因明學想法後記
最近南禪各處的讀書會都反應一個問題，他們也有在想「無我」的問題，但似乎都沒有進展。
《雜阿含經》經文不斷提起「有知、有覺及精進」這一類的教學，
我想了想去把以前讀過的又挖出來寫，寫「因明學想法」只想告訴對佛法用功的大德們，其實會證悟的大德包括佛陀本身都是雄厚資本的。
資本不夠，你可以入禪定修個三昧，而歷代佛教高僧修入禪定者，從不匱乏。
但是我們可以從《六祖壇經》看出這裡面暗藏了多少危機，
應該是教解脫學的，結果全部是泥沼。
坦白說在中國大陸很多出家的大德都是儒家學者來的，
但對於佛經傳導錯誤這一塊卻束手無策到驚人的地步，（或根本無感）
這一事實說明了什麼？
經文裡面的「有知、有覺」只是第一個覺知，
但這個覺知如果沒有靠雄厚的佛學底層來延續，代表你的手裡沒有任何的資訊武器，這是沒有辦法往前走的，
精進也沒有用，因為你不知道要精進什麼？
以上就提供參考。
半寄
Postscript of Thoughts on Hetuvidyā (Buddhist Logic)
Lately, members of NanZen study clubs have all raisedthe same issue. They contemplate on the notion of “non-self,”, yet nothing seems to move forward.
The Saṃyukta Āgama often speaks of “awareness, mindfulness, and effort.” Reflecting on this, I decided to revisit my earlier studies and write down some reflections on Buddhist logic.
My main message is this: those who attain enlightenmentincluding the Buddha himself—are all supported by a profound foundation.
Without sufficient foundation, one may still enter deep meditation and attain samādhi; after all, great meditators have never been rare in Buddhist history.
But The Platform Sutra reveals the hidden dangers in such practice.
Teachings meant for liberation can easily turn into confusion and stagnation instead.
In mainland China, many eminent monks were originally Confucian scholars. Yet when it comes to correcting misinterpretations in the transmission of the scriptures, they are utterly powerless or even completely insensitive—and that fact itself is alarming.
The “awareness” mentioned in the scriptures is only the first step. Without solid foundation in Buddhist learningto sustain it, just like lacking “informational weapon” in one’s hands, there is no way to advance further.
Even diligence is of no use, because you don’t know what you are being diligent about.
This is just for your reflection.
Master Banji
沒有留言:
張貼留言