資料提供Data Reference

 資料提供

 

讀過印度史會清楚印度口誦傳承是混亂的，所以不論是面對原始教典《阿含經》或北傳佛典都必須有謹慎的一面。

半寄

 

提供AI資料 :印度歷史的特點與挑戰   認為印度歷史「可信度較低」的觀點，主要是基於其古代文 獻的性質：   • 缺乏傳統史學視角： 印度古代（特別是吠陀時代到孔雀王 朝早期）的文獻，如《吠陀經》、《奧義書》等，主要是宗 教、哲學、史詩和傳說，例如《摩訶婆羅多》和《羅摩衍 那》。這些文獻旨在傳播教義或英雄事蹟，而不是像中國的 《史記》那樣專注於時間、人物、事件、官職的精確記錄。   • 斷代和編年困難： 印度缺乏連貫的紀年和編年史傳統，導 致歷史事件的確切發生時間難以確定。許多古代王朝的興 衰，主要依賴於考古學、錢幣學、外來文獻（如希臘、中國 僧人的記載）來進行交叉驗證和建構。   • 口傳歷史的影響： 許多知識長期依賴口頭傳誦，直到較晚 期才被書寫下來，這在傳播過程中難免產生變動和神話化。   不同層次的「真實」： 印度史詩和宗教文獻雖然不提供精確 的編年，但它們反映了當時的社會結構、價值觀和宗教信 仰，這也是一種深層次的歷史真實。

 

Data Reference

Anyone who studies Indian history will see that its oral traditions are complicated and sometimes messy. Thus, one must approach both the early Buddhist Āgama texts and the northern Buddhist canon with care.

Master Banji

 

 

AI Data: Features and Challenges of Indian History People often think Indian history is not very reliable. This idea mainly comes from the nature of its old writings: • Absence of historical methodology: Ancient Indian books—from the time of the Vedas to the early Mauryan kings—like the Vedas, Upanishads, Mahābhārata, and Rāmāyaṇa, were about religion, philosophy, and stories. They were not written to keep exact records of dates, people, or events like China’s Shiji was. • Difficulty in establishing chronology: India did not have a clear system for counting years or writing continuous histories. So, we cannot always tell when things happened. Historians must use archaeology, coins, and reports from other countries such as Greece or China to build a timeline. • Oral tradition and its consequences: For a long time, knowledge was passed by word of mouth. This made the stories change over time, adding myths or mistakes before they were finally written down. • Layers of truth: Even if India’s epics and religious texts are not exact records, they still show us what people believed, how they lived, and what values they had. That is also a kind of truth about the past.

 

有讀者說中國史也一樣必須謹慎，

那當然！

我把《資治通鑒》幾乎看完，

從頭到尾最詬病的是好像每件事都是他們（史官）親眼所目睹的狀況下寫出，這怎麼可能？

要讀很多資料，才能理出部分事情的頭緒，

不過，中國史還是比印度史好很多，印度史整個跟神話混在一起難分難解，

那才叫頭痛。

 

說到中國史，中國史官捍衛歷史的個人事蹟也不是假的，就好像漢系高僧的道行也是有目共睹，

 

我個人在這邊徘徊良久，到底要不要相信他們？

但很清楚的，自己讀的資料及已經出現的文獻都指向更多的事實。

 

終於，我自己突破這一關以後，

確認，高僧們的道行跟已經有的文獻事實必須劃開，

而我尊重高僧大德們的付出，

但為了釐清佛陀之後的高僧大德究竟修行的內容是什麼？

我個人也付出了很多心血去探討。

答案肯定讓自己滿意。

 

半寄

 

Some readers have said that Chinese history, too, must be approached with caution.
Naturally!
I have read almost the entire Zizhi Tongjian, and what bothers me most is how the text reads as if the historians personally witnessed every event they describe—how could that be possible?
One must consult many different sources to reconstruct even a partial picture of what really happened.

Still, Chinese history is far better than Indian history, which mixes myth and history so much that it’s hard to tell them apart. That’s truly confusing!

 

When it comes to Chinese history, it’s also true that some historians really risked their lives to protect the truth—just like many eminent Chinese monks were known for their genuine spiritual attainments.

 

For a long time, I hesitated: should I believe them or not?
But the texts and documents I have studied consistently point toward deeper facts.

 

Eventually, after breaking through this inner barrier, I came to see that the spiritual achievements of the great monks must be distinguished from the factual record.
I deeply respect their devotion and contributions,
yet in order to clarify what exactly these great masters practiced after the Buddha’s time, I have devoted much effort and study to this question.
The conclusions I reached truly satisfy me.

 

Master Banji