因明學想法6
我們任意在佛學大辭典或是AI所有的資料都可以看到虛幻不實或是夢幻或是圓滿，所有的佛法AI資料都說佛學講圓滿。
《中觀論》也講「因緣所生法」，但因緣條件裡面是虛幻嗎？
《中觀論》不承認虛幻的，所以要透過思辯，如果一切現象界本身是虛幻的，
則第一個條件的建立就已經是不存在了！
虛幻的東西需要辯論嗎？要辯論什麼？
虛幻的東西需要去努力嗎？ 要努力什麼？
（不客氣地說或許這是印度文化裡面有的一種錯誤的認知，而我們不需要學習。）
只要有一點因明概念，就可以思考出第一個條件的建立就是錯誤的，
但想了解已經根深蒂固的虛幻、夢幻是不對的，卻需要透過很紮實與精密的思辯才能破解它，有時想想也哭笑不得！
而已經指出的生老病死卻一定要圓滿，這兩個像分裂症的存在，也不知道怎麼處理才好？
面對生老病死、面對成住壞空的變動-則智慧無限-真正的解脫。
這一些需要思辨的佛學思想，如果沒有努力去跨越難關，是不可能得到佛法的果實。
半寄
（半寄：因為因緣條件是暫時和合的，所以它的本質是變動性的。）
AI資料 「色即是空」的含義 當《心經》說「色即是空」時,意思是: 所有這些物質現象(色),其本質都是「空性」。 非說物質不存在或變成虛無,而是說物質是因緣和合而生,沒有獨立、不變、 永恒的自體(即無自性)。 因為是因緣暫時和合的,所以它的本質是虛幻不實的,故稱為「空」 |
Thoughts on Hetuvidyā (Buddhist Logic) 6
In Buddhist dictionaries or AI-generated materials, we often find terms such as “illusory,” “dreamlike,” or “perfect and complete.”
Almost all Buddhist sources describe the Dharma as teaching ultimate perfection.
The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way) also speaks of “whatever arises through dependent origination.”
But are the causes and conditions within this dependent origination themselves illusory?
The Madhyamaka does not acknowledge illusion as a real basis.
If all phenomena were inherently illusory, then the very first condition for their arising could never be established!
What would be the point of reasoning about something unreal?
What would be the point of striving toward something that does not exist?
(Frankly, perhaps this is a misconception rooted in Indian culture—something we do not necessarily need to adopt blindly.)
Anyone with a basic sense of Buddhist logic (hetuvidyā) can see that taking illusion as the foundation of causality is mistaken.
However, since the idea of “illusion” or “dreamlike reality” is so deeply ingrained, it takes careful and precise reasoning to break through it. It’s funny that something so simple still needs logical thinking!
Meanwhile, Buddhism insists that birth, aging, sickness, and death must be “perfected” — these two positions seem almost schizophrenic, and it’s hard to reconcile them.
But in truly facing birth and death, and the impermanence of formation and dissolution of all things — there lies infinite wisdom and genuine liberation.
Without deep reasoning and effort to overcome these philosophical challenges, one can never taste the true fruit of the Dharma.
Master Banji
(Banji: Since the causes and conditions that form things come together only for a time, the essence of all things is inherently fluid and ever-changing.)
因明學想法7
在佛法裡面去思考自我、大我、神我的存在，才是天大的難關，
君不見國外如何對待無神論者！
事實上佛法也不主張無神，它本來就說「有跟無」都不講，
「有跟無」都不講，其實才是最大的困難，
你去思考自己，你會發覺你不黏在「有」就黏在「無」，
再不然就黏在「中道」，
想脫離這三邊的牽制，絕對搞死你，哈哈😄
佛教教學常常講貪瞋痴，這只是基本功，
像貪在生存與界限之間擺盪，你如何解脫？
我個人認為把自我、大我，神我搞清楚以後，貪瞋痴其實是小菜一碟。
但學佛的人們為什麼就是不明白呢？
半寄
Thoughts on Hetuvidyā (Buddhist Logic) 7
In Buddhist philosophy, contemplating the existence of the self, the great self, or the divine self is an immensely difficult challenge.
Just look at how atheists are treated in many countries!
We can see from the way atheists are treated abroad how deeply attached people are to the idea of a deity or an ultimate self.
In fact, Buddhism is neither theistic nor atheistic.
It avoids asserting either “existence” or “nonexistence,” and this avoidance itself is what makes it so profoundly subtle and difficult.
When we examine our own mind, we find it tends to cling either to being or to non-being—or to the so-called middle path.
To move beyond all three attachments is incredibly difficult; it can truly exhaust the mind, haha! 😄
Teachings about greed, anger, and ignorance are often repeated in Buddhism, yet these are only the foundation.
Greed, for instance, swings between the desire to survive and the need for boundaries—how does one find liberation from that?
To me, once one has a clear understanding of the self, the greater self, and the divine self, the problem of greed, anger, and ignorance becomes comparatively minor.
Still, it’s puzzling why so many practitioners fail to recognize this deeper point.
Master Banji
沒有留言:
張貼留言