俱解脫（Ubhatobhāgavimutta）的經典結集Complete Liberation

 俱解脫（Ubhatobhāgavimutta）的經典結集

印度歷史雖然是口誦，但以《原始教典阿含經》的成立而言，還是有著一定的公信度，

舉個例子：

如果佛陀曾經說過祂看到那個人的前三世典故，已經得俱解脫的阿羅漢們，要誦出這段內容時，必須共同看到那個人的前三世，

像阿難尊者（Ānanda）當時還沒有證入四果阿羅漢，他就只能看到前兩世，就會被排擠在外，因為會造成看法的落差。

（看佛教史的人們大部分會同情阿難尊者（Ānanda）被排擠，但事實上結集剛開始時，他的不一致，這個事實是必須承認的）

佛法既然有了修行系統，那就表示共同已經達到一個境界的修行者，都必須看到共同的事情，不可能說一個人的前三世是一個女生，你卻說你看到的是男生，對於已經過去且看不到的事情，在俱解脫阿羅漢的聖者而言，也是不能混亂的。

我個人歷經很久的修行歲月以後，終於了解阿難尊者（Ānanda）為什麼在經典結集會被排擠在外，

過去的生命，在時空中留下的軌跡，有能力的修行者看到後根據你過去所留下的軌跡，而清楚你的過去生命，但這個清楚也不是巨細無遺，只能看到大的點面，例如：做了大好事或大惡事，或大修行者⋯⋯。

對於生命中的前三世可以更深入的是修行者本身，唯有自己才能了解自己的事。

這是印度佛法獨特的一個修行系統是無可取代的，而且歷經這麼久的時空以後可以證入到那個世界的修行者，也會印證當時佛陀的教授與阿羅漢的存在所說千真萬確，

這些內容跟西洋史的哲學、科學所記載的人物與發明一樣都是千真萬確。

但《四阿含經》的結集在迦葉尊者（Mahākāśyapa）後又增加很多，這部分在研究原始教典的資料裡面都看得到，

 

前面的文章談到印度歷史，AI說：宗教的內容也是一種印度的次歷史就是這個意思。

而這種歷史是全世界獨一無二的，他必須用修行的證入去了解它所說的真偽，就目前的研究文獻還是可以找到它的可信度，

如完全用修行的證入去做了解，後代的修行者大多走上一個禪定三昧的證入，是沒有辦法看到佛陀與經典結集當時的全貌的，

試想：如果修行裡面有時空的存在，那時空的範圍大了，或許歲月已幾千年，但投入時空裡卻只是一步伐而已！

半寄

AI資料提供： 要確定阿含經（或尼柯耶）中「哪部分是真正最真（最接近佛陀原始教法）的」，是一個複雜且持續的學術議題，因為現存的文獻都是佛陀涅槃後經過數百年口頭傳誦，並在不同部派中編纂成書的。 然而，根據當代佛教學者和比較文獻學的研究，大多數文獻學家公認： 1. 公認最核心、最可靠的部分： 最被認為接近佛陀原始教法的，是那些不同部派版本之間具有高度共同性、且側重於基本教義和修行實踐的篇章。 🔹 《雜阿含經》/《相應部》（Samyutta Nikāya） • 公認度最高： 許多學者（如印順法師、R. Gombrich 等）認為，《雜阿含經》（漢譯）和與之對應的《相應部》（南傳）最能保持早期結集的結構和內容。 • 原因： • 結構原始： 它們的編排方式是**「事類相應」（Samyutta）**，即將主題或對象相似的短經文彙集在一起（如五蘊相應、六處相應、道品相應等），這被認為比主題宏大的長經更接近於早期隨機說法的記錄形式。 • 內容精純： 內容多聚焦於佛教最核心的教義，如四聖諦、八正道、十二因緣、五蘊、六處、緣起等，語言相對樸素，被認為較少後期的增添或哲學闡釋。   2. 其他阿含/尼柯耶的角色：核心特點與公認程度 阿含/尼柯耶名稱 《中阿含經》 / 《中部》 (Majjhima Nikāya) 高度可靠。收錄中等長度的經文，主題涵蓋廣泛，內容深度和結構完整性高，是理解佛陀思想體系的重要來源。被認為緊接在《雜阿含》之後，   《長阿含經》 / 《長部》 (Dīgha Nikāya 可靠，但可能包含較多後期成分。收錄長篇經文，有些篇章（如描寫世界起源、本生故事）被認為是為了傳教而加入的，以滿足當時社會對宏大敘事的需求。其戒律和教義的彙編部分仍然高度可靠。   《增一阿含經》 / 《增支部》 (Anguttara Nikāya) 最可能包含後期增添。按數字將法數（如一法、二法、三法...）分類彙編，結構邏輯性強，便於記憶。但也因此，被認為在編輯過程中，為了湊足數字，可能加入了較多的後世法數或闡釋。 學術共識總結： 文獻學家通常不認為某「單一」卷是「最真」的，而是認為： 在四阿含中，越是傾向於收錄： 1. 內容短小、樸素的經文（如《雜阿含》）。 2. 不同部派版本（如漢譯、巴利、藏譯）都能找到對應且內容一致的經文。 3. 核心教義（如四聖諦、緣起法）的經文。 這些經文被認為越接近佛陀原始的教法。

 

The Canonical Compilation of the Ubhatobhāgavimutta

Indian history, though transmitted orally, still holds a certain degree of credibility when it comes to the formation of the Early Buddhist Canon (Āgamas).
Take this example: if the Buddha described the past three lives of a certain person, then the arahants who recited would all have to see those same three past lives.Venerable Ānanda, who had not yet attained full arahantship at the time, could see only two. Because of this discrepancy, he was excluded at the beginning of the First Council.

(Although later generations tend to sympathize with Ānanda, historically his discrepancy in perception could not be ignored during the earliest phase of the Council.)

Since the Buddhist path includes a structured system of cultivation, practitioners who have reached the same level of attainment must perceive the same realities. It is impossible for one person to see someone’s past three lives as female while another sees them as male. For fully liberated arahants, matters concerning the past must not be confused or contradictory.

After many years of practice, I finally understood why Venerable Ānanda was initially excluded during the compilation of the scriptures.

A person’s past lives leave traces in time and space. Practitioners with sufficient ability can see these traces and thus understand the person’s former existences. Yet this clarity is not exhaustive; they can only see major patterns—great good deeds, major wrongdoings, or whether one was a great practitioner, and so on.

A deeper understanding of one’s past three lives can only be attained by the practitioner themselves; only the individual can truly know their own past.

This unique system of Indian Buddhist cultivation is irreplaceable. Practitioners who, after long spans of time, attain the same level of realization naturally confirm the Buddha’s teachings and the existence of arahants as absolutely true—just as the figures and discoveries recorded in Western history are true.

However, following Mahākāśyapa, the compilation of the Four Āgamas expanded significantly. This can be seen in contemporary research on early canonical materials.

Earlier I mentioned that when AI refers to “religious content as a subsidiary form of Indian history,” this is what it means.

This form of history is unique in the world. Its truth must be verified through meditative realization. Modern scholarship still finds significant credibility in it, but if one relies only on meditative absorption, later practitioners tend to enter deep samādhis that cannot reveal the full historical picture of the Buddha or the early councils.
One may reflect on this: if time and space exist within spiritual cultivation, then even if thousands of years have passed, entering that dimension may feel like taking just a single step.

Master Banji

 

AI Data:    Which Parts of the Āgamas/Nikāyas Are Considered Closest to the Buddha’s Original Teachings? Figuring out which parts of the Āgamas (or Nikāyas) are the most authentic—meaning the closest to the Buddha’s original teachings—is a complex and ongoing academic question. All the texts we have today were passed down orally for centuries after the Buddha’s passing and were compiled by different Buddhist schools. However, based on the work of modern Buddhist scholars and comparative textual research, most experts generally agree on the following: 1. The most central and reliable part: The section most widely accepted as closest to the Buddha’s original teaching is the material shared across multiple early Buddhist schools, especially the passages focused on core doctrine and practice. 🔹 Saṃyukta Āgama / Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN) Most scholars consider this the most reliable collection. (For example: Master Yinshun, Richard Gombrich, and others.) Reasons why it is valued: • Original structure: These texts are organized by thematic clusters (“saṃyutta”), grouping short teachings by topic — such as the five aggregates, six sense bases, the path factors, etc. This format is thought to reflect how early teachings were originally remembered and recited. Pure doctrinal focus: The content centers on the core of early Buddhism: Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, Dependent Origination, Five Aggregates, Six Sense Bases, and other essential doctrines. The language is simple and direct, suggesting fewer later additions. 2. The roles of the other Āgamas/Nikāyas Majjhima Nikāya / Madhyama Āgama • Considered highly reliable. • Contains medium-length discourses with broad themes and deep explanations. • Thought to be close in authenticity, second only to the Saṃyukta/ Saṃyuttacollections. Dīgha Nikāya / Dīrgha Āgama • Reliable overall, but may include more later material. • Contains long suttas; some (e.g., creation stories, cosmology, long narratives) were likely added to appeal to social and religious needs of the time. • The sections involving discipline and core teachings remain trustworthy. Aṅguttara Nikāya / Ekottarika Āgama • Considered the most likely to contain later additions. • Organized by numbers (one topic, two topics, three topics, etc.), which made it easy to memorize. • Because of this structure, scholars believe some lists or teachings may have been added later to complete numerical sets. General Scholarly Conclusions Textual scholars do not usually identify one particular book as “the truest.” Instead, they look for patterns. In general, the texts closest to the Buddha’s original teachings tend to be: 1. Shorter and simpler passages (like those in the Saṃyukta/Saṃyuttacollections). 2. Teachings that appear across multiple early traditions—for example, in both the Chinese Āgamas and the Pāli Nikāyas (and sometimes Tibetan parallels). 3. Teachings focused on core doctrines such as the Four Noble Truths and Dependent Origination. These are considered the most likely to preserve the Buddha’s earliest teachings.