洞徹1-2 Penetrating Insight1-2

洞徹1

 

讀者問說今天沒有要寫什麼嗎？好吧，再撈出一個故事來。

 

有一位老師非常聰明，他是沒有任何信仰的人，當然也沒有死後有靈魂這個說法，

但他個人做了很多善舉，所以他往生後有人請我幫他做超薦迴向，

我說：他是不相信任何事物的，我要做什麼？

 

請托的人說他有恩予他，

他只是希望報答，師父就做迴向功德與他，看到什麼都無所謂。

 

我都還沒做迴向，中午吃飯的時候，看到一個男生大喊說他快餓死了！

不是說死後什麼都沒有嗎？

為什麼他還會餓？

 

我一看是他，顧不得吃飯了，吃一半就跑去佛前把他朋友托付給他的功德迴向做完，當然也準備了飯菜。

佛經指出過，人肉體往生後，靈魂是吸食而活，食物的味道他吸一吸就算飽餐一頓，

而根據我的觀察，沒肉體卻會餓是反射作用。

事後查證，因為他沒有任何信仰，所以從他往生那一刻起沒有任何祭祀。

 

（這裡面又是另一種學問了，我這輩子還沒往生，是透過他才清楚往生後的知覺尚在，哈）

 

早上看有人在做一本書的試閱，裡面用數學解了佛教的因果，

認為《阿含經》最初沒有把因果講好，所以一直補它的漏洞，經典才會越寫越多，《金剛經》是到華人手裡創下劃時代的一刀——無我，所以華人才是劃時代的創造者。

（金剛經不是鳩摩羅什大師翻譯的嗎？）

 

舉這個例子是想說，知識分子非常多，大家都認為自己讀了很多書，

但這該怎麼說，學問到底要做到哪個程度，才算自己已經洞徹？

又或者說我們總是學習得太少，又想得太多。

 

上面的例子是我在迴向中，第一位可以完整說出他生前的觀念與失去肉體卻震驚於他自己尚有知覺的大德，因為他的善舉力量在支持他吧！

 

而「無我」的論述跟「因果」到底是不是一種一直循環而永不熄滅的力量，

佛陀早就說：不一不異。

半寄

（解讀龍樹菩薩《中論》27道題 p.20

 

Penetrating Insight 1

 

A reader asked me if I wasn’t planning to write anything today. All right—here’s another story.

 

There was a very smart teacher who didn’t believe in any religion, and he didn’t believe that a soul exists after death. But he did many good deeds. After he passed away, someone asked me to perform a merit-transference ceremonytransfer merit to him.

I replied, “He didn’t believe in anything—what exactly am I supposed to do?”

 

The requester said that the teacher had helped him before, and he simply wished to repay him. “Just dedicate the merit to him. It doesn’t matter what appears.” he added.

 

Before I even began the ritual, I was having lunch when I suddenly saw a man shouting that he was starving.
If nothing exists after death, as he believed, then why would he still feel hunger?

I looked closely—it was him. I stopped eating halfway and rushed to complete the dedication of merit in front of the Buddha, and of course I also prepared food for him.

According to Buddhist texts, after physical death, the spirit survives by “absorbing” rather than eating; simply taking in the flavor of food is enough to feel full.

Based on my observations, the feeling of hunger without a physical body appears to be a residual reflex from one’s former existence.

Later I found out that since he had no beliefs, no one had made offerings to him since the moment he died.

(This is a separate field altogether. I haven’t died in this life, so it was only through him that I came to understand that awareness still remains after death—haha.)

 

This morning I saw someone reviewing a book that tries to explain karma with math. The author argues that the early Āgamas did not articulate causes and effects well, so later texts kept filling in the gaps, which is why the canon grew. The Diamond Sūtra, he claims, introduced the revolutionary idea of “no-self” only after reaching China, making the Chinese the true innovators.
(But isn’t the Diamond Sūtra translated by Kumārajīva?)

 

I mention this to illustrate that many intellectuals believe themselves widely read. But what, exactly, constitutes genuine insight? Perhaps we simply study too little and speculate too much.

This case was the first, during my practice of transferring merit, in which an individual could fully articulate both his former life views and his shock of discovering that consciousness remained even after losing the body. I suppose it was the strength of his virtuous deeds that supported him.

 

As for whether “no-self” and “karma” form an endlessly cycling, self-sustaining force—the Buddha already said they are “neither identical nor different.”

 

Master Banji

 

Text from the Screenshot   Chapters 17, 18, 21, 22, and 27 talk about this topic, but they go far beyond the usual explanations. For many people, the idea that things are “neither destroyed nor created” (mentioned in Chapters 1, 7, 20, 21, and 25) is profoundly disruptive, because most people think dependent arising means that real things truly appear and then disappear. Furthermore, although the formula “neither identical nor different” is familiar to Buddhist audiences—the Buddha explicitly stated that the person in this life and the person in the next are “neither identical nor different” (S II.62, S II.76, S II.113)—the conventional Abhidharma account of dependent arising nonetheless presupposes that “numerous ultimately real phenomena exist and condition one another.” Therefore, when Nāgārjuna maintains that two things commonly assumed to be different are, in the ultimate sense, neither identical nor different (as argued in Chapters 6, 14, and 17), this strikes many readers as unexpected and radical. (Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika, p.20) (The words in bold are what the author wants to highlight in this screenshot.)

 

洞徹2

自從我理解到不管是個人生命裡面養成的反射動作，或是社會給的反射動作，

（已經定型的模式）想要擺脫它無異於扒掉身上的一層皮與骨。

 

因此已往，我個人只鎖定在破身見-無我這邊做努力，

只有這麼簡單的努力，都讓我清楚所有的學問包括修行的內容，都是慢慢去完備它的，而不只是因為說了不好而去補破洞而已，

再者，能知道不好而去補破洞，那也才是真正的了不起。

 

世界上沒有人敢說他們的學問一開始就是完備的，這樣說等於打自己的嘴巴，

就算我個人是資質魯鈍，也知道這一點。

半寄

 

Penetrating Insight 2

 

Once I realized that the habits formed in life—whether personal conditioning or social conditioning—are fixed patterns that are almost as hard to remove as peeling off one’s own skin and bones,

 

I decided to focus only on breaking the view of a fixed self and understanding non-self.

Even this simple focus has shown me that all forms of knowledge, including spiritual practice, must be gradually completed and refined.

They do not improve merely because we point out what is wrong; and in fact, to recognize what is flawed and then mend it—that is what is truly remarkable.

 

No one can say their knowledge was complete from the very beginning. That would just contradict themselves.

Even someone as slow as I am knows that.

 

Master Banji