對談5
代強昨天來問了我一些問題，
並且說：常常我寫在Line群組的一些跟其他人的對談，他看不懂。
拿出手機給他看了一些其他人傳給我的資訊，
就是下面解《般若心經》的文字，
我說：
佛法也不見得一定要講得很深，
但是有時候你面對詭論，就是講得這麼詭辯，
沒有辦法破解也不行，
而且其他居士傳的問題，想清楚，我也得解說，
所以沒有辦法在群組照顧這麼多，真是抱歉！
以下的文字南禪居士想問的：
「觀行者，
因為各種事物都沒有自體，沒有自體故而
生不是真正的生，滅不是真正的滅；
垢不是真正的垢，淨不是真正的淨，
增不是真正的增，減不是真正的減。
所以，於無自性中具體找不到哪一法是真正的色，
對於受法、想法、行法、識法也一樣。同樣的道理」
半寄解讀：
從這邊切入；生不是真正的生，
滅不是真正的滅，
生不是真正的生
已經生出來的是什麼？
滅也不是真正的滅？
那生跟滅都存在了！
會是什麼世界？
不提因緣法的聚合直接談「無自性」會錯亂，按裡面的文字又會進入虛虛幻幻的美妙境界，
而那篇《般若心經》的文也引導入美妙世界。
每次我看到這種文字，都會想起在美國有人讓我們偷看一眼滿室吸大麻的煙霧，
「空」一旦離開因緣邏輯的解讀，便滿室的煙霧。
半寄
A Conversation 5
Daiqiang came to ask me some questions yesterday.
He also mentioned that he often doesn't understand the conversations I post in our Line group, especially those involving discussions with others.
He showed me some information others had sent him—specifically, a passage interpreting the Heart Sutra.
I told him:
You don’t always need to explain the Dharma in a complicated way.
But sometimes, when you're faced with confusing arguments, you have to respond just as carefully—otherwise, you can’t clear up the confusion.
And since other people send in questions that need to be thought through, I also have to answer them.
So I’m sorry I can’t always take care of everyone’s needs in the group.
This is the passage a layman in NanZen brought up:
“The contemplator sees that all things lack an inherent essence.
Because of this, birth isn’t truly birth, and extinction isn’t truly extinction.
Dirt isn’t truly dirty, and purity isn’t truly pure.
Increase is not truly increase, and decrease is not truly decrease.
So in this lack of self-nature, there is no real form.
The same applies to feeling, thinking, actions, and awareness.
The principle remains consistent.”
Banji’s interpretation:
Let us begin from this point:
Birth is not truly the beginning,
nor is extinction truly an end.
If what we call birth is not actual arising, then what has come into being?
And if what we call extinction is not true cessation,
then both arising and ceasing coexist— what kind of world is this?
If we talk about “no self-nature” without first explaining how things come together through causes and conditions, it gets confusing.
This kind of writing often ends up sounding dreamy and vague.
In fact, this interpretation of the Heart Sutra leads people into a beautiful but unreal fantasy.
Every time I read this kind of writing, I recall someone in the U.S. once secretly let us peek into a room full of marijuana smoke.
When "śūnyatā" is discussed without the logic of dependent origination, it becomes nothing but a haze-filled room—subject to arbitrary interpretations that blur its original meaning."
Master Banji
對談6
基於讀者的反應再來說明：
「生不是真正的生，滅不是真正的滅。」
這個問題可以想一想，
一個存在的東西，你不承認
它，（《中論》還認為他是世俗必須給予的承認）
它的滅亡，也不承認它滅亡了，
這樣的結果會導致存在的矛盾，
所以一定要導向虛幻，
如果沒有導向虛幻，沒有辦法自圓其說，
這樣大概就可以知道「虛幻學說」從哪裡來了。
希望更深入地說明，可以幫助大家了解。
半寄
A Conversation 6
In response to readers' reactions, let me elaborate:
“What is called birth is not truly birth;
what is called extinction is not truly extinction.”
This paradox invites serious reflection.
If you deny the existence of something that clearly exists—
(even The Middle Way says we should acknowledge such things in everyday terms) —
and simultaneously deny its extinction,
such a stance creates contradictions in the nature of existence.
Therefore, it necessarily points toward illusion.
Without embracing illusion as the framework,there’s no coherent way to explain these contradictions.
And so, from here we can begin to understandwhere the doctrine of illusion originates.
I hope this deeper explanation helps clarify things.
Master Banji
沒有留言:
張貼留言