《中觀論》南傳佛教看法
大家好！
有些讀者想知道以下的AI資料內容的真實性。
「某些上座部論師的批評 近代或現代部分上座部學者，對龍樹提出過質疑，例如： • 認為「一切法皆空」的觀點會導致否定業報與輪迴，是傾向斷見或虛無主義； • 有些批評者甚至會用「非佛說」、「邪見」或極端地稱之為「魔說」來指龍樹的 學說，但這屬於個別意見，不代表整體上座部佛教立場。 例如現代知名的上座部比丘： • Bhikkhu Bodhi（菩提比丘）：對大乘哲學持尊重與學術分析態度，認為中觀有其邏輯深度，但指出與上座部核心教義不同。 •有些學者會認為龍樹的哲學是哲學詮釋而非原始佛教教義，但避免極端批評。」 |
半寄：
上面說的其實很簡單，只要弄清楚因緣果的深義，便可知是否需要《中觀論》的解說。
如果只害怕「空性」等於「佛說因果論」丟失的話，那不要讀《中論》就好，我都認為沒什麼好爭議的！
這個問題有人問我的時候，
我說那簡單，
按照論師的慣例，
你再造一個辯論法駁倒它，就解決了，但我目前還沒有看到。
我在我們南禪的讀書會多次提過，承認《中觀論》
等於承認後人的智慧結晶，
《中觀論》其中觀點簡約，
屬於我個人的解説：
1+1若可以=2
中觀家主張1跟1之間必須是空性。
從來沒說0+0的論點，
讀者自己去琢磨。
南傳佛教同樣重視《阿毗達磨》一樣是論典，
你有沒有能力解讀《中觀論》那是讀者自己的事。
《中觀論》不是哲學，
之前的文章說過懂佛陀的教學「因緣法」的可能只有舍利弗跟龍樹菩薩，
也有舉證經典佐證。
原始教典大量應用斷字，很多修行或生活都處於斷的事項，
什麼都斷掉了，當然很好處理。
而要說明存在性、變化性、延續性，必然需要較高段的思維模式，
這不是已經制式化的心與心所能理解的。
何必說魔？嚇唬誰？
半寄
Theravāda Perspectives on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
Greetings, friends of NanZen!
Some readers have asked about the accuracy of the following AI Data:
“Criticism from Certain Theravāda Scholars” In recent times, some Theravāda scholars have expressed doubts about Nāgārjuna’s teachings. For instance: • They argue that the concept of “emptiness of all phenomena” could imply a rejection of karma and rebirth, leaning toward nihilism or annihilationism. • Some critics have labeled his philosophy as “not the Buddha’s teaching,” “wrong view,” or even, in extreme cases, “a demonic view.” However, these are individual opinions and do not reflect the overall stance of Theravāda Buddhism. For example, one well-known Theravāda monk: • Bhikkhu Bodhi: He holds a respectful and analytical view toward Mahāyāna philosophy. While recognizing the logical depth of the Madhyamaka school, he also highlights its doctrinal differences from Theravāda. • Some scholars view Nāgārjuna’s work as a philosophical interpretation rather than an expression of early Buddhist doctrine, though they avoid overly critical language. |
Banji:
The issue is rather simple: once one grasps the profound meaning of dependent origination, it becomes clearwhether an explanation from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is necessary.
If the concern lies merely in the fear that “śūnyatā” might undermine the Buddhist doctrine of karma and causesand effects, then the solution is straightforward — one can simply avoid reading the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. I don’t think there’s anything to argue about.
When others raise this question to me, I respond by pointing to the standard methodology among commentators: construct a coherent rebuttal using logical debate, as is traditional. If Nāgārjuna’s reasoning is flawed, formulate a refutation. Yet to date, I have not encountered a successful one.
In our NanZen study club, I’ve said many times: accepting the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā means recognizing the wisdom of later generations. The views in the text are concise.
My personal interpretation is:
If 1 + 1 = 2,
then the Madhyamaka advocates that the connection between the two “1”s must be “śūnyatā”.
It never proposes that 0 + 0 is the basis of the discussion.
This is something readers ought to contemplate.
Likewise, Theravāda Buddhism values texts like the Abhidhamma, which are also post-canonical treatises.
Whether or not one can comprehend the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā depends on the reader’s capacity.
The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā should not be categorized as philosophy.
As previously discussed, perhaps only Śāriputra and Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva truly comprehended the Buddha’s teaching on dependent origination. Scriptural evidence has been provided to support this claim (see the screenshot below for references.The content of the screenshot is not translated.).
Early Buddhist texts frequently apply the method of “cutting off.” Many aspects of practice and daily life focus on ending or abandoning certain things. Naturally, when all is cut off, things become easier to handle.
Yet, to explain the nature of existence, change, and continuity requires a more advanced mode of thinking—one that surpasses the rigid, systematized processes of the conventional mind and associated mental states..
So why call it “demonic”? Who exactly are you trying to frighten?
Master Banji
