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)
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。
沒有留言:
張貼留言