無相三昧2
以我個人在這方面的鑽研，「空三昧」如能有所體悟便可對佛法有更高的掌握度，
修行者如何在現實中不隨色轉、物轉有「空三昧」的力量應該就夠了。
而這裡面必須考慮一種現實問題，
既然接受佛法「因緣法」的內容，
那就包括有高度修行的修行者，
一樣會受群眾的大力量因緣扭轉，
所謂的社會環境，
社會環境的影響一旦被承認對於「無相三昧」更是一種矛盾，
無相只能在「斷」字中存在是-涅槃的問題，
其餘找不到更好的存在點，跟適當的說法。
我個人理解的「空三昧」，還可以擁有對社會環境的透視度，
因為透過邏輯來理解空跟「觀色相斷」是兩種不同的詮釋
個人只接受「空三昧」，
對於「無相三昧」、「無作（無願）三昧」合理懷疑為後人的作品。
從文字就可以理解到「無相與跟無作」，
完全是針對在人群中生活發展出來的理念，
「無作（無願）三昧」，更是清楚表達在人群中的無求，
修行當然可以提高修行者內心高度，
但是完全到無相、無願，太強人所難了。
個人比較傾向可以在現實跟修行之間，達到一種平衡的佛法觀念，
這也是實現人間佛教必要有的一種理念貫穿。
截圖的《567經》便是比丘對比丘的說法，
佛陀弟子間互相的討論佛法，也已經添加很多在《阿含經》裡面，
這也無所謂，只要把握四聖果的內容也可以得到很好的解答。
半寄
Formless Samādhi 2
From my own study, I feel that if a person can truly understand even just “Śūnyatā Samādhi,” it gives them a much stronger grasp of the Dharma.
For most practitioners, having the strength to not be affected by appearances or outside things through Śūnyatā Samādhi is already enough.
But there's a practical issue to think about:
If we accept the Buddha’s teaching of dependent origination, then even advanced practitioners can still be influenced by the powerful causes and conditions of the world around them—what we call the social environment.
Once we recognize that society affects us, it becomes hard to accept the idea of “Signless Samādhi” as it’s described.
Why? Because true “signlessness” must involve cutting off all forms—this connects directly to the idea of Nirvāṇa.
Outside of that, I can’t find a meaningful or realistic place where it works.
In my understanding, Śūnyatā Samādhi still allows a person to see through and understand society.
That’s because using logic to understand “śūnyatā” is very different from “By contemplating forms and appearances, one can cut off attachment to sensory feelings.”
So I only accept the path of Śūnyatā Samādhi.
I reasonably suspect that “Signless” and “Wishless (Non-willing)” Samādhis may have been later additions.
The terminology itself reveals that both concepts were likely developed in the context of communal living.
For example, Wishless Samādhi clearly refers to having no expectations or desires while living among others.
Of course, spiritual training can elevate the inner life.
But to expect someone to completely let go of all signs and all wishes seems overly demanding—perhaps even unrealistic.
I personally favor a balanced Buddhist view—one that integrates real life with Buddhist practice.
Such a view is essential to the implementation of Humanistic Buddhism.
The Sūtra 567 I referenced is a dialogue between monks—Buddha’s disciples discussing the Dharma with each other.
This kind of conversation already appears often in the Āgamas.
Ultimately,, that’s okay. As long as we understand the teachings related to the Four Stages of Liberation, we can still find meaningful answers.
Master Banji
無相三昧3
個人寫的《佛法最終的實現》
一書提過在修證四聖果的內容，
所有的經典都指向於斷字詞彙，
只有龍樹菩薩的《中觀論》提出「破」的詞彙。
在「無相三昧」裡面寫到
「觀色相斷」
「斷」的意義是原始佛教用的最多的一個詞彙，
斷字中很明顯又想在人群生活的「相」裡面得到平衡，
但文字之間的思考就已經是矛盾不已，
想要在人間存活又想要用斷的方式，個人一直覺得這是佛法裡面更必須去思考到的一個問題。
除了「破」的詞彙以外，是不是「超越」的詞彙也是可以被考慮的。
當然，如果修行者的首選是涅槃的話，
那就是「斷三結。」
而不是「破三結」。
三昧是入深定的境界，
中文也可解釋為「得個中精華-三昧」。
入深定當然可以無相、無願，
但是出定呢？
半寄
Formless Samādhi 3
In my book Ultimate Realization in Buddhism, I mentioned that when it comes to realizing the Four Stages of Enlightenment, almost all Buddhist texts use the word “cut off” to describe what has to be let go.
Only Nāgārjuna, in his Middle Way, uses the word “overcome” instead.
In the teaching on “Signless Samādhi,” we see,“By contemplating forms and appearances, one can cut off attachment to sensory feelings.”
The word “cut off” was used most often in early Buddhism.
But there seems to be a contradiction here:
On one hand, the practice is about cutting off attachments to appearances,
but on the other hand, there is still an effort to find balance while living in society.
Trying to do both at once—live in the world and cut everything off—has always struck me as a real challenge in Buddhist practice.
So I wonder: beyond “cutting off” and “overcoming,” might the concept of “transcending” offer a more integrative approach?
Of course, if the goal is Nirvāṇa,
then the correct wording should be “cut off the three fetters,”
not “overcome the three fetters.”
Samādhi is a deeply concentrated state of meditation. In Chinese, it can also be understood as “grasping the essential core.” Entering deep samādhi may involve states of non-form and non-desire, but the real question is—what remains or arises after one exits this state?
Master Banji
