偽經1A Spurious Sūtra1

大家好！

偽經1

有讀者都希望我再談談《楞嚴經》。

前兩年南禪的居士有人帶《楞嚴經》來要問問題，

我跟他說那是偽經不用問了！

結果他二話不說就把它留在精舍，

昨天找一找看到了！

其實我還是沒有辦法再說什麼，

看了一下大陸地區新的解說，《楞嚴經》被捧得⋯⋯唉😮‍💨

大陸也有人在研究原始佛教，

只要把《楞嚴經》跟《雜阿含經》比較一下，就知道這兩者應用的文字天差地別，

《雜阿含經》用了很直接的話語在談論佛法，

偽經反而用了很玄奧的文字在談佛法。

佛法明白以後是要進入修行的，如果文字用的這麼玄奧可以搞死你一輩子。

我個人清楚很多人喜歡玄妙的文字跟語言，那就是喜歡的人的事了！

偽經往往華而不實，卻又晦澀難懂。
或許正是它們精心雕琢的晦澀難懂才吸引了讀者。哈哈！

大家文化水平都很高，自己對照著看就明白，我不想再解釋那一本書，

漫天漫地的講得完嗎？

半寄

（資料來源AI)

A Spurious Sūtra 1

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

Several readers have asked me to discuss the Śūraṅgama Sūtra more.
Two years ago, a lay practitioner from NanZen brought me a copy, seeking clarification.
My response was simple: “It is a spurious scripture; there is no point in inquiry.”
He said nothing more and left it behind in the vihara. I looked for it yesterday and found it!

 

I still have little to add. I reviewed some recent commentaries from Mainland China, and I was struck by how highly the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is exalted… sigh 😮‍💨

 

There are, however, scholars in China who study Early Buddhism. A simple comparison between the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and the Saṃyukta Āgama immediately reveals the vast difference in language and approach.

 

The Saṃyukta Āgama conveys the Dharma in direct and plain terms,
whereas the spurious scripture employs elaborate and abstruse phrasing.

 

Once the Dharma is understood, the point is to enter into practice. If the language itself is overly abstruse, one could waste a lifetime entangled in it.

I am aware that many people delight in obscure and esoteric language. That is their personal preference.

 

False texts often appear ornate yet impenetrable.
Perhaps it is precisely their polished obscurity that draws an audience. Ha!

 

Given everyone’s educational background, one only needs to compare the texts to see the difference.
I have no desire to explain that scripture further. With such an overwhelming mass of commentary, how could it ever be exhausted?

 

Master Banji

 

(Source: AI)