（Hallucination）這個詞，

而是使用「幻」（梵文：Māyā）、「如幻」、「幻化」，或者用「眼錯」、「翳病」、「空華（空花）」、「顛倒」**

來形容感官錯覺與認知上的虛妄。

若從佛教思想發展的歷史軸線來看，這個概念的出現與演變可以分為以下幾個關鍵時期：

1. 源頭：原始佛教與阿含經時期（西元前 5 世紀 - 前 3 世紀）

早在最原始的佛法核心《阿含經》中，佛陀就已經頻繁使用「幻」來比喻感官經驗的虛妄性。

經典文獻： 《雜阿含經》第 265 經（相應部《泡沫經》）。

核心譬喻： 佛陀將人類的五種身心組合（五蘊）做了著名的五個比喻：

「觀色如聚沫，受如水上泡，想如春時炎，行如芭蕉，識如幻術。」

概念本意： 這裡的「幻」指的是魔術師的幻術（Māyā）。

當時的意思是，我們誤以為真實存在的「自我」與「外境」，

其實就像魔術師用草木瓦石幻化出大象、馬匹一樣，雖然眼睛看到了，但其本質是空無實體的。

2. 轉折：大乘般若經與龍樹菩薩的「十緣生句」（西元 1 世紀 - 3 世紀）

到了大乘佛教興起，般若系經典（如《大品般若經》）

將「幻」推到了哲學核心，

而中觀學派的創始人龍樹菩薩在《大智度論》與《中論》中，更系統化地提出了著名的**「十緣生句」**（十種用來比喻諸法不實的現象），

這也是佛教論述「錯覺與幻象」最密集的時期。

這十個比喻中，有幾個與現代人所說的「幻覺」與「錯覺」極為相似：

 陽焰： 春天陽光照在曠野上產生的折射（海市蜃樓），比喻認知中的錯覺。

 眼炎（翳病）： 眼睛生病（如飛蚊症或白內障），看到空中漂浮著根本不存在的毛髮或花朵（即**「空華」**）。這在現代心理學上就是標準的「視覺幻覺」。

 夢、影、響（迴音）、鏡中像、乾闥婆城（蜃景）。

龍樹菩薩藉此說明，一切現象（緣起法）雖然能被感官感知，

但就像眼疾患者看到空華一樣，本質上是不可得的。

3. 深化：唯識學派與「遍計所執性」（西元 4 世紀 - 5 世紀）

到了無著、世親菩薩建立的唯識學派（Yoga-cāra），

佛法對「幻覺」的探討從哲學比喻走向了心理學與認識論的嚴密剖析。

 理論核心： 唯識學提出「三自性」，其中的**「遍計所執性」**就是最徹底的幻覺。

 心理機制： 唯識學認為，人類的感官與意識（第六識、第七識）因為受到過去業力種子的影響（阿賴耶識），

在面對外境時，會不由自主地建構出一個「主客對立、有真實自我、有真實外在客體」的世界。

 代表譬喻： 「夜見 strlen 繩，誤以為蛇」。黑暗中看到一條繩子，主觀放大恐懼誤認為是毒蛇。

這時「蛇」的形象完全是由內心投射出來的幻覺（遍計所執）。

4. 現代「幻覺」一詞的漢譯確立（19 世紀末 - 20 世紀初）

至於我們今天口語說的**「幻覺」**這兩個字連用，並用來對應西方醫學/心理學的 Hallucination，則是到了清末民初，

隨著西方科學、哲學與心理學傳入東亞（多經由日本學者翻譯引進），才正式在漢語圈確定下來。

太虛大師等近代佛教革新者，

在嘗試用西方心理學與唯識學進行對話時（如《唯識觀大綱》等著作），

才開始系統性地將佛典中的「眼錯、倒錯、夢幻」與現代科學的「錯覺（Illusion）」、「幻覺（Hallucination）」進行概念上的疊合。

總結來說：

如果探討的是**「現象如魔術幻化、感官不可靠」的觀念**，它在西元前 5 至 3 世紀的原始佛教《阿含經》就出現了；

如果是探討「因生理或心理病變產生無中生有的視覺幻象（如空華）」，

則在西元 1 至 3 世紀的大乘中觀與般若思想中被大量確立與討論。

About “Hallucination” (AI-Provided Information)

 

In Buddhism (especially in the history of Buddhist thought), if we want to understand when the idea of “hallucination” appeared, we first need to clarify an important change in language and concepts.

In Chinese Buddhist texts and original Sanskrit sources, the modern word “hallucination” is usually not used. Instead, terms like “illusion” (Sanskrit: Māyā), “like an illusion,” “illusory transformation,” or expressions such as “visual error,” “eye disease,” “flowers in empty space,” and “distorted perception” are used to describe sensory mistakes and false cognition.

Looking at the historical development of Buddhist thought, this idea can be divided into several key stages:

 

1. Origin: Early Buddhism and the Āgama Period (5th–3rd century BCE)

In the earliest Buddhist texts, the Āgamas, the Buddha often used “illusion” to explain that our sensory experience is not reliable.

Textual source: Saṁyukta Āgama, Sutra 265 (also known as the “Foam Sutta”).

Key metaphor:
The Buddha compared the five aggregates (the five parts of human experience) to five images:

“Form is like foam, feeling is like bubbles on water, perception is like a mirage, mental formations are like a banana tree, and consciousness is like a magic illusion.”

Meaning:
Here, “illusion” refers to a magician’s trick (Māyā). What we think is a real “self” or a real external world is actually like something created by a magician—visible, but without real substance.

 

2. Development: Mahāyāna Prajñā Texts and Nāgārjuna (1st–3rd century CE)

With the rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism, especially the Prajñā texts, “illusion” became a central philosophical idea.

Nāgārjuna further developed this idea and introduced the “Ten Analogies” to explain that all phenomena are not truly real.

Some of these examples are very similar to what we now call illusions or hallucinations:

• Mirage: light in the desert creates an illusion of water 

• Eye disease: when the eyes are sick (like floaters or cataracts), people may see things like floating hairs or flowers in empty space—this is similar to visual hallucination 

• Dreams, reflections, echoes, mirror images, and mirage-like cities

These examples show that although we can perceive things, they do not truly exist in a solid or independent way.

 

3. Deepening: Yogācāra and “Imagined Nature” (4th–5th century CE)

Later, the Yogācāra school, founded by Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, gave a more detailed explanation from a psychological perspective.

Core idea:
The theory of the “Three Natures,” especially the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), which represents the deepest form of illusion.

Psychological explanation:
Because of past karmic influences stored in consciousness, the mind automatically creates a world where there is a subject (“self”) and an object (“external world”).

Famous example:
Mistaking a rope for a snake in the dark. The “snake” is not really there—it is created by the mind. This is a clear example of hallucination-like experience.

 

4. The Modern Term “Hallucination” (Late 19th – Early 20th Century)

The modern Chinese term “hallucination” (幻覺), used to translate the Western concept, only became common in the late 19th and early 20th century.

At that time, Western science and psychology were introduced into East Asia (often through Japan). Buddhist reformers such as Taixu began to compare traditional Buddhist ideas with modern psychology.

They connected traditional terms like visual error, illusion, and dream with modern concepts such as illusionand hallucination.

Summary

• The idea that things are like illusions and our senses are unreliable already existed in early Buddhism (5th–3rd century BCE). 

• The idea of seeing things that are not actually there (like “flowers in empty space”) was more clearly discussed in Mahāyāna Buddhism (1st–3rd century CE).

人話 At Last, a Normal Sentence

人話

 

哈哈😄

 

「我終於聽到一句人話了，尊重我的研究！不再指我為惡魔，」哈哈😁

（我想說：這個笑話太好笑了🤣）

 

我們南禪精舍最早時期，

對佛法最有研究的人是沛宏，

去年的文章都有提及他，

讀者可以自己去找，

 

有一陣子他有到南傳的道場去參加短期出家，

回來以後不斷對我們的群組丟資料，

 

丟到我受不了了，而他剛好丟到阿羅漢果話題，

在群組我請他把「大天五事」研究一下，才可以講阿羅漢果，我只接受有研究的佛法內容。

 

2016年10月我已經出版了《佛法最終的實現》

裡面對部派佛教的「大天五事」有所著墨，

台灣印順法師不願點明的話，我都更再深入了一些。

 

我沒辦法接受，我已經把「大天五事」寫了，

我身邊的大德還不斷在講阿羅漢果如何、又如何，

卻只落於宗教上的吹捧，

對於實質內容都已經喪失了！

（很多南禪的居士們，各自有依止的道場，基本上都是緣分聚在一起，我都採取尊重的態度。）

 

這種神跟修行者之間的分寸，已經喪失的佛法，是我不能接受的，

 

而沛宏從來沒有跟我爭辯過，

就在我點出「大天五事」後，

他就不再丟資料上群組了！

我很清楚，這是因為我的研究讓他沉默，

我們的互動還是良好的。

 

（眾所皆知聖經只有一本，省事多了！）

 

半寄

 

At Last, a Normal Sentence

 

Haha 😄

 

“I finally heard something reasonable. Someone respects my research and doesn’t call me a demon anymore!” Haha 😁

(I really think this joke is hilarious 🤣)

 

In the early period of Nanzen Vihara, the person who understood Buddhism the best was Peihong. I wrote about him in posts last year.

 

For a period of time, he went to a Theravāda temple and joined a short-term ordination. After returning, he kept sending a lot of materials to our group chat.

 

It became overwhelming. Then when he started talking about arahantship, I told him he should first study the “Five Points of Mahādeva” before discussing it. I only accept Buddhist ideas that are based on research.

 

Back in October 2016, I had already published Ultimate Realization in Buddhism, where I discussed this topic. For some topics that Master Yinshun chose not to state explicitly, I went further and examined them more directly.

 

So I could not accept that people around me kept talking about arahantship in a superficial, religious way, without real understanding.

 

(Many lay members in our group follow different teachers. We have all come together because of circumstances and connections, and I respect that.)

 

But when the boundary between belief and actual practice is lost, I cannot accept it.

Peihong never argued with me. After I mentioned the “Five Points of Mahādeva,” he stopped posting in the group.

 

I know why—my research made him stop. But we still get along well.

 

(Everyone knows, in Christianity, there is only one Bible, which makes things much simpler.!)

 

Master Banji