偽經 2
1.我們對比佛法原始教典《阿含經》的阿羅漢境界，阿羅漢境界必須解脫「無色愛」，也就是對精神世界方面的徹底解脫，
以現代人能理解的字義來說，是指理智方面也徹底得到昇華解脫，而這不是哲學的理解，是加入了修行的境界所成就。
「2. AI. 中國《虛雲和尚年譜》裡記載，他在雲棲寺閱《楞嚴經》到「覺海性澄圓，圓澄覺元妙」處，忽然大徹大悟，說道：「山河大地，悉皆在我心中」。
《虛雲和尚口述年譜》有提到他悟境時「山河大地，遍皆真如」。」
後來的華人禪師普遍有上面虛老的體悟，
為什麼同樣修佛法，從佛陀口中親自說出的修法流傳到中國以後會相隔千萬里？
這等於說印度的佛法跟中國是完全不相干的，
雖然不相干，但也一樣各自有證入境界，這個說法是不是比較持平呢？
我個人從禮敬廣欽老和尚到印順導師以後，致力在這方面想要做出個人可以理解的佛法與境界，
那就是為什麼佛法修行者之間的修行所得會相距如此遙遠？
一路馬不停蹄的追去，或許像崇山峻嶺的阻隔一般，地域、民族、人文的認知把佛法變成各家要的樣式了！
半寄
A Spurious Sūtra 2
In the early Buddhist scriptures, the Āgamas, the Arhat is described as one who has fully overcome attachment even to the formless realms—signifying a complete liberation that includes intellectual and spiritual transcendence. This is not only the understanding of philosophy, but also the highest level of achievement in spiritual practice.
The Chronicle of Master Xuyun recounts that, while reading the Śūraṅgama Sūtra at Yunqi Monastery, he encountered the line, “The ocean of awareness is clear and perfectly still, its clarity intrinsically wondrous.” At that moment he experienced great awakening, declaring: “Mountains and rivers, the entire earth, are within my mind.” In his oral record, he further expressed: “Mountains and rivers, everywhere, are none other than true suchness.”
Such expressions of realization became characteristic among later Chinese Chan masters.
Why, then, should the Dharma spoken by the Buddha himself, once transmitted to China, diverge so profoundly? It almost appears that Indian Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism are worlds apart. Yet, despite this distance, both lead to yield a realm of realization that is unique to the practitioner. Would it not be fairer to acknowledge this?
From venerating Elder Master Guangqin and then to Master Yinshun, I have sought to make sense of this divergence: Why are the attainments of Buddhist practitioners so vastly different?
Perhaps it is like being separated by vast mountains—geography, culture, and ways of thought have shaped Buddhism into different forms in different lands.
Master Banji
沒有留言:
張貼留言