三十六對法2
很多讀者都不明白，我對「三十六對法」的說明，
事實上，我已經指出來它是在下黑白棋！
美其名，長來短對，好像你執著長，我就講短，破解你，但長跟短的區別、界定到底在哪裡？
這已經是「唯心論」的認定長短、黑白，
還好禪宗六祖惠能講不思善、不思惡，
現在請問在三十六對法中，不思善、惡要安插在哪裡？
一部壇經好幾段佛法，好幾個主人，本來就是一場大混亂，（參考胡適考古）
下棋比喻原本立意良善的佛法，可能會變成鬥嘴的遊戲！
三十六對法讓佛法的交流變成無所適從，隨便的說法都可以成立，也無從破解，因為根本不須論述，
這樣一來，佛法豈不是一團大黑缸嗎？
想在佛法裡面獲法益的大德們必須動動腦去思考，
這一段講的真的是佛法嗎？現在資訊很方便，查一查，自己想一想會明白的，
要有收穫自己也得勤勞。
況且內地考古興盛，很多的資訊是假的也早就一清二楚。
半寄
The Thirty-Six Pairs of Opposites 2
Many readers still don’t grasp my point about the Thirty-Six Pairs of Opposites. I have already said that this is like playing a game of black-and-white chess.
Take, for example, “long versus short.” The idea seems to be that if you cling to long, I respond with short to break your attachment. But where is the real boundary between long and short?
This reflects a subjective idealist view that categorizes things into right and wrong, good and bad. Thankfully, Huineng, the Sixth Patriarch of Zen, claimed “not thinking of good, not thinking of evil.”
Now tell me—where, within the Thirty-Six Pairs, can this teaching be inserted?
The Platform Sutra has many sections and multiple voices—it is, in truth, a great chaos (as Hu Shi’s research has shown).
What began as a well-intentioned Buddhist teaching, when likened to a game of chess, can easily degenerate into mere verbal debate.
The Thirty-Six Pairs make Buddhist communication chaotic: any statement can sound justified, and nothing can be resolved, since reasoning itself is not required. In that case, doesn’t this reduce Buddhism to a pitch-black cauldron?
Those who truly seek benefit from the Dharma must think carefully: is this really the Buddha’s teaching?Today information is readily available—check it, reflect on it, and you will see. True benefit comes only with effort.
Moreover, with the flourishing of archaeological research in China, it has long been clarified that much of the information in circulation is false.
Master Banji
沒有留言:
張貼留言