六祖壇經2 The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch 2

六祖壇經2

 

從第一次世界大戰後，考古學便展開蓬勃的演奏，

 

以華人的學者到佛教的印順長老而言，

當觸及經典的正確性時，都有著他們一定程度的厚道，

我個人的看法是；

研究之後還要展開美麗的文學詞彙去修辭，怕傷及學佛大眾的心理，是否又把自己的研究給吞了下去？

 

而這裡面比較重要的是，「他們大都不是修行者」不可能觸及經文修持的正確性。

 

日本中村源先生（なかむら はじめ / Nakamura Hajime，

1912年-1999年，是日本著名的東洋哲學家、佛教學者、印度哲學研究者，也是20世紀亞洲哲學界最具影響力的人物之一。）

 

寫過的《東方民族思維的方法》一書，

內容帶到的問題「語意與字源」探索已經算是最深入了！

 

修行路線的正確性探索，必得有「入法與入定，」的經驗，

我個人當時在看《六祖壇經》36對法，就覺得這太欺負人了，

怎麼會有這種東西出現在經典裡面，

緊接著看完胡適先生的考據後，就沒回頭再還過《六祖壇經》。

 

我個人對虛雲老和尚有著幾十年的疑惑，

以虛老的功力而言，

他看《楞嚴經》的時候，虛老本身的法眼及其家世背景的文字能力，怎麼不會覺得這文字是不對的？

而其所敘述的修持證悟更是人間夢境？

 

最近重新把《愣嚴經》拿出來寫，

有一個想法，

或許他們身處戰亂已無暇去管這個，

也或許研究之路是一條漫長道路，

 

不是只擁有入定的功力就可以切入的。

半寄

以下AI資料：   中村元的語意與字源分析特色   詞源：出發理解思想 他認為很多東方思想的誤解，來自以西方語彙強行對應，而未細究原語的深層含義。 例：「自由」一詞的分析 現代漢語的「自由」來自日文翻譯西文 liberty、freedom。 中村元指出，在東方語境裡，「自由」在古代多為「任性」「不受約束」的負面含義，與西方政治哲學中的「自由權」是不同的。 他強調，東方的「自由」應從「自主內省」與「不執著」的角度理解（例如佛教的「離執」、儒家的「無所畏懼」）。

 

The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch 2

 

After World War I, the field of archaeology began to flourish.

 

Chinese scholars, including Buddhist figures like Master Yin Shun, tended to be relatively kind or reserved when addressing the accuracy of Buddhist scriptures.

 

In my view, after conducting their research, many of them resorted to elegant rhetoric, perhaps to avoid hurting the feelings of Buddhist practitioners. But in doing so, did they end up suppressing the truths their research uncovered?

 

A key issue here is that most of them were not spiritual practitioners, and thus were unlikely to fully grasp the experiential accuracy of the scriptures.

 

Nakamura Hajime (1912–1999), a prominent Japanese philosopher, scholar of Buddhism, and researcher of Indian thought, was among the most influential Asian intellectuals of the 20th century.

 

In his book Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples, he explored issues of semantics and etymology with remarkable depth.

 

To truly assess the accuracy of a spiritual path, one must have first-hand experience in entering the Dharma and meditative absorption.

 

When I read the 36 Dharma Pairs in the Platform Sutra, I felt it was almost absurd—how could something like that exist in a canonical text?

 

After reading Hu Shih’s textual analysis, I never returned to the Platform Sutra.

 

I’ve also had long-standing doubts about Master Xu Yun.

 

Given his high level of spiritual cultivation and strong literary background, how could he read the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and not notice its problematic language?

 

And the descriptions of awakening in theŚūraṅgama Sūtra —were they perhaps closer to dreams than reality?

 

Recently, I’ve taken up the Śūraṅgama Sūtraagain to write about it.

 

It occurred to me that perhaps they were too caught up in the chaos of war to investigate these issues properly,

 

or perhaps scholarly inquiry is a long path—one that requires more than just the ability to enter meditative states.

 

Master Banji

AI Data   Nakamura Hajime’s Semantic and Etymological Analysis   Etymology as a Starting Point Nakamura believed that a proper understanding of philosophical thought must begin with examining the original terms used. He argued that many misunderstandings of Eastern philosophies result from imposing Western vocabulary onto them, without carefully investigating the deeper meanings of the original Eastern words.   Example: The word “freedom” The modern Chinese term “自由” (freedom) is derived from the Japanese translation of Western words such as liberty and freedom. According to Nakamura, in ancient Eastern usage, “自由”often carried a negative connotation, meaning “willfulness” or “lack of restraint.” This differs significantly from the Western political-philosophical notion of individual liberty.   He stressed that the Eastern concept of “freedom” should be understood in terms of “self-governance through introspection” and “detachment,” such as the Buddhist idea of letting go of attachments or the Confucian notion of fearlessness.