人性的處理 3 The Buddhist Approach to Human Nature 3

  人性的處理 3

 

我之前也寫過有關於「四聖果」的內容，

聖果的證入包括佛法、實際的修證，

還有後代已經增長的思想理解力，

這些都是佛法要的證悟資源。

 

佛法三果之後，就出現了出家與在家能否進入阿羅漢果的爭議？

 

我個人對這個話題不感興趣，如果真正證入二果，修行者不論出家、在家其人類的腦力已經奠下了不同的智力，

 

有了屬於非凡性質的智力，才可能決定證入三果至四果的實力，

這是個人的能力、智力問題，根本不需要誰去認定修行者的證量。

 

修行者不論是什麼身份，一旦不知道自己的能力與境界，讓爭論顯得格外刺眼！

 

我個人長達1~20年的時間對於自我的修行，格外謹慎小心，害怕產生自我欺騙，

 

絕對、絕對，不需要去跟外界爭論自己的價值。

 

而且三果至阿羅漢果已經是超凡入聖，是佛法最高等級的修行聖者，

 

真的會不知道自己的修行價值，需要去跟外界討一個封號嗎？

 

邁向解脫之路的整個歷程，要的是修行者內心的力量，這不需要外界的認證。

 

去爭論誰不能證阿羅漢果？

如同目犍蓮尊者對佛教的貢獻被說成是殺父母的業報，如出一轍，

根本不知聖果的價值！

 

半寄

 

以下AI資料：

1. 從歷史與文獻學看「果位系統的演變」

日本原始佛教研究者（如水野弘元、印順導師早期參考的日本文獻等）指出，

佛陀最初在鹿野苑初轉法輪時，並沒有繁複的「四向四果」階位概念。

早期的單純性：日本學者考證《阿含經》等早期文獻發現，最初只要聽聞佛法、斷除疑惑並親身體證，

即可直接證得阿羅漢果。

修道階位的系統化：

隨著僧團的擴大與修行者資質的差異，為了客觀評估不同程度的修行狀態，

後來的部派佛教才逐漸將修行進展細分為「須陀洹（初果）、斯陀含（二果）、阿那含（三果）、阿羅漢（四果）」的四果系統。

三果（不還果）在文獻發展中，被定義為「已徹底降伏欲界貪、瞋，但尚未斷盡色界與無色界微細煩惱」的過渡聖者。 

2. 「三果」在在家居士修行的歷史定位

在佛教界一直有一個傳統爭議：

「在家居士最高只能證到三果，若證四果阿羅漢，必須當天出家或入滅（自殺/涅槃）。」 

對於此觀點，日本學者的學術考察提供了不同的視角： 

社會學與制度的限制：

日本學者指出，原始僧團強調「出家」是為了脫離世俗牽絆以全職修行。

三果阿那含斷了欲界的貪欲，所以在心境上已經遠離了世俗的欲樂。 

經典條文的解讀：部派佛教的文獻（如說一切有部）因強調出家僧團的至高性，將「四果」保留給出家眾。

日本學者透過比對不同部派的律藏與經藏，

認為這主要是部派佛教時期為了維護出家制度而形成的教理限制，並非佛陀最初的絕對教條。

3. 從「批判佛教」與「心理學」看三果的「斷欲」

近代日本興起過「批判佛教」（由袴谷憲昭、松本史朗等人發起）及現代佛學心理學研究，他們對三果的特徵有深刻的思辨：

「欲愛」與「瞋恚」的心理斷除：三果的核心標誌是斷除「五下分結」中的欲貪與瞋恚。

日本學者常從心理學與存在主義的角度來詮釋，認為三果代表著一個修行者在精神上已經徹底從「欲界的集體潛意識（生物本能、佔有欲、憤怒）」

中孤立並超越出來。 

 

行的佛教與實踐：

如東京大學名譽教授木村清孝等現代學者所提倡，

日本佛學研究已從早期的「知的佛教」（單純文本研究）轉向「行的佛教」（生命實踐）。

他們認為，三果所表現的「不還」（不再受物欲與情緒引導而流轉），在現代混亂的物質社會中，是一種極高的精神自主性與內心和平的最高模範。 

 

二、 平川彰：從「制度演變」與「聖典集成」看四果與阿含

平川彰（東京大學名譽教授，其《印度佛教史》為佛學界權威教材）則更偏向從社會制度、法制史（律藏）與文獻編纂的角度來解讀。 

1. 「四雙八輩」的僧寶建構與宗教法制

平川彰在其《印度佛教史》中，詳細梳理了《阿含經》中「四向四果」（合稱四雙八輩、八賢聖）的文獻定義。

僧寶的法律/宗教定義：在原始佛教中，「僧伽（Sanga）」不單指剃度的出家團體，更在宗教神聖性上被定義為由「四雙八輩」聖人所組成的「勝義僧」。 

階位的斷惑基準：平川彰明確指出部派佛教如何透過

《阿含經》定型文句來劃分四果：

預流果（初果）：斷「三結」（身見、戒禁取、疑），入佛教之流，不墮惡趣。

一來果（二果）：三結斷，且「貪、瞋、癡」三毒減輕。

不還果（三果）：徹底斷除欲界的五下分結。

阿羅漢果（四果）：斷盡一切煩惱，超越生死。 

平川彰強調，阿毘達磨（後世論書）極度繁複的修行階位（如十八有學、九無學），

全部都是以《阿含經》中的這套「四向四果」為母體和基礎發展出來的。 

2. 阿含經成立史：從朴素到繁複

平川彰對《阿含經》的看法在學界影響深遠。他認為現存的漢譯四阿含與巴利五部尼柯耶，都不是「佛陀的原話筆錄」，而是經過部派佛教長期傳誦、整理與增刪的結果。 

他以佛陀成道時的「內觀（開悟經歷）」為例，指出《阿含經》裡對佛陀成道的描述有十幾種（有的說因四諦、有的說因十二因緣、有的說因四禪三明）。 

平川彰認為：「四聖諦」在最初其實是對他人說法的「形式」，

而不是佛陀個人開悟的原型。同理，「四向四果」也是後世僧團在結集《阿含經》時，

為了給僧眾的實踐提供一個「可量化的客觀標準」，才將其系統化並編入經藏的。

 

 

The Buddhist Approach to Human Nature 3

 The Buddhist Approach to Human Nature 3

 

I have previously written about the Four Stages of Enlightenment.

 

The realization of the four stages of enlightenment involves the Dharma, actual practice and realization, as well as the increased capacity for understanding that has developed over later generations. All of these are resources for realizing the Dharma.

 

After the third stage, a controversy arose over whether a person living a monastic or lay life could attain arahantship.

 

Personally, I am not interested in this debate.

 

If a practitioner has genuinely attained the second stage, then regardless of whether they are ordained or lay,

 

.their cognitive capacity has already developed in a fundamentally different way. They have acquired an exceptional level of intelligence. 

It is this personal capacity and intelligence that can determine whether they have the ability to progress from the third stage to arahantship.

 

This is fundamentally a matter of an individual's capacity and intelligence. There is no real need for someone else to determine or certify the level of a practitioner's realization.

 

Regardless of their social or religious status, if practitioners themselves do not understand their own abilities and level of realization, debates about who can or cannot attain arahantship become particularly striking—and, in my view, rather misplaced.

 

For twenty years or more, I have been extremely cautious and careful about my own practice. I have always been afraid of deceiving myself.

 I absolutely do not need to argue with the outside world about my own value.

 

Moreover, the progression from the third stage to arahantship represents a transcendence of ordinary human limitations and entry into the stages of Buddhist realization. 

These are the highest levels of spiritual attainment in Buddhism.

 

Would a person who has genuinely reached such a level really not know the value of their own practice, and therefore need to seek a title or recognition from the outside world?

 

The entire journey toward liberation requires the practitioner’s inner strength. It does not require external certification.

 

Why, then, argue about who can or cannot attain arahantship?

 

 It is similar to the way Venerable Maudgalyāyana's contribution to Buddhism has sometimes been explained through the story of karmic retribution for killing his parents.

 

Such arguments miss the fundamental value of the four stages of enlightenment of Buddhist practice.

 

Master Banji

 

 AI Data Below

1. The Evolution of the System of Stages of Enlightenment from a Historical and Textual Perspective

Japanese scholars of Early Buddhism, 

including Hiroo Mizuno and other Japanese studies that influenced Master Yin Shun in his early research, 

have pointed out that when the Buddha first taught the Dharma at Deer Park, 

there was not yet a fully developed system of the “four paths and four stages.”

The simplicity of the early system:
Japanese scholars, through their study of the Āgamas and other early Buddhist texts, have found that in the earliest period, 

a practitioner could directly attain arahantship by hearing the Buddha’s teaching, 

resolving doubts, and personally realizing the Dharma.

The systematization of stages of practice:
As the Buddhist community expanded and practitioners differed in their abilities and levels of practice, 

there was a growing need for an objective way to distinguish different stages of spiritual development.

Only later, during the period of the Buddhist schools, was the path gradually divided into four stages: Sotāpanna (Stream-entry), Sakadāgāmin (Once-returning), 

Anāgāmin (Non-returning), and Arahantship.

In the development of the Buddhist texts, the third stage, Anāgāmin, 

came to be defined as a transitional stage in which a practitioner had completely overcome sensual desire and hatred in the desire realm, 

while still having subtle defilements associated with the form and formless realms.

 

2. The Historical Position of the Third Stage in Lay Buddhist Practice

There has long been a traditional debate within Buddhism:

“A lay Buddhist can attain no higher than the third stage. 

If a layperson attains arahantship, 

they must either ordain that same day or pass away.”

Japanese scholars have offered a different perspective through historical and textual research.

Social and institutional limitations:
Japanese scholars point out that the early Buddhist community emphasized monastic life partly because leaving ordinary social life allowed practitioners to devote themselves fully to spiritual practice.

An Anāgāmin has already abandoned sensual desire in the desire realm. 

In terms of mental orientation, such a practitioner has therefore already become deeply detached from ordinary worldly pleasures.

Interpretation of the canonical texts:
Later Buddhist-school literature, such as that of the Sarvāstivāda tradition, placed greater emphasis on the supreme status of the monastic community and therefore came to reserve the attainment of arahantship for monastics.

By comparing the Vinaya and Sutra traditions of different Buddhist schools, 

Japanese scholars have argued that this restriction was largely a doctrinal development during the period of the Buddhist schools, 

intended to preserve the institutional structure of monastic Buddhism. 

It was not necessarily an absolute rule established by the Buddha from the beginning.

 

3. The “Abandoning of Desire” in the Third Stage: Perspectives from Critical Buddhism and Psychology

Modern Japanese Buddhism saw the rise of Critical Buddhism, associated with scholars such as Akira Hakamaya and Shiro Matsumoto, 

as well as modern psychological approaches to Buddhist studies. These approaches have encouraged deeper reflection on the characteristics of the third stage.

The psychological abandonment of desire and hatred:
The central characteristic of the third stage is the elimination of sensual desire and hatred, which are two of the five lower fetters.

Japanese scholars have often interpreted this development from psychological and existential perspectives. From this viewpoint, 

the third stage represents a practitioner who has mentally separated from and transcended the collective forces of the desire realm—including biological impulses, possessiveness, and anger.

Buddhism as practice and lived experience:
Modern Japanese Buddhist studies, as advocated by scholars such as Kiyotaka Kimura, Emeritus Professor of the University of Tokyo,

 have gradually moved beyond an earlier emphasis on Buddhism as primarily an intellectual or textual subject toward a greater emphasis on Buddhism as a lived practice.

From this perspective, 

the “non-returning” of the Anāgāmin means that the practitioner is no longer driven by sensual desire or emotional reactions. In today's materially driven and often confused society, 

this can be understood as an exceptionally high degree of spiritual autonomy and inner peace.

 

II. Akira Hirakawa: The Four Stages and the Āgamas from the Perspectives of Institutional Development and Scriptural Formation

Akira Hirakawa, Emeritus Professor of the University of Tokyo and author of A History of Indian Buddhism, 

one of the influential textbooks in Buddhist studies, approached the development of the four stages primarily from the perspectives of social institutions, the history of Buddhist law and discipline, and the formation of Buddhist scriptures.

1. The Construction of the Sangha as the “Four Pairs and Eight Individuals”

In his A History of Indian Buddhism, Hirakawa carefully examined the textual definitions of the “four paths and four stages” in the Āgamas. Together, 

these are known as the four pairs and eight individuals, or the eight noble persons.

The religious and institutional definition of the Sangha:
In early Buddhism, the Saṅgha did not refer only to an institutional community of ordained monks and nuns.

 In its religious sense, the term also came to refer to the Noble Saṅgha, 

consisting of the four pairs and eight individuals who had attained the noble stages of the path.

The criteria for eliminating defilements:
Hirakawa clearly described how the Buddhist schools used standardized formulations in the Āgamas to distinguish the four stages:

• Stream-entry (first stage): The three fetters—identity view, attachment to rites and rituals, and doubt—are eliminated. The practitioner enters the stream of the Dharma and no longer falls into the lower realms.

• Once-returning (second stage): The three fetters have been eliminated, while greed, hatred, and delusion have become greatly weakened.

• Non-returning (third stage): The five lower fetters connected with the desire realm have been completely eliminated.

• Arahantship (fourth stage): All defilements have been eliminated, and the practitioner has gone beyond the cycle of birth and death.

Hirakawa emphasized that the highly elaborate systems of stages later developed in Abhidharma literature—including classifications such as the eighteen trainees and nine non-trainees—were developed from, 

and based upon, the basic framework of the four paths and four stages found in the Āgamas.

 

2. The Formation of the Āgamas: From Simplicity to Complexity

Hirakawa's understanding of the formation of the Āgamas has had a significant influence on Buddhist studies.

He argued that the extant Chinese Four Āgamas and the five Pāli Nikāyas are not verbatim records of the Buddha's original words. 

Rather, they are the result of a long process of oral transmission, organization, additions, and revisions within the various Buddhist schools.

Using the Buddha's experience of awakening as an example, Hirakawa pointed out that the Āgamas contain more than ten different descriptions of how the Buddha attained awakening. Some describe awakening through the Four Noble Truths, some through dependent origination, 

and others through the four jhānas and the three knowledges.

According to Hirakawa's interpretation, the Four Noble Truths were originally a particular form used when teaching the Dharma to others, rather than a direct description of the Buddha's original personal experience of awakening.

In the same way, the four paths and four stages may also have been systematized by later Buddhist communities during the formation and compilation of the Āgamas. 

The purpose was to provide practitioners with an objective and relatively measurable framework for evaluating progress in Buddhist practice, after which this framework was incorporated into the scriptural tradition.