大家好！
論三時了不可得3
佛法在南北傳分裂以後就只剩下一個魔說，南傳佛教認爲大乘經典不是佛說，不是佛陀所說當然是魔說，
所謂的魔說，所提出是魔的內容是空洞的，除了魔說還是魔說，根本看不到論證。
（阿毗達磨不在這討論的範圍）
而大乘經典裡面也有很多處提到魔說；像《楞嚴經》便是其中的一部經典。
我在閱讀這些經典的時候，對魔說感到疲乏與厭倦，
這魔來魔去，佛來佛去的，像一場爛帳，
要是沿著佛教歷史研讀，則收獲顯得不一樣，
在我個人的佛法寫作裡，從來不用魔字，
能提出辯證才是正事。
佛說、魔說，把後來者對經文再深細研究解釋的工夫被「佛說、魔說」這些文字抹煞了。
後人的腦力思考也是一大佛學資源，
我想讀者可以接受這一點，
因此後代的修行者如果對於提出經典再解釋的解讀能力都沒有，
那豈不是可悲嗎？
佛與魔兩者之間，如果沒有具體的去進行辯證，這些字眼顯然是沒有意義。
《中論27道題》第7章對於俗諦（有為法）
提出說它不是勝義，也從幾個觀點去論說為什麼不認爲「有為法」是存在的？
這裡邊從沒有出現過夢幻泡影的字眼。
是的，論證到最後是提出「空」觀點，
而不是為了證明如夢幻泡影的幻影，
就算以近代「微觀」的觀點看去，
如有修行者有能力在幻影的思索裡面證入無我、無常那真是值得禮敬。
半寄
（照片裡面的論證，我想說至少給我這個論證，讓我去知道佛法。）
On the Unattainability of the Three Times 3
Greetings, friends of NanZen!
After the division between Southern and Northern traditions of Buddhism, what remained was a single narrative: the notion of “demonic teachings.” Theravāda Buddhism holds that Mahāyāna scriptures are not the words of the Buddha. And if they are not the Buddha’s words, then by default, they are labeled as demonic. But this accusation is hollow—nothing is offered beyond the label “demonic,” and no real argument or reasoning is provided.
(The Abhidharma is not within the scope of this discussion.)
Ironically, many Mahāyāna sutras also talk about “demonic teachings.” The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is one such example. As I read these scriptures, I often grow weary and disheartened by all this back-and-forth about Buddhas and demons. It feels like an endless, messy dispute. Reading through the history of Buddhism, I find more value in what can be learned along the way.
In my own writing about the Dharma, I never use the word “demon.” What truly matters is the ability to present a well-reasoned argument.
The labels "Buddha's teaching" or "demonic teaching" have often overshadowed the diligent and in-depth interpretations of scriptures made by later scholars.
I believe readers can appreciate the viewpoints that the intellectual efforts of those who came after are also a valuable resource in the study of Buddhism.
So if later practitioners completely lack the ability to reinterpret and understand the scriptures more deeply, wouldn't that be a cause for regret?
If the terms “Buddha” and “demon” are not supported by concrete reasoning, they are ultimately meaningless.
In Chapter 7 of Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika, the discussion of conventional truth (conditioned phenomena,saṃskṛta-dharma) does not once mention illusions, dreams, or mirages. Instead, it offers reasons why “conditioned phenomena” are not considered ultimately real.
Yes, the ultimate aim of the argument is to present the concept of “śūnyatā,” not to prove that phenomena are merely illusions like dreams or mirages.
Even from a modern, microscopic perspective, if a practitioner is able to realize anattā (non-self) and anicca (impermanence) through contemplating this so-called illusion, then that is truly worthy of respect.
Master Banji
(As for the argument presented in the photo—at the very least, gives me that reasoning, so that I may understand the Dharma.)
沒有留言:
張貼留言