問題回答A Response to a Question

 問題回答

讀者說：

「人性的說明4」裡面的日本學者們認為，「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。 」

不就是儒家的精神嗎？

這只是表面看起來跟儒家的講學高度相似而已，事實上其內容完全是不同的。

佛法的修行裡面必須到達解脫「肉體與精神」的無我，

這在西方哲學也好、東方的儒家都不曾提及。

尤其是無常（變動）與無我、空的說法都是各國哲學不曾提到的。

華人儒家思想一直在追求士太夫與知識分子的人格高潔，當然有它可以被高度景仰的一面，

但這跟佛法的修行在精神體得到自主以後，

要邁向更高層次的無我解脫是完全不同的。

儒家畢竟是學而優則仕，

而我截取部分日本學者們分析的佛法聖果推論內容，還有佛學思想理論在做背後的支撐，

所以不要看到一段文字就斷章取義。

這是兩個不同的文化。

半寄

A Response to a Question

A reader asked:

“In The Buddhist Approach to Human Nature 4, Japanese scholars regard Non-returning (third stage) as the state in which one no longer continues to be driven by material desires and emotional forces.

 

In the chaotic material society of the modern world, this represents an extremely high degree of spiritual autonomy and the highest model of inner peace.”

 

Isn’t this essentially the same as Confucianism?”

 

Although the two may appear highly similar on the surface, their underlying principles are fundamentally different.

 

Buddhist practice requires the realization of non-self as the basis for liberation from identification with both the body and the mind.

Neither Western philosophy nor Confucianism has addressed this form of liberation in the same way.

 

In particular, the Buddhist teachings on impermanence (constant change), non-self, and śūnyatā are not found in the same form in the philosophical traditions of other cultures.

 

Chinese Confucian thought has consistently pursued moral nobility and personal integrity among scholars and intellectuals. This tradition undoubtedly has qualities worthy of profound respect and admiration.

 

Nevertheless, it differs fundamentally from Buddhist practice. After attaining autonomy in the mental and spiritual domain, Buddhist practice proceeds toward a higher level of liberation through the realization of non-self.

 

Confucianism, after all, traditionally emphasizes the principle that those who excel in learning should pursue public office and serve society.

 

In my discussion, I have drawn selectively on Japanese scholars’ analyses of the Buddhist stages of enlightenment and presented the Buddhist theories and philosophical framework that support their interpretations.

 

Readers should therefore avoid taking individual passages out of context and drawing conclusions from isolated statements.

These are two distinct cultural traditions.

Master Banji