重點提示
大家好！
我畫出的紅線，
才是一個佛法修行者一生必須在大腦裡面理解的佛法問題，
這才是根本的參佛法。
提供參考。
說個笑話，
我之前教的佛法，很多大德聽不懂，
所以大家都扯著我說：
師父，這個你幾年前講過，那個幾年前講過，什麼⋯⋯
意思是，我都不能變動，不能有新的理解！
結果，就害怕說我在教人！
所以現在都說，提供參考喔！哈哈😁
佛法裡面《雜阿含經》、《中觀論》有很多題目大都是ㄧ般大眾無法理解的，這個是對佛法有熱忱的修行者，必須去正視的問題。
更正確的說：
後來的北傳佛法或是部派佛教都一定說唯心、唯識、或真如、清凈，
如果對比婆羅門的《奧義書》就可以知道這一些都是印度婆羅門教的教義，
（到現在才能提到《奧義書》，我自己都很感慨，真正把佛法的精華講出來太困難，《奧義書》我40年前就看過。）
佛陀在提出因緣法的「無我」、「無常」之後，
有四聖果的證入或理解，不是什麼都沒有的空洞，
但是世人似乎懼怕「無我」之後的空，
所以一定要有一個唯心、唯識、真如可以抓著，
這也就是後來佛法幾個派系的大前提。
網路說明佛法有幾個好處，至少可以讓多數的人看到其他的佛法說明，
直接面對人群，其實是有一定困難的。
非常感謝大家。
半寄
Main PointReminders
Greetings, friends of NanZen!
The words I underlined in red highlight the essential Dharma question that every practitioner must fully understand in their lifetime. This is the true foundation of Buddhist study and practice. Just some thoughts for your reference.
Let me share a joke: when I used to teach, many practitioners couldn’t follow what I was saying. They would remind me, “Master, you already said this years ago,” as if I were not allowed to develop new insights. To prevent disputes stemming from a misunderstanding of the Dharma, I now simply say, “This is only for reference. Haha 😁”
Many topics found in the Saṃyukta Āgama and Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā are far beyond the understanding of the general public. Yet for practitioners deeply committed to the Dharma, these are the very issues they must confront.
More accurately, later Northern traditions and Buddhist schools tended to emphasize ideas like “mind-only,” “consciousness-only,” “true suchness,” or “purity.” But when compared with the Upanishads of Brahmanism, it becomes clear that these notions are rooted in Brahmanical thought.
(It is with mixed feelings that I mention the Upanishads now. I first read them forty years ago, and it has always been difficult to bring out the essence of the Dharma so directly.)
After presenting dependent arising, the Buddha emphasized “non-self” and “impermanence.” These lead to realization of the four stages of awakening. This is not a meaningless śūnyatā.
Yet many people fear the “śūnyatā” that follows the comprehension of “non-self.” Thus, later Buddhist schools tended to establish a graspable principle—whether “mind-only,” “consciousness-only,” or “true suchness.”
The internet is useful in allowing more people to see diverse presentations of the Dharma. Speaking face-to-face with large groups can be very challenging. For this, I am truly grateful.
Master Banji
(translation of the screenshot contents)
Saṃyukta Āgama, Volume 5, Sūtra 104
Original Passage:
Śāriputra said: “I will now ask you; please answer freely. Yamaka, is form permanent or impermanent?”
Answer: “Venerable Śāriputra, it is impermanent.”
Śāriputra continued: “If it is impermanent, is it suffering?”
Answer: “Yes, it is suffering.”
Śāriputra asked further: “If it is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, would a well-learned noble disciple regard it as self, as something other than self, or as something that exists in relation to self?”
Reply: “No, Venerable Śāriputra!”
Plain Explanation:
Śāriputra further asked: “For something impermanent, full of suffering, and constantly changing, would a disciple who has heard and understood the true Dharma ever see in it a permanent self, or a substance independent of the self, or a being mutually dependent with the self?”
Yamaka answered: “No, Venerable Śāriputra!”
沒有留言:
張貼留言