斷滅空
大家好
斷滅空，台南讀書會上面有大德說：空是斷滅空。（什麼都不存在）
我說：根本沒有斷滅空，離開因緣（存在的條件說）
去說空才叫斷滅空，
《中論》論述沒有離開因緣條件的架構，怎麼可能是斷滅空？
當只說空的時候才叫斷滅空，
而什麼都不存在的斷滅空真有必要再討論嗎？
《中論》提出了「八不」去解說「空」都是有其內容的論述空。
這是攻擊的人有意的直接攻擊，
或是說他們根本是對「八不」無法了解做出的攻擊。
至古至今沒有任何一家的學說可以只說「空」（主題），而不見其敘述的內容就可流傳至今，
如果有這事，是在嘲諷譏笑《中論》的態度，不是去讀與了解學問的人，至多只能說這論點不能接受。
讀書會也討論到黑暗跟光明一直都存在，
我說：依據《中論》的理論，
如果說；黑暗是具體（有自性）存在，就不可能產生光明的，
（現場引發不可置信的笑聲）
黑暗是透過「緣」的方式而產生的黑暗與光明，
這個走到芬蘭看到日不落的「永晝」就完全清楚，進而禮敬龍樹菩薩，
個人相信一個學問立足走了近2千年，一定是立下這學問的智者通過仔細的反覆推敲才寫成的，
如無其必要，也早就被時代淘汰。
衝不破的是我們個人的認知在一定的範圍跟習慣性才會認為龍樹菩薩的「八不論空」是斷滅。
這斷滅空的說法，從古至今都有，個人認為也已經沒有時代意義，
時代走到現在《中觀論、空論》的很多想法一再被提出來研究，考驗著研究者的探索。
整個《中觀論、空論》龍樹菩薩的立場是；
只是要指出「空」而「不立空。」
用這樣的思維去看《中論》「八不」就對了！
半寄
（芬蘭的日不落-永晝是拍不出來的，現場的見證令人難忘）
Greetings, friends of NanZen!
In our study club in Tainan, someone equated "śūnyatā" with nihilistic or annihilative śūnyatā—the notion that nothing exists.
I explained that true śūnyatā is never annihilative. It turns into a nihilistic concept only when it is abstracted from the principle of dependent origination.
The Madhyamaka (Middle Way) philosophy does not depart from the framework of causes and conditions, so how can it possibly be annihilative śūnyatā?
And truly—does such a misrepresentation, the idea that absolutely nothing exists, still warrant serious discussion?
Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā presents the “Eight Negations” not as abstract denials, but as rigorous arguments for understanding the nature of śūnyatā.
This kind of criticism is either a deliberate attack or stems from a failure to comprehend the profundity of the “Eight Negations.”
Historically, no philosophical tradition has survived through time by proclaiming "śūnyatā"alone, without providing thorough explanations
To act in such a way is not an attempt to study or understand the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, but rather to ridicule and scorn it. At most, one can only claim that such a position is untenable.
In our group, we also discussed how darkness and light coexist.I said, according to Nāgārjuna’stheory, if darkness inherently existed, then light could never arise. (The audience burst into incredulous laughter.) Darkness and light arise interdependently, through conditions. This becomes evident when we experience phenomena like the “midnight sun” in Finland. It deepens my reverence for Nāgārjuna.
I believe that any philosophy that has endured for nearly 2,000 years must have been formulated with rigorous reasoning by a great mind.
Without such depth, it would have been discarded by the passage of time.
It is not Nāgārjuna’s philosophy that is constrained, but our perception, limited by habit and conceptual boundaries. Such limitations are what cause people to misinterpret the “Eight Negations” as nihilistic.
This notion of annihilative "śūnyatā" has existed for centuries, but in my view, it no longer holds relevance in our time.
Today, many ideas from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the philosophy of " śūnyatā " are being studied anew, challenging the depth of researchers’ understanding.
Nāgārjuna’s position in the entire Madhyamakaand Doctrine of Śūnyatā is this: to reveal "śūnyatā " , not to establish or cling to the concept of śūnyatā itself.
That’s the way to correctly interpret the “Eight Negations” in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.
Master Banji
(The midnight sun in Finland—that endless daylight—can’t be captured well in photos. Witnessing it in person is unforgettable.)
沒有留言:
張貼留言