祈福

 南禪精舍修行的探討部落格，香港讀者多年來ㄧ直都在線上，

願火災盡快息滅，往者安息！

半寄🙏

公道話A Fair Comment

 公道話

 

讀者說想聽我說句公道話。

佛法在華人地區傳播得很好，華人對佛法做出的貢獻是無庸置疑的。

 

印度雖然產生了佛陀這樣的人物，

但是佛法早就在印度消失，

而流傳到其他的地區，佛法已是人類的精華，是人類的共同重要資產，

這也是一個重要的觀點。

 

誰都想要得到精華，不是嗎？

我沒有褒揚誰，或貶低誰的意思，

只是不想看到佛法被扭曲到變成殘篇斷簡，甚至連斷篇張都沒了。

 

或許我過去生跟今生都在這塊區域努力與貢獻許多，所以佛法讓它持續下去都是曾經在佛法這個區域貢獻的大德們共同的心願。

 

自第一次世界大戰後，世界性掀起的考古熱情也帶動佛教原始教典的探討，自太虛大師至印順長老在這塊區域所投注的心血也不遑多讓，

這一些又要回歸到原點嗎？

有些事，實在是看不過去了，說幾句而已啦！

 

謝謝大家🙏

如果話說重了點，也只是這個心意而已！

 

這位要我說公道話的讀者，是不是耐著心把我寫的文章內容多看幾篇，

之後或許，你會覺得我傳達的訊息是

重中之輕，

而不是重中之重。

 

有一次有一位老菩薩往生，因為她也做了很多善舉，

我竟然看到有大乘菩薩來迎接她，這應該是歷代行菩薩行大德的依歸處，（此處指北傳佛法的所依處）

北傳佛經稱爲大乘天。

所以呀，不要傷心，各有所歸，只是我看一看沒想要去，

還有，有些大德努力修了佛法也有一種福慧在他/她的福報裡面，

你會發覺他/她的小孩也比較優秀，所以各有選擇。

 

（當然其他善舉很多的宗教也是很有福報的）

而佛法的公道如已參雜歷史真偽、文化傳承的融合，還有人爲的扭曲，則其複雜性已釐不清了

感謝🙏

半寄

 

A Fair Comment

 

A reader asked me to say something fair and impartial.

Buddhism has flourished in Chinese-speaking societies, and the contributions of Chinese Buddhists to the Dharma are beyond question.

 

Although the Buddha was born in India, Buddhism disappeared from India long ago.
When it spread to other places, it had already become a form of precious human wisdom—important property for everyone in the world. This is a crucial point. 

 

Everyone wants the best part, right?
I’m not praising anyone or criticizing anyone.
I just don’t want to see the Dharma distorted so badly that nothing meaningful is left.

 

Maybe in both my past life and this life, I have worked and contributed in this region.
Keeping the Dharma alive is the shared goal of many great teachers who contributed here before.

 

After World War I, people around the world became very interested in archaeology, which also encouraged research on early Buddhist texts.
Masters like Taixu and Yinshun also devoted huge effort to this in our region.

Must all this effort revert to square one?

 

Some things are truly upsetting to see, so I had to speak up a little!

Thank you all. 🙏
If what I said sounded too strong, it was said with good intentions.

 

The reader who wanted me to speak fairly should maybe read what I wrote a few more times.

After that, you might realize that what I’m sharing is something gentle inside something serious—not the heaviest message.

Once, an elderly laywoman passed away.
She had done many good things,
and I actually saw a Mahāyāna bodhisattva come to welcome her.
This is the place where many kind and virtuous bodhisattvas return to—
what  Northern Buddhist scriptures call the Mahāyāna Heaven. (Here, it refers to the spiritual destination sought by Mahayana Buddhist practitioners.)

So don’t feel sad.
Everyone has their own path and their own destination.
I just saw it, but I don't plan on going there myself. 

Some great practitioners who work hard in the Dharma also gain special blessings of merit and wisdom.
You may notice that their children are often outstanding too.

Everyone has their own choices.

(Of course, people of other religions who do many good deeds also receive great blessings.)

 

Once fairness of the Dharma has been mixed with historical ambiguities, cultural heritage and integration, and intentional human misrepresentation, it becomes too complicated to sort out.

 

Thank you. 🙏

 

Master Banji

 

倒退Regression

倒退

 

總覺得有一些強詞奪理的佛法，似乎又要把佛法變回它在迦葉佛就存在在內地的？

佛教只有迦葉尊者沒有迦葉佛，

迦葉佛已經是後代佛法的流傳再加上去的稱號，

這樣寫是指華人某些地區的佛法又比印度更早存在，

 

這樣的意義是讓整個佛法再度倒退到可以顛覆佛教歷史，

顛覆歷史致使文明倒退，只讓自己吸收到最低級的文化，

這其中到底嘉惠了誰？

半寄

 

Regression

 

Some forced interpretations of Buddhist teachings seem to claim that Buddhism had already existed in the mainland since the time of Kāśyapa Buddha.

 

However, in Buddhism, there is only Kāśyapa the Elder, not a “Kāśyapa Buddha.”

The title "Kashyapa Buddha" is an addition made in the later transmission of the Dharma.

Writing in such a way implies that the Buddhist teachings, in some Chinese areas, predate those of India. 

Such a claim regresses the entire Buddhist tradition, to the point of overturning Buddhist history. And overturning history leads to cultural regression, allowing only the most primitive cultural elements to be absorbed.
Who, exactly, benefits from this?

Master Banji

AI資料AI Data

 駁《金剛經》是終結佛教的悖論的錯誤，

AI資料提供：

1. 錯誤解讀：「因果循環」是佛教最早期的「悖論」

• 錯誤點： 將佛教的「因果」和「輪迴」機制直接等同於邏輯學上的「循環定義」（Circular Definition）和數學上的「悖論」（Paradox）。

• 駁斥：

• 因果並非封閉循環： 佛教的「業力/因果」體系並非簡單的 \bm{A \to B \to C \to A} 的封閉、線性、即時迴圈。它是跨越三世（過去、現在、未來）的開放、動態、網絡化的系統。當下的「果」是過去的「因」和現在的「緣」共同和合而生，而當下的「果」又成為未來的「因」。它有時間軸和變異性，因此不構成邏輯學上的循環定義。

• 十二因緣不是悖論： 佛教的「十二因緣」是解釋生命流轉的連鎖關係，其起點是「無明」（Avidyā），終點是「老死」，但其目的是展示解脫的可能性。它並非用因果解釋因果的封閉系統，而是說明如何通過滅除無明來終結這個鏈條，證明它是一個可被截斷的動態結構，而非邏輯死結。

2. 錯誤解讀：《阿含經》是「有 Bug 的系統」

• 錯誤點： 認為早期佛經（阿含經）是「被因果 Bug 困住的系統」，而後續的「十二因緣」「三世因果」是「修補丁」（patch）。

• 駁斥：

• 經典發展的本質： 佛經的發展是基於教法的廣度和深度，而非簡單的「修 Bug」。十二因緣本身就是阿含經的核心教義，不是後來的補丁。後來的部派佛教、大乘佛教是為了闡述佛陀更深層次的體悟，或回應當時社會的提問而發展，並非因為原始教義有「邏輯缺陷」。

• 佛陀的中心思想： 原始佛教的解脫論，就是透過對緣起（因果）的透徹理解（觀無常、苦、空、無我），從而斷除輪迴，而不是被因果困住。

3. 錯誤解讀：《金剛經》是「刪除我，解除悖論」

錯誤點： 認為《金剛經》是為了**「終結因果悖論」而出現，方法是「刪除我」**。

• 駁斥：

• 《金剛經》的宗旨： 《金剛經》的核心是**「般若波羅蜜多」（智慧的圓滿），其目的是直指空性**，教授如何不住於一切「相」（概念、執著），以達到**「無住生心」**的境界。

• 無我的意義： 《金剛經》中的「無我相、無人相...」是破除對實體自我的執著，而非解決邏輯悖論。大乘的「空性」是對一切現象（包括因果）本質的否定（無自性），不是單單把「我」這個主體抽掉來「解除死循環」。它闡述的是現象和概念的非真實性，而不是修復一個低維系統的邏輯漏洞。

4. 錯誤類比：將佛學等同於「哥德爾不完備定理」

• 錯誤點： 將佛學（因果論）與「哥德爾不完備定理」進行完全同構的類比。

• 駁斥： 哥德爾定理討論的是形式化公理系統的一致性和完備性，屬於數學語言的範疇。而佛教因果論是一種生命現象和倫理道德的解釋，屬於哲學和宗教的範疇。將兩者畫上等號是跨領域的過度解讀，忽略了兩者在基礎定義、目標和應用範圍上的巨大差異。

5. 錯誤的文化論述：華夏文明「根本不信因果」

• 錯誤點： 宣稱華夏文明底層「根本不信因果」，而是「天道、母體論」，並以此證明《金剛經》與華夏文化完美契合。

• 駁斥：

• 華夏的因果概念： 雖然華夏文明沒有印度那種嚴密的「業報輪迴」體系，但「因果」觀念在中國文化中從未缺席，只是表達方式不同。例如：「善有善報，惡有惡報」、「種瓜得瓜，種豆得豆」、「積善之家，必有餘慶」等都是典型的因果報應觀念。

• 《金剛經》的流行： 《金剛經》和禪宗在中國的流行，確實與其直指人心、不立文字的風格更符合中國士人的思維有關，但這是一個複雜的文化融合過程，而不僅僅是因為它「完美吻合華夏天道的宇宙架構」而產生的「當場悟」現象。

結論

這篇文章的價值在於：它使用現代科學和邏輯的語言，為讀者提供了一個理解《金剛經》**「破除執著」和「超越現象」**思想的新穎視角。

但是，它的錯誤在於：為了建立這個「升維」的論點，它嚴重誤讀和扭曲了佛教的**「因果」和「十二因緣」**等核心概念，將其簡化為邏輯上的「悖論」和「Bug」。

AI Data: Why the Claim That The Diamond Sutra Solves a "Buddhist Logic Error" is Wrong 1. Mistake 1: Saying "Karma" is an Early Buddhist "Paradox" • The Error: It treats the Buddhist ideas of Cause-and-Effect (Karma) and Rebirth exactly like a logic problem called a "Circular Definition" or a "Paradox" in math. • The Simple Truth (Refutation): o Karma is Not a Simple Circle: Buddhist Karma is not a fixed, instant loop like "A always causes B, which always causes C, which always causes A." It's an open, changing system that connects the past, present, and future. What happens now (the Effect) is a mix of old Causes and present Conditions. This makes it a dynamic timeline with changes, so it is not a logical circular definition. o Dependent Origination is the Escape Route: The Twelve Links of Dependent Origination explains how life goes on, starting with "Ignorance." The whole point is to show you how to stop the cycle by getting rid of ignorance. Since it can be stopped and changed, it's a dynamic structure, not a dead-end logical puzzle. 2. Mistake 2: Calling Early Scriptures a "System with a Glitch" • The Error: It claims the earliest Buddhist texts (the Āgamas) were a "system stuck in a Karma glitch," and that later teachings like the Twelve Links were just "patches" or "fixes." • The Simple Truth (Refutation): o Teachings Grow, They Don't Get Fixed: Buddhist teachings grew to explain the Buddha's ideas more deeply, not because the first ones were "broken." The Twelve Links were already a core idea in the early texts. Later Mahayana Buddhism developed to discuss deeper truths, notbecause the original teachings had a "logic problem." o The Goal is to Get Out: The original goal of Buddhism is freedom (liberation), which is achieved by fully understanding Cause-and-Effect (seeing things as impermanent, suffering, empty, and having no self). The point is to end the cycle of rebirth, not to be trapped by it. 3. Mistake 3: Saying The Diamond Sutra "Fixes the Paradox by Deleting the Self" • The Error: It argues that The Diamond Sutra appeared just to "end the problem of the causal paradox" by simply "removing the idea of 'me' (the self)." • The Simple Truth (Refutation): o The Sutra's Real Purpose is Wisdom: The main teaching of The Diamond Sutra is Perfect Wisdom. Its goal is to point directly to Emptiness and teach people not to hold onto any "form" or concept,leading to a mind that "works without being attached to anything." o "No-Self" is a Deep Truth, Not a System Fix: When the Sutra says to see "no-self, no person..." it means that a permanent "self" is an illusion,not that we should remove a logical variable to fix a formula. The Mahayana idea of Emptiness says that all things—even Cause-and-Effect—don't have any fixed, real nature. This is a profound statement about reality, not a simple software fix for a logic error. 4. Mistake 4: Comparing Buddhism Exactly to "Gödel's Theorem" • The Error: It makes a direct, one-to-one comparison between Buddhist Karma and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (a complex idea in mathematics). • The Simple Truth (Refutation): Gödel's theorem is about pure math and formal logic. Buddhist Karma is about life, morality, and philosophy. Putting them on the same level is an over-the-top comparison that ignores how different their foundations, goals, and uses are. 5. Mistake 5: The Culture Claim That Chinese People "Don't Believe in Karma" • The Error: It claims that Chinese culture "simply does not believe in Karma"but instead believes in "The Way of Heaven" or a "Matrix," and that this is why The Diamond Sutra was so successful in China. • The Simple Truth (Refutation): o Chinese Culture Does Have Karma: Even though the Chinese didn't have the same strict Rebirth system as India, the idea of "what goes around comes around" has always been strong. Phrases like "Do good, get good; do bad, get bad" or "Plant a melon, get a melon" prove that a belief in moral cause-and-effect was always present. o Success Was Complex: The Diamond Sutra and Zen became popular in China because their style of direct insight without relying on too many words suited Chinese scholars. It was a complicated blend of two cultures, not just a case of the Sutra being a "perfect match" for the Chinese worldview that caused everyone to get "instant enlightenment." Conclusion The article is useful because it uses modern, logical language to help people understand The Diamond Sutra's key ideas of "letting go of attachments" and "seeing beyond the surface." But its main fault is that to argue its point about a "system upgrade," it badly misreads and simplifies basic Buddhist concepts like "Karma" and "Dependent Origination," reducing them to nothing more than a logical "paradox" and a "software bug."

 

 

洞徹1-2 Penetrating Insight1-2

洞徹1

 

讀者問說今天沒有要寫什麼嗎？好吧，再撈出一個故事來。

 

有一位老師非常聰明，他是沒有任何信仰的人，當然也沒有死後有靈魂這個說法，

但他個人做了很多善舉，所以他往生後有人請我幫他做超薦迴向，

我說：他是不相信任何事物的，我要做什麼？

 

請托的人說他有恩予他，

他只是希望報答，師父就做迴向功德與他，看到什麼都無所謂。

 

我都還沒做迴向，中午吃飯的時候，看到一個男生大喊說他快餓死了！

不是說死後什麼都沒有嗎？

為什麼他還會餓？

 

我一看是他，顧不得吃飯了，吃一半就跑去佛前把他朋友托付給他的功德迴向做完，當然也準備了飯菜。

佛經指出過，人肉體往生後，靈魂是吸食而活，食物的味道他吸一吸就算飽餐一頓，

而根據我的觀察，沒肉體卻會餓是反射作用。

事後查證，因為他沒有任何信仰，所以從他往生那一刻起沒有任何祭祀。

 

（這裡面又是另一種學問了，我這輩子還沒往生，是透過他才清楚往生後的知覺尚在，哈）

 

早上看有人在做一本書的試閱，裡面用數學解了佛教的因果，

認為《阿含經》最初沒有把因果講好，所以一直補它的漏洞，經典才會越寫越多，《金剛經》是到華人手裡創下劃時代的一刀——無我，所以華人才是劃時代的創造者。

（金剛經不是鳩摩羅什大師翻譯的嗎？）

 

舉這個例子是想說，知識分子非常多，大家都認為自己讀了很多書，

但這該怎麼說，學問到底要做到哪個程度，才算自己已經洞徹？

又或者說我們總是學習得太少，又想得太多。

 

上面的例子是我在迴向中，第一位可以完整說出他生前的觀念與失去肉體卻震驚於他自己尚有知覺的大德，因為他的善舉力量在支持他吧！

 

而「無我」的論述跟「因果」到底是不是一種一直循環而永不熄滅的力量，

佛陀早就說：不一不異。

半寄

（解讀龍樹菩薩《中論》27道題 p.20

 

Penetrating Insight 1

 

A reader asked me if I wasn’t planning to write anything today. All right—here’s another story.

 

There was a very smart teacher who didn’t believe in any religion, and he didn’t believe that a soul exists after death. But he did many good deeds. After he passed away, someone asked me to perform a merit-transference ceremonytransfer merit to him.

I replied, “He didn’t believe in anything—what exactly am I supposed to do?”

 

The requester said that the teacher had helped him before, and he simply wished to repay him. “Just dedicate the merit to him. It doesn’t matter what appears.” he added.

 

Before I even began the ritual, I was having lunch when I suddenly saw a man shouting that he was starving.
If nothing exists after death, as he believed, then why would he still feel hunger?

I looked closely—it was him. I stopped eating halfway and rushed to complete the dedication of merit in front of the Buddha, and of course I also prepared food for him.

According to Buddhist texts, after physical death, the spirit survives by “absorbing” rather than eating; simply taking in the flavor of food is enough to feel full.

Based on my observations, the feeling of hunger without a physical body appears to be a residual reflex from one’s former existence.

Later I found out that since he had no beliefs, no one had made offerings to him since the moment he died.

(This is a separate field altogether. I haven’t died in this life, so it was only through him that I came to understand that awareness still remains after death—haha.)

 

This morning I saw someone reviewing a book that tries to explain karma with math. The author argues that the early Āgamas did not articulate causes and effects well, so later texts kept filling in the gaps, which is why the canon grew. The Diamond Sūtra, he claims, introduced the revolutionary idea of “no-self” only after reaching China, making the Chinese the true innovators.
(But isn’t the Diamond Sūtra translated by Kumārajīva?)

 

I mention this to illustrate that many intellectuals believe themselves widely read. But what, exactly, constitutes genuine insight? Perhaps we simply study too little and speculate too much.

This case was the first, during my practice of transferring merit, in which an individual could fully articulate both his former life views and his shock of discovering that consciousness remained even after losing the body. I suppose it was the strength of his virtuous deeds that supported him.

 

As for whether “no-self” and “karma” form an endlessly cycling, self-sustaining force—the Buddha already said they are “neither identical nor different.”

 

Master Banji

 

Text from the Screenshot   Chapters 17, 18, 21, 22, and 27 talk about this topic, but they go far beyond the usual explanations. For many people, the idea that things are “neither destroyed nor created” (mentioned in Chapters 1, 7, 20, 21, and 25) is profoundly disruptive, because most people think dependent arising means that real things truly appear and then disappear. Furthermore, although the formula “neither identical nor different” is familiar to Buddhist audiences—the Buddha explicitly stated that the person in this life and the person in the next are “neither identical nor different” (S II.62, S II.76, S II.113)—the conventional Abhidharma account of dependent arising nonetheless presupposes that “numerous ultimately real phenomena exist and condition one another.” Therefore, when Nāgārjuna maintains that two things commonly assumed to be different are, in the ultimate sense, neither identical nor different (as argued in Chapters 6, 14, and 17), this strikes many readers as unexpected and radical. (Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika, p.20) (The words in bold are what the author wants to highlight in this screenshot.)

 

洞徹2

自從我理解到不管是個人生命裡面養成的反射動作，或是社會給的反射動作，

（已經定型的模式）想要擺脫它無異於扒掉身上的一層皮與骨。

 

因此已往，我個人只鎖定在破身見-無我這邊做努力，

只有這麼簡單的努力，都讓我清楚所有的學問包括修行的內容，都是慢慢去完備它的，而不只是因為說了不好而去補破洞而已，

再者，能知道不好而去補破洞，那也才是真正的了不起。

 

世界上沒有人敢說他們的學問一開始就是完備的，這樣說等於打自己的嘴巴，

就算我個人是資質魯鈍，也知道這一點。

半寄

 

Penetrating Insight 2

 

Once I realized that the habits formed in life—whether personal conditioning or social conditioning—are fixed patterns that are almost as hard to remove as peeling off one’s own skin and bones,

 

I decided to focus only on breaking the view of a fixed self and understanding non-self.

Even this simple focus has shown me that all forms of knowledge, including spiritual practice, must be gradually completed and refined.

They do not improve merely because we point out what is wrong; and in fact, to recognize what is flawed and then mend it—that is what is truly remarkable.

 

No one can say their knowledge was complete from the very beginning. That would just contradict themselves.

Even someone as slow as I am knows that.

 

Master Banji

 

不立文字Not Relying on Written Words

不立文字

 

有讀者說：他以為我要說不立文字咧！

 

花非花，霧非霧

此花非彼花，此霧非彼霧

花是花，霧是霧。

 

這樣就可以不立文字，哈哈😄假日開玩笑🙃，不要罵我

半寄

 

Not Relying on Written Words

 

A reader said he assumed I was about to claim “teaching without relying on written words.”

 

A flower is and isn’t a flower;

mist is and isn’t mist.

This flower isn’t that one; this mist isn’t that one.

And yet, a flower remains a flower; mist remains mist.

 

With lines like these, you can pretend you’re beyond language—haha!

Just kidding since it’s the weekend; please don’t criticize me.

 

(Chinese culture is very good at crafting such expressions.)

 

Master Banji