半寄「空的觀點」：
之前文章寫過了，
在大腦畫一個「一」，
那就不是空法，也不是佛法。
如果是「如來藏心」-梵我
印度婆羅門教早就對這個概念論述
完整，
佛陀說：祂有新的證悟，
這個發現就是「因緣法」，「四聖果」解脫法。
「在提供的「空觀點」資料2部分：
批判佛教（Critical Buddhism）論
戰（袴谷憲昭、松本史朗）：
20 世紀 80 年代末，這兩位學者
在東大與駒澤大學引發了震驚國際佛學界的論戰。
他們提出一個激進的觀點：「如來藏（佛性）思想不是佛教」。
他們認為，真正的佛教精神是龍樹的**「緣起與空」**——即徹底否
定任何本質、基質（Dhatu）或宇宙大我的存在。
他們批判東亞傳統的「本覺思想」（人皆有佛性、萬物皆是真如）實
質上是變相的「神我本體論」（梵我如一）。」
我最初閱讀這些資料時，感到非常困惑，也無法做出判斷。
現在回頭看，這幾乎像是一個巨大的錯誤。
這其實是一場關於婆羅門思想是否進入佛教的爭論。
台灣的印順法師寫的叢書裡面，很大部分也繞在這裡，
「如來藏心」-梵我的思想爭辯摧殘近代的佛教，
應該說：自古就禍延至今。
等我走出以「真如」、「如來藏心」的爭論時，
才發現印度宗教文獻資料就可以指出這些思想屬於婆羅門傳統。
然而，卻有無數的人力與資源投入在這場爭論之中。
還有什麼比這更荒謬的事情嗎？
或者，真正的問題是：
佛學者對於「因緣法」及「四聖果」的內容，
實在是太陌生了？
（有讀者說：佛法是講「無我」，那是沒錯！
但能接受「無我」思想的學習者太少，
到最後還是要發展出「真空妙有」來？
就說來說去永遠說不清，
還是願意動一點大腦的大德們，自己去努力吧！）
半寄
Banji’s Perspective on Śūnyatā
As I wrote in previous articles:
If the mind creates a fixed “one,”
then it is neither śūnyatā nor Buddhism.
If it refers to a “Tathāgatagarbha mind”
—the idea of Brahman—
Indian Brahmanical traditions had already explained this concept completely.
The Buddha taught that he discovered something new.
That discovery was dependent origination and the liberation teaching of
the Four Stages of Enlightenment.
According to the section On Critical Buddhism (Hakamaya Noriaki
and Matsumoto Shirō) in The Perspective of Śūnyatā — AI Research
Notes 2:
In the late 1980s, these two scholars from the University of Tokyo and
Komazawa University initiated a debate that attracted international attention.
They proposed the view:
“Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) thought is not Buddhism.”
They argued that the true meaning of Buddhism is Nāgārjuna’s teaching of
dependent origination and śūnyatā—the rejection of any permanent essence,
foundation, or universal self.
They criticized the East Asian doctrine of original enlightenment as a
modified form of Brahmanical ontology.
When I first studied these materials, I was confused and unable to reach a
conclusion.
Looking back now, it almost appears to be a great mistake.
It was a conflict over whether Brahmanical thought had entered Buddhism.
A large part of Master Yinshun’s writings in Taiwan also focused on this
issue.
The debate over the “Tathāgatagarbha mind” and Brahmanical ideas has
greatly damaged modern Buddhism.
In fact, this problem has continued from ancient times until today.
After I moved beyond the arguments about “True Suchness” and
“Tathāgatagarbha mind,” I realized that Indian religious literature already
indicates that these ideas belong to Brahmanical thought.
Yet countless people and resources were spent debating this issue.
What could be more absurd than this?
Or is it that Buddhist scholars were not sufficiently familiar with dependent
origination and the Four Stages of Enlightenment?
(Some readers say that the core of Buddhism is “non-self,” and this is
correct.
Yet only a small number of people can truly accept this teaching.
Consequently, ideas such as “true emptiness and wondrous
existence” emerge as a way to explain it.
Those who are willing to think a bit more deeply should examine
and understand it themselves.)
Master Banji
沒有留言:
張貼留言