論三時不可得1 On the Unattainability of the Three Times1

 

大家好！

 論三時不可得

 《解讀中論27道題》p.84

「已住」的實體現在不住，

「未住」的實體現在不住，

「現在住」的實體現在不住。

這三個觀念是不是跟金剛經的，

「過去心，現在心，未來心」了不可得有著異曲同工的味道。

 

我個人的理解是，「已住、未住、現在住，」先從現象界探討深入，不失為是好的題目，

「過去心、現在心、未來心，」了不可得也是好題材，

只是《金剛經》後來的結尾是「如夢幻泡影」，似乎又跟前面的論證互相矛盾。

觀察中的「不住」與「了不可得」不等同夢幻泡影，

「夢幻泡影」剛開始就成立的話，那就用夢幻泡影就好，

任何可看到的一道彩虹消失都是很好的觀察，

但整個生命與現象都如一道彩虹般的消失嗎？

這不僅矛盾而已，又把佛法簡化到模糊，

原因，也有可能是為了傳播佛法的方便。

但這也可以窺見「無自性的空」，修佛法者一直沒有把握好，

以致於，

到最後都要冒出一個夢幻讓人不知所以！

 

AI題材：「空性：這個世界的所有事物都不具備獨立、自性的存在。它們依賴於因緣條件，並不真實存在，而是依照某些條件和關聯而呈現。像泡影、夢境、幻象一樣，事物只是在特定的條件下顯現，並不具備固有的真實性」

 

讀者可試想一下，當空性與泡影，夢境一起論證時，其意義何在？

雖然這乍看之下，似乎是有這麽一回事。

半寄

 

On the Unattainability of the Three Times

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

In Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika (p.84), it says:

"The entity that has already abided does not abide now,

the entity that has yet to abide does not abide now,

the entity that is presently abiding does not abide now."

Aren't these ideas somewhat similar to the Diamond Sutra's statement that " the past mind is unattainable, the present mind is unattainable, 

the future mind is unattainable.”?

 

In my view, starting with "already abided," "not yet abided," and "currently abiding" and then deeply exploring from the level of observable phenomena is a good approach. Similarly, "past, present, and future mind being unattainable " is also a meaningful topic.

 

However, at the end of the Diamond Sutra, it concludes that "All phenomena are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, and shadows."

This seems to contradict the earlier logical reasoning.

 

Observing "non-abiding" and realizing "unattainability" is not exactly the same as saying everything is like an illusion.

If everything were like a dream or illusion from the beginning, why bother with so much detailed analysis beforehand?

One could just state it outright.

 

Yes, any rainbow that appears and then vanishes is a good metaphor for observing impermanence, 

but can the entirety of life and all phenomena be reduced to the vanishing of a rainbow? 

 

This approach not only creates contradictions, but also risks oversimplifying the Dharma into something vague.

Perhaps this approach was adopted for the sake of easier communication and teaching.

Still, it reveals a deeper issue: many practitioners have struggled to fully grasp the meaning of " śūnyatā without self-nature" .

As a result, they often resort to using "illusion" as a metaphor — leaving listeners confused and bewildered.

 

AI Data: Śūnyatā : Everything in this world lacks independent, inherent existence. All things arise based on causes and conditions. They do not exist independently but appear according to certain conditions and relationships, just like bubbles, dreams, and illusions — appearing temporarily without possessing true, fixed reality.

 

Readers may think about this:

When " śūnyatā " is explained together with metaphors of illusions and dreams, what is actually being conveyed?

At first glance, it sounds reasonable — but is it truly so?

 

Master Banji

(Leica相機的魅力)

深淵 Abyss

 大家好！

 

深淵

 

《解讀龍樹菩薩中論第27道題》p.87

 「反自反性」很久前就讀過，

現在要講課又再讀一遍，

我常常陷入跑到問題核心中，名詞，名相已不復存，

要講解又跑出來讀專有名詞，

大腦常常搞得很疲乏，

經常，很同情自己的大腦，來來去去。哈

半寄

 

Abyss

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

In Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika (p.87), it talks about ‘ir-reflexivity’.

I read about ‘ir-reflexivity’ a long time ago.

As I have to give a lecture, I’m reading it again.

I often find myself diving straight into the core of the issue, where terms and conceptual labels no longer remain.

Then, when I need to explain it, I jump out again and return to studying the technical terminology.

My brain gets exhausted from this constant back-and-forth.

Often, I feel quite sympathetic toward my brain——caught in this cycle. Ha. 

 

Master Banji

                                              臺灣日月潭

宿緣 Karmic Connections from Past Lives

「那些正義使者敢說：

佛陀要求給孤獨長者黃金鋪地是貪財嗎？

佛陀去救他的兒子羅睺羅怕被毒蛇咬，是自私嗎？

佛法，麻煩再去研究一下。」

 

大家好！

 宿緣

 宿緣是佛法認為的輪廻生命中有關於上一輩子的ㄧ切。

真正提及宿緣，除了當事者，

第三者想知道必須具備修行的能力才能告知。

這個跟阿難在佛經結集被拒絕進入阿羅漢僧團是一樣的。

在沒有「宿命明」的共識下去解讀過去世的生命，其誤解程度是可以想的，

但就像我分享的《Yesterday's Children》前世今生電影一樣，宿緣的解開對當事者的心理程度具有關鍵性的意義，

根據我個人修行能知道的，很多人的心理痛苦，是沒有解開的宿緣，也是無題式深沉苦痛的。

以致於在佛法的修行裡面「宿命明」是佔據重要的位子。

我慢慢理解到：宿命如同昨天的事情沒有解決，今天要往前走顯得困難是一樣的。

 

而面對宿緣內容的誤解，需要解釋嗎？

 

過去，印順法師只寫西方極樂世界是太陽神的崇拜，就被告密及換來佛教界的撻伐，

這對當時有研究佛學的佛教徒而言，豈止是天大的笑話而已！

 

我也沒有看過印老出來說他的研究是不對的，來止息風波。

印老還說是太陽神的崇拜。

但他們還不滿意，那要寫什麼？

寫淨土宗是至高無上的最神聖修法？

那動動筆也做得到，印老有作嗎？也沒有。

 

修行中能「看到」宿緣是通過困難重重才能有的功力，不是想看，想說就可以有，

我也不會去更改，我「看到」的宿緣就這麼簡單。

半寄

"Do those so-called defenders of justice dare to say:

Was the Buddha greedy when he asked Anathapindika to pave the ground with gold?
Was he selfish when he went to save his son Rāhula from a snake bite?

Please study the Dharma more carefully."

 

Karmic Connections from Past Lives

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

In Buddhism, karmic connections refer to all aspects of one’s past lives within the cycle of rebirth. 

To speak of karmic ties accurately, only the individual directly involved can truly know. 

For a third party to understand such matters, they must possess the ability gained through spiritual practice. 

 

This is similar to how Ānanda was initially denied entry into the arahant assembly during the Buddhist canon’s compilation. 

Without shared recognition of the “divine insight into past lives”, any attempt to interpret previous lives can easily lead to misunderstanding.

As shown in the film Yesterday's Children, which depicts past life memories, uncovering karmic ties can be deeply meaningful for the person involved. 

From what I’ve learned in my own practice, much of people’s emotional pain stems from unresolved karmic connections—an unspoken, deep suffering without clear causes.

 

That’s why “divine insight into past lives” holds an important place in Buddhist practice. 

I’ve gradually come to see that karmic fate is like unresolved issues from yesterday—until resolved, it’s hard to move forward.

 

So when karmic ties are misunderstood, do they really need to be explained?

 

In the past, Venerable Yinshun wrote that the Western Pure Land had roots in sun-god worship. 

He was reported and harshly criticized by the Buddhist community for this statement. 

To Buddhist scholars at the time, it was more than a joke—it was absurd.

 

Yet I never saw Venerable Yinshun withdraw his view to end the controversy. 

He continued to say it was sun-god worship. 

But even then, critics still were not satisfied. 

What did they want him to write instead? 

For him to declare Pure Land Buddhism the supreme and most sacred path? That’s easy to write. 

But did Venerable Yinshun ever write it? No, he didn’t.

 

The ability to perceive karmic connections through spiritual practice is something that comes only after overcoming great difficulty.

It is not something one can see or speak of at will.

 

As for me, I won’t change what I’ve seen. 

What I’ve perceived about karmic ties is just as it is—simple and clear.

 

Master Banji

關於念頭2 On “Thoughts 2

關於念頭2

 

多年來致力於《中觀論》內容的思考，費心費血搞清楚其中脈絡後，

 

發覺大腦上層漂浮的還是傳統佛教的內容，很要命的它像幽靈般扎根在腦海中。

瞭解這些箇中意義後，於是採取不再深究的態度，因此影響力也就慢慢消退。

當慶幸多年來傳統道場教育漸漸退出我的思緒時，

竟在看了《我可能錯了》這書後，過往的記憶重新翻騰而上，不痛快的記憶再度被引爆！

 

非常訝異還有這般模樣的修行方式?

是該同情這些修行者呢？

還是該憤怒？

因為這裡面教導錯誤的佛法，實在是多到不可數，

那種錯誤經歷過一次，都不會想要再回頭看ㄧ眼。

 

當然，作者比約恩．納提科．林德布勞（Björn Natthiko Lindeblad）本身的遭遇是值得同情的。

多年來個人專心佛法研究並勤奮於筆耕，以期可以將研究心得提供給其他學佛者。

確定自己把已經完全抽象化，

而且在漫無邊際的修行路至少端、描出個樣子。

半寄

 

On “Thoughts 2

 

After years of delving into the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, and painstakingly mapping out its structure, I realized that the upper layers of my mind were still haunted by traditional Buddhist ideas—like ghosts deeply rooted in my consciousness.

 

Having gained insight into the true meaning behind the text, I chose to stop digging further. And gradually, the influence of those lingering ideas began to fade.

 

Just as I was relieved that the teachings from traditional temples had begun to loosen their grip on me, reading I May Be Wrong suddenly brought all the old memories back. Painful experiences were triggered again.

 

I was shocked that such a form of spiritual practice even exists.

Should we feel sympathy for these practitioners?

Or should we feel anger?

 

Because the misinterpretations and erroneous teachings of the Dharma within these traditions are far too many to count.

Having gone through that once, I have no desire to look back.

 

Of course, the life of the author, Björn Natthiko Lindeblad, is indeed deserving of sympathy.

 

For years, I’ve devoted myself to studying the Dharma and writing diligently, hoping to share insights with fellow Buddhist scholars.

 

I am sure that I’ve managed to give some shape and, at the very least,  sketch out a form to a path of practice that has otherwise become entirely abstract and boundless.

 

Master Banji

 

隨拍與詩

 隨拍與詩

蘇軾 水調歌頭

明月幾時有？把酒問青天。不知天上宮闕，今夕是何年？

我欲乘風歸去，又恐瓊樓玉宇，高處不勝寒。起舞弄清影，何似在人間？

半寄

關於「念頭」1On “Thoughts 1

大家好！

 關於「念頭」

 讀者問：我主張「一個念頭」沒辦法修行是什麼意思？此(念頭)指的是什麼?

時間回到佛陀的時代，舍利弗尊者聽聞「諸法因緣生，諸法因緣滅」這句話促使他證悟。

能夠聽聞一句話就證悟的原因，是他肚子裡面、大腦裡面已經很多問題都思考過了！

也就是家學淵源，如諾貝爾獎得主經濟學家阿馬蒂亞·森（Amartya Sen），是印度裔人士。

他自述其家族從祖父開始到他都是學者；舍利弗的舅舅是長爪梵志也是當時有名的學者，

很多問題在他們的腦袋本來就熟識度很高，且脈絡清楚。

再聽聞佛陀講的其中有什麼不一樣？一下子就證悟，非常合理，且理所當然。

後代人把「因緣所生法」斷章取義說成是「一個念頭」，

例如；我是誰？

想拆解「我」這一題，本身就困難重重。

如果沒有具足深厚的哲理思想怎麼可能拆開，

當我認識到這個點的時候，修一個所謂的念頭對我來講顯得可憐，

一個念頭到底是一個單獨的想法？

還是只剩下孤單的「我是誰？」。

孤單的大腦再怎麼壓榨也榨不出證悟的內容來，

以致於後代的修行者想要證悟都變得非常的痛苦才能到達目的地，

這跟佛陀當年的弟子聽聞一句話就證悟，簡直是天壤之別！

我當然是研究他們聰慧的背景，

是什麼資源促使他們可以在短暫時間裡就證悟。

我個人絕不可能把一句話當成所謂的「話頭」， 抱得死死的，

朝錯誤的方向去努力。

 

半寄

 

（感謝學員用心提出這些疑問，讓我把念頭的說法再完整補齊。）

 

On “Thoughts

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

A reader asked: What do I mean when I say that "a single thought" is not enough for spiritual practice? What exactly does "thought" refer to?

 

Let’s go back to the time of the Buddha. Śāriputra became enlightened after hearing just one sentence: “All phenomena arise from causes and conditions; all phenomena cease due to causes and conditions.” 

But the reason he could awaken instantly was that he had already deeply contemplated countless philosophical questions.

 

He came from a strong scholarly background—just like Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen, who mentioned that scholarship ran in his family for generations, starting from his grandfather. Similarly, Śāriputra’s uncle was a respected Brahmin scholar. These individuals had already thoroughly examined profound questions long before they encountered the Buddha’s teachings. So when they heard the Buddha speak, it wasn’t just a new idea—it was the missing piece that made everything fall into place. Their enlightenment was completely natural and understandable.

 

Later generations misunderstood and oversimplified the Buddha’s teachings, taking “dependent origination” and reducing it to just “a single thought,” such as the question: “Who am I?” 

But breaking down the concept of the “self” is immensely difficult.

 

Without deep philosophical background, how could anyone possibly unravel such a complex question?

 

Once I realized this, the idea of focusing on “a single thought” as a path to enlightenment seemed quite inadequate to me. 

What does “a single thought” even mean? Is it just a random idea? Or a lonely question like “Who am I?” 

No matter how hard a solitary mind tries to squeeze out some insight, true awakening won’t come that way.

 

As a result, modern practitioners often suffer greatly just to make a little progress toward awakening—completely different from the Buddha’s disciples, who reached enlightenment effortlessly upon hearing a single phrase. 

Naturally, I studied the background of their intelligence—what resources enabled them to be enlightened in such a short time. 

 

I would never hold on tightly to a single phrase as so-called ' huàtóu,' blindly working hard in the wrong direction.

 

Master Banji

 

(Thanks to the member of our study club who sincerely raised these questions, allowing me to elaborate more fully on my viewpoints regarding ‘thought’.)

(201208臺灣台南海安路藍晒圖，已經消失)

 

 大家好！

AI資料，這個提供念頭1舍利弗尊者證悟的原因，

下面寫的在舍利弗他們的所學裡早就是很成熟的思考

了。

半寄

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

"The following is AI-generated information, providing the reason for Śāriputra’s realization in the article On Thoughts 1.

The content below reflects thinking that had already been well-developed in Śāriputra and his peers' studies."

Master Banji

1.婆羅門是最早的哲學傳統承繼者

   •   吠陀時代（大約公元前1500年～公元前500年），婆羅門掌管所有知識，尤其是關於宇宙、生命、神聖的知識。

   •   早期的吠陀文獻（像《梨俱吠陀》）其實已經有很多原始的哲學思考：宇宙從哪裡來？生死是什麼？神是什麼？

   •   這些思考慢慢演變成比較成熟的哲學體系。

⸻

2. 婆羅門推動**奧義書（Upanishads）**的出現

   •   奧義書被認為是吠陀的最深層部分（屬於「吠檀多」Vedanta，意指「吠陀的終結」）。

   •   奧義書中的思想——像是「梵我一如」（Brahman = Atman）、「輪迴」（Samsara）、「因果業報」（Karma）、「解脫」（Moksha）——全部是由婆羅門知識分子深化出來的。

   •   可以說，奧義書＝婆羅門哲學的精煉版。

⸻

3. 婆羅門是後來**六派哲學（Shad Darshanas）**的背景

   •   印度哲學正式形成六大經典學派（正統派），都或多或少跟婆羅門的世界觀有關。

      •   內觀派（Samkhya）

      •   瑜伽派（Yoga）

      •   因明派（Nyaya）

      •   勝論派（Vaisheshika）

      •   彌曼薩派（Purva Mimamsa）

      •   吠檀多派（Vedanta）

   •   特別是彌曼薩派和吠檀多派，直接延續婆羅門的傳統，深究吠陀的義理。

⸻

4. 婆羅門也催生對立的哲學潮流

   •   雖然婆羅門掌握正統，但有些思想家開始質疑種姓制度、祭祀儀式的絕對性。

   •   像佛陀（釋迦牟尼）和耆那教的摩訶維拉，都是對婆羅門傳統的反動——他們主張內心修行，不靠祭祀也能解脫。

   •   這些異端哲學（像佛教、耆那教）後來跟婆羅門正統形成長期的思想辯論。

讀者回饋 Reader Feedback

大家好！

 

讀者回饋

 

愛美本是天性，也是一種無目的快樂來源，甚而更是另類離苦之法。

千年來美卻成了絕緣體，

只要一涉及佛法大家都正經八百，關閉五官，真是可惜。

 

半寄說：

以前我的文章就提過「苦」本來就是印度人的文化，

至今很多印度的生活這個層面還是很高的，

我們要學習佛陀佛法的思維內容及修證悟的方法，不至於所有的印度文化都照單全收吧！

去糟粕而存精華也是必修的課程。

 半寄

 

Reader Feedback

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

The love of beauty is is part of human nature. It brings joy without needing a reason—and can even be a unique path to ease suffering. 

Yet for thousands of years, beauty has been pushed aside. 

When it comes to Buddhism, people often become overly serious and shut off their senses. What a pity.

 

Master Banji replied:

I've mentioned in my previous articles—“suffering” is deeply rooted in Indian culture. 

Even today, it's still a big part of life there. 

We should learn the Buddha’s teachings and methods of practice, 

but that doesn’t mean we have to accept all of Indian culture. 

Keeping the essence and letting go of the unnecessary is a lesson we must learn.

 Master Banji