佛陀，孔子，老子Buddha, Confucius, Laozi

佛陀，孔子，老子

Buddha, Confucius, Laozi

經常在一些有關佛法講說場合，會聽到所謂佛，儒，道（老莊）最後都是歸到「道」的範圍！每次聽到這樣的言論都會想

要大笑！

如果孔子還在人間，去問他老人家您讚成佛法的修行嗎？他老

一定說：那是什麼理論？太消極。同樣的話問問佛陀，佛陀一

定說：世間苦處，當修行得大解脫！所以，我永遠聽不懂什麼

是儒，道，釋的道路是殊途同歸的！（個人相信真正想走道路

的人，在不同的三條道路奔走，其結果是還沒到達終點，就已

經累死了！）

我向來尊重各種學問的存在，也由衷佩服各家學問講學成脈絡

過程的辛苦，但說各家學說都是相通的，聽了實在是消化不良！

我只懂佛法！而且絕不敢輕易的說也可融合別人的學問

In discussions relating to Buddhism, I’ve repeatedly heard it said that

 the three main religions of China---Buddhism, Confucianism, and

 Daoism---are not very different, and that the former two should be

 seen as arising out of the latter. This strikes me as rather ludicrous!

If Confucius were still alive and you asked him what he thought of

 

 Buddhism, he would surely reply, “What sort of a doctrine is that?

 

 It’s much too negative and pessimistic.” And if you asked the

 

 Buddha what he thought about Confucianism and Daoism, he would

 

 surely admonish you with words such as, “The world is the abode of

 

 suffering; liberate yourself from it by practicing with diligence.”

So I’ve never really understood why people say that these three

 religions are a way of reaching the same goal by different means. As

 I see it, if you try to walk three paths at the same time, you’ll just

 tire yourself out without getting anywhere!        

I’ve always had a lot of respect for various philosophies, and I

 sincerely appreciate all the hard work that has gone into

 systematizing them into a coherent school of thought, but to say that

 they are all saying the same thing is ridiculous.

I only know Buddhism, and I would never think of trying to combine

 it with other systems of thought.

 

在老子的《道德經》裡面，充滿了比喻；例如：「上善若水」

觀察到水是萬物所需，進而讚嘆水的功德。

然而，這其間我始終不能明白，水若惡時，當如何！？

直到閱讀黑格爾的哲學書時，黑格爾直接點明老莊哲學是屬於

「經驗理論」，從德國人的判讀裡面，似乎得到理解。經驗會

隨著事物的轉變而改變當事人的看法，所以，當相反的經驗出

現時，會對原來的經驗產生不知所以的無奈或措手不及。

原來自己經歷的事物也需要時間的考驗。

這麼不同的觀點，如何讓佛，儒，道融合！？

關於佛陀的說法，請參考YouTube裡面半寄「四聖果」的講解。

Laozi’s Daodejing (The Classic of the Way and its Power) is full of

 metaphors and analogies. For example, he writes, “Supreme

 goodness is like water,” which could mean that goodness, like water,

 is something that is required by all living things; or it could be a way

 of praising the virtues of water. The problem for me is that I’ve

 never been able to really imagine what evil water would be like!

Then I read something quite interesting by Heidegger. He describes

 Daoist philosophy as a kind of empiricism, and this seems to fit wel

l into the German way of thinking about such things. When we

 experience things changing, it changes our view of things, and if it

 happens that that view is contradicted by subsequent experience, we

 have a hard time making good sense of it.

So you could say that our experience has to stand the test of time.

Seeing that the perspectives of Buddhism, Confucianism, and

 Daoism are so divergent, how could they possibly be integrated into

 a single coherent system of thought?

For more on the Buddhist way of explaining things, see my talk on

 YouTube titled “The Four Noble Results.”

 

回應

在我所傳達的佛法裡面，找出個人的衝突點，去促使自己內心

層次的進步，也是佛法學習裡面的一大挑戰！

PostscriptIn Buddhism, especially the way I teach it, one of the

 biggest challenges is to discover what you’re having difficulty with,

 and then using that as a springboard for increasing your depth of

 self-understanding.

Master Ban Ji

  Translated by Ken Kraynak

 

 

 

Not Coming, Not Going

Not Coming, Not Going

Here is a joke. When I try to compare ‘a few seconds’ to the popular term ‘This Instant’, my mind, being trained by Buddhist practice,

keeps shutting down. Since my brain has investigated and calculated

the existence of ‘a few seconds’, it does not know how to apply

‘This Instant’. Readers may feel confused by now.

Let me clarify it in the following example. Say seeing and

comprehending what happened take only a few seconds. When

trying to describe ‘a few seconds’ with ‘This Instant’, I question

myself right away, ‘Were it not for “a few seconds”, what would be

the percentage of “This Instant” in “a few seconds”?’  Ha! And then I

find myself too stupid to adopt this popular term because I realize

that it is about gathering of ‘a few seconds’, instead of about ‘This Instant’

Mūlamadhyamakakārikā’s ‘Not Coming, Not Going’, about time and

movement, analyzes issues of time staying. After analyzing it

critically, I am aware what minutes and seconds are like and will

follow and execute my recognition automatically. That is, my

recognition of minutes and seconds goes beyond this popular term,

stops me from adopting it, and thus I become too stupid to keep up

with the trends.

The bygone is gone,

‘This Instant’ is not staying,

The coming is not coming yet.

The three points above clarify Buddhist viewpoints of ‘not coming,

not going’, which is one of the essence of Śūnyatā. I keep observing

how time affects me and find myself having shaken a lot off and also

advanced a lot unconsciously along the way.

Ban Ji
Translated by Grace Tsai

不來不去Neither Coming Nor Going

不來不去

說個笑話，我曾嚐試用「幾秒間」跟時下流行用語「當下」做比較。

結果，自己受過佛法訓練的大腦一直當機，因為已經接受過「幾秒」到底能不能存在的訓練，「幾秒」的存在都計較過，所以不知道「當下」是怎麼使出來的？哈！看的人一定一頭霧水！

舉個例子：就算只用眼睛看一件事情，應該會有「幾秒」的時間存在，如果事情用「當下」形容的話，就會自己問自己，剛看那些事明明就是「幾秒」的時間，「當下」到底是幾秒之幾？哈！然後覺得自己真是癡呆！明明就只是個流行用語，自己用起來就是不能接受，因為自己明明感受到是「秒」的匯聚而不是「當下」！

《中觀論》有個「不來不去」的時間跟運動的概念，會分析到時間駐留的問題，很認真分析後，會去執行分、秒在自己身體的感覺，所以就癡呆的不會流行了！哈！

去者已去

當下不住

來者未來

這三個點，訴說佛法「不來不去」！更是空的精神之一。

金剛經裡面有「過去心，現在心，未來心皆不可得」，或許也可以跟「不來不去」做個參考。

我常觀察時間對自己的影響力，不知不覺遺落很多，也前進很多。

（大家好：這些屬於空的寫出都只是介紹性質的文章，想了解更多的大德們，可以參閱印順導師著作《中觀論頌講記》一書）

Neither Coming Nor Going

Here is a joke. I once tried to compare the

phrase “a few seconds” with the popular expression “the present moment.” 

The result? My Buddhist-trained mind

completely froze. I had already undergone rigorous training on whether “a few seconds” could even exist—analyzing the very existence of seconds themselves. So, how was I supposed to understand *the present moment*? Ha! Anyone watching me think this through would be totally confused! 

For example, even when simply looking at

something, there must be “a few seconds” involved. But if we describe the experience as happening “in the present moment,” I immediately start questioning myself: “Wait, what I just saw clearly took“a few seconds”—so exactly how many fractions of a second count as ‘the present moment’?” Ha! And then I realize how ridiculous I’m being. It’s just a trendy phrase, yet my brain refuses to accept it because, to me, it feels like a collection of seconds rather than a single, undefined ‘moment’! 

Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

discusses the concept of “neither coming nor going” in relation to time and movement. If one analyzes it deeply, it leads to an examination of how time *remains*—eventually making someone overly aware of the seconds and minutes within their own body. That’s how I ended up too “dazed” to keep up with modern slang! Ha! 

 The past is

gone, 

The present does not remain, 

 The future has not yet arrived. 

These three points illustrate the Buddhist concept of “neither coming nor going,” which is also a key aspect of śūnyatā. 

Similarly, the Diamond Sutra states: 

 “The past mind is unattainable, 

 The present mind is unattainable, 

the future mind is unattainable.” 

Perhaps this can also be considered alongside the idea of “neither coming nor going.” 

I often reflect on how time influences

me—losing much along the way, yet moving forward as well. 

(For those interested, these writings are

just introductory thoughts on śūnyatā. If you’d like to explore further, I recommend Master YinShun’s A Commentary on the Verses of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.)

 

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1

A lot of misunderstandings of Śūnyatā are being transmitted and the most common one is ‘Śūnyatā is nothingness.’ According to it, all is void, and therefore there is no point seeking fame and fortune or clinging to anything.

Another beautiful misunderstanding is ‘Śūnyatā is a kind of emptiness which includes all.’

Nagarjuna advocated "Everything is based on Nidānas, that I said is Śūnyatā." Nidānas are conditions and dependencies (that needs to be satisfied for existence of something). For example, air, food and water are the main dependencies for existence of one’s life.

However, it is not appropriate to apply ‘Śūnyatā is emptiness including all’ to including soil, a dependency for food, in dependencies for life.

Soil is another dependency in our life. The satisfying of necessary dependencies stimulates assembling and then arouse a phenomenon. Śūnyatā serves as the assembling factor of concrete solids/dependencies.

Therefore, to break up solid hindrance and misunderstanding, like a rigid way of thinking, and thus to empirically understand Śūnyatā are what Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's "Not unity, not plurality" trying to advocate. And they are also the true essence of Śūnyatā.

Ban Ji

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 2

Śūnyatā is transmitted as ‘giving all up’ in many occasions. But few doubt it. If it is true, how could Buddhist followers balance the pressures of nothingness and life?

I was told a folktale about travel that the Buddhist texts in Thailand were flooded when crossing a river and the print became blurry. Therefore they were interpreted variously with different individuals. After hearing this, I was nervous and enquired the taleteller right away if he was talking about novels like The Journey to The West or The legend and The hero? No one dare to say that true Buddhist texts can be interpreted at personal will. What if they are misinterpreted, how can they be practiced? Buddhist texts are the rigorous theories and practice methods from Buddha and his pupils. If they can be interpreted variously with different individuals, how can later Buddhist followers settle down and get on with their practice?

Besides, what is the value of Śūnyatā if it is void and giving up all?

Or if ‘Śūnyatā includes all’, what is it trying to convey? Nonobstruction among individual phenomena? It doesn’t seem to exist in the world. (It does in Utopia)

However, if Śūnyatā is about "No-unity, no differentiation", it makes a huge difference. I myself am not only one but also Śūnyatā. Because I am the assembly of all the conditions. Who is the self if any of the conditions being missed?

Those who have studied Chinese and Western philosophy will be marveled once they understand Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's "Not unity, not plurality".

Not merely theories, Buddhist teachings can be applied to practice. Therefore, theories and practical practice can advance simultaneously in reality. Those Buddhist teachings failing to be practiced are just absurd personal interpretations.

Ban Ji

Śūnyatā and Inclusion3

Buddhist theoreticians have done lots of specialized interpretations of Śūnyatā. I focus on the practical part of Śūnyatā and use it for self-practice. I find it interesting to disassemble myself with ‘concepts of conditions’.

I often consider conditions/elements of Yin (Cause) and Yuán (Conditions) when dealing with personnel matters and problems of things. When conditions are not complete, I strive to make up the deficiency. And while conditions disappear, I practice accepting it. Wandering back and forth between them, I demand myself to accept Śūnyatā of the gathering and disappearing of conditions. And the path progresses between gathering and disappearing of conditions.

Note: I have dedicated myself to reading ‘simple and dynamic’ koans from Chinese Zen recently. Swapping suddenly into writing such complex articles about Śūnyatā are virtually torturing myself. One should treat himself fine when he is old. (Laugh, laugh.)

  Master Ban Ji
  Translated by Grace Tsai
   Proofread by Sophiea Kuo

 

 

空與包容 1-3 Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1-3

空與包容 1

 

空法的傳達裡面充滿誤會，最常見的是「空是無」，也就是什麼都是空的，所以不要追逐名利與執著！

 

再來是對空的美好誤解，「空是一種無所不包的虛空」！

 

龍樹菩薩說：「因緣所生法，我說即是空」。因緣是條件的意思，人需要空氣，食物與水的主要條件生存，不能因為講空而認為泥土也是食物的條件（包容）。

 

例如；蔬菜已經變成食物的時候，不能因為講「空」

就把泥土=食物做一個等號，

就好像他們認為空=虛空，無所不包，

一旦用了空就是一路用到底，這是很奇怪的論點。

 

泥土是生活裡面另一種條件，條件相容便是激發與和合的作用，而固體與固體可以和合是「空」的作用。

 

破解固體的阻力與誤解，包括大腦固定的認知，進而達到對「空」的體會與認識，就是龍樹菩薩《中觀論》的「不一不異」理論，也是空的精神之一。

 

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1

 

There are many misunderstandings about the concept of śūnyatā (emptiness). The most common one is equating śūnyatā with nothingness—believing that since everything is empty, one should abandon all pursuits of fame, wealth, and attachments.  

 

Another common misconception is the idea that śūnyatā is an all—encompassing void that contains everything.  

 

Nāgārjuna said, "Everything is based on Nidānas, that I said is Śūnyatā." Conditions refer to the necessary factors for existence. For example, humans need air, food, and water to survive. But just because we speak of śūnyatā, it does not mean that soil is also a necessary condition for food (inclusiveness).  

 

For example, once vegetables have become food, you can't say that soil is the same as food just because of the idea of " śūnyatā."

This is similar to those who interpret śūnyatā as boundless void or space encompassing everything. 

Once they adopt the idea of śūnyatā, they apply it to everything without limits, which is a strange way of thinking.

 

Soil plays another role in life—it is a different condition. The compatibility of conditions allows for interaction and harmony. The fact that solid objects can merge or combine is a function of śūnyatā.  

 

Breaking through the resistance and fixed perceptions of the mind helps one understand and experience emptiness. This aligns with Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) and its principle of “neither unity nor diversity,” which embodies the essence of śūnyatā.  

 

Master Banji

 

空與包容  2 Śūnyatā and Inclusion 2

 

許多有關佛法「空」的傳遞裡面，「空」是放棄一切的說法。果真如此，那追隨佛法的人們又將如何

在「無與生活」的壓力間平衡？！這些說法很少人會提出質疑？

我曾經聽過旅遊的民間故事，傳說泰國的佛經因為載運過河道被水淹過，字跡模糊了，所以佛法就變成個人的解釋！我聽這段故事大為緊張，連忙問說的人；請問：你在說西遊記或封神榜嗎？那是小說耶！

真實的佛教裡面，沒有人敢說佛經可以隨便解釋！因為說錯跟聽錯了要如何修行？佛教有佛陀丶追隨的弟子及嚴謹的修行理論與方法，如果是個人的解釋，將讓修學佛法的大德們，何處安身心？！

 

同樣的，空法如果只是放棄的意思，那「空」有何價值？！

空法如果是包容太虛的解釋，又想說明什麼？事事無礙嗎？人世間似乎沒有事事無礙（這是理想國）！

 

但空法如果是「不一不異」，就大大的不同。

「我是一、也是空，因為是條件下的我，但離開條件的自己又是誰？」

相信讀過中、西哲學的人，如果讀通《中觀論》「不一不異」的思想，會大大禮讚的！

 

佛法不是理論而已，佛法可以修持出來，所以，理論跟現實是同等的延伸，不能延伸的佛法才是隨人。解釋的荒謬。

Many interpretations of *śūnyatā* claim that it means giving up everything. But if that were true, how could Buddhist practitioners balance the pressures of life and so-called nothingness? Surprisingly, few people question this view. 

 

I once heard a folk tale about Buddhist scriptures in Thailand. The story goes that they were transported across a river, got soaked, and the ink blurred—so from then on, Buddhism became open to personal interpretation! 

 

Hearing this, I was alarmed and quickly asked the storyteller, “Are you talking about Journey to the West or The Investiture of the Gods? Those are novels!” 

 

In real Buddhism, no one dares to say that scriptures can be interpreted however one likes. If both teachers and listeners misunderstand the teachings, how can true practice be achieved? Buddhism is a philosophy with rigorous theories and practice methods from Buddha and his pupils. If everything were left to personal interpretation, how could devoted practitioners find peace and guidance? 

 

Similarly, if śūnyatā only meant abandonment, what value would it have? 

And if it were merely an all-inclusive void, what exactly would it explain? That everything is without obstacles? But in reality, nothing is completely free of obstacles—this is an idealized fantasy. 

 

However, if śūnyatā is understood as “neither unity nor different,” then it takes on a completely different meaning. 

“I am myself, and yet I am empty—because I exist under specific conditions. But without those conditions, who am I?” 

Anyone familiar with both Eastern and Western philosophy would deeply appreciate Nāgārjuna’s principle of “neither unity nor diversity” after reading the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. 

 

Buddhism is not just theory—it is something that can be practiced and realized. True Buddhist teachings extend seamlessly from philosophy into real life. Buddhist teachings that cannot be applied is merely an absurd misinterpretation.

 

 

空與包容 3 Śūnyatā and Inclusion3

 

關於「空」的解釋，佛教的論師學派做了很多專精的詮釋，而我個人偏重於跟自身修行有關的「空」，用「條件的概念」拆解自己，相當有趣！

 

我自己做人與做事常常去思考著「因緣的條件」，條件不足盡力補足條件散去，盡力接受常常要求自己接受因緣聚散的「空」

 

路在聚散間不斷演繹！

（最近浸在禪宗「簡單的行動公案」裡，又寫這種複雜的「空」論，簡直在虐待自己的大腦！人老了要對善待自己，哈哈！）

半寄

Buddhist scholars have provided many specialized interpretations of śūnyatā. Personally, I focus on its relevance to my own practice—using the concept of “conditions” to deconstruct the self. It’s quite fascinating! 

Master Ban Ji

 

In both life and work, I often reflect on the Yin (Cause) and Yuán (Conditions). When conditions are lacking, I do my best to fulfill them. When they disperse, I strive to accept it. I constantly remind myself to embrace the arising and passing of conditions—this is *śūnyatā*. 

 

The path continuously unfolds through these cycles of gathering and dispersing! 

(Lately, I’ve been immersed in Zen’s “simple action koans,” yet here I am writing about the complex philosophy of śūnyatā. It feels like I’m torturing my own brain! One should be kinder to himself as he grows old.—haha!)

 

 

 

 

回應Response to “Orchid Fallen on the Ground”

我想回應蘭花落地的討論

Response to “Orchid Fallen on the Ground”

            這幾棵教室外的青楓，已陪伴我十多年了。從之前小小

棵到枝繁葉茂，它靜靜的慢慢的默默的長大，尤其這幾年，它

已經長的比我二樓教室還高了，每當我從教室望岀去，各種顏

色的葉子在陽光下閃閃發光，那種美，無法形容。但是，它長

太大了，遮住教室的陽光，所以寒假期間，它們被修剪成這

樣。

從此，每天走進學校，看到它從亭亭玉立的少年，邊成猶如殘

 

障人士站在那裡，我似乎能感受到它們的痛苦（其實是自己在

 

痛苦啦⋯），我忍不住跟文宗抱怨，為什麼讓人把樹砍成這樣？

 

他說了一堆理由（那天他很忙無法監工，人家是義務砍樹所以

 

不好要求，工具設備不足之類）之後，突然，他冒出一句，要

 

我想想：這是「真相」，為何自己無法接受？他說，他體會岀

 

那個「輾貓」禪師的厲害。（這是哪招？故意轉移話題）

The maple trees outside my classroom have been my companions for

 over ten years now. I watched them grow from little saplings into

 big trees with lots of branches and leaves, slowly and silently. A few

 years ago they had grown higher than the second floor classroom, so

 that every time I looked out the window I saw their indescribably

 beautiful leaves of many colors glimmering in the sunlight. But they

 got to be so big that they were obstructing the sunlight from entering

 the classroom, so during the winter vacation they were thoroughly

 pruned. Afterwards, every time I came to school and saw these

 formerly flourishing trees that now look stunted and disfigured, I

 felt sorry for them (actually, I felt sorry for myself), and couldn’t

 stop myself from asking Jacky Wen-tsung Li about it. After offering

 various conventional explanations---he was too busy on that day to

 inspect the trimming work; it was a volunteer trimming crew, so he

 didn’t want to make too many demands; lack of proper equipment---

he suddenly blurted out something that made me think: “This is how

 it is, so why not just accept it?”

He reminded me of the Chan master who chopped a cat in half,

 

 which I took as simply a way of changing the topic.

 

            不過，我覺得他說的有道理。於是，我每經過那幾棵被

斷了手腳的樹，我問自己，為何我的感情無法接受「真相」？

為何對於那消失了的「假相」眷戀不捨？我希望楓樹能趕快長

出新枝葉，回到往日燦爛，但已經一個星期過去了，它們一點

動靜也沒有（至少我看不出來）。我的感情在此徘徊，既無法

接受「真相」的殘酷也無法讓那消失的「假相」離去。當有一

天，「真相」也必然成為了「假相」（可能再度枝繁葉茂也可

能被颱風吹走被人砍掉），那時，我的感情又該擺在哪裏呢？

看到師父蘭花落地的發文，產生了以上的反思。

南投親愛國小分校洪雅玲老師的回饋。

以及蔡智美老師的回應：

雅玲!好棒!對，就是那種"感情在那徘徊、拉鋸、自疑的痛

苦!"明知是真相，但為何無法接受?!雅玲太謙虛了，謝謝妳點出

了那個矛盾點!

Still, there was something true about what he had said. Now, every

 

 time I walk past that row of trees with amputated branches, I ask

 

 myself why I have such a hard time accepting “the way it is”? Why 

 

was I so sentimentally attached to a “conditional characteristic” that 

 

had disappeared? I was hoping that the maple trees would swiftly 

 

grow new branches and leaves and regain their former splendor, but 

 

after a whole week they were exactly the same (as far as I could tell). 

 

As long as those emotions lingered, I was unable to accept the 

 

unpleasantness of “the way it is,” nor could I let go of that 

 

“conditional characteristic” that had disappeared. After some time

 “the way it is” (true appearance) will necessarily become a “false 

 

appearance” (perhaps the trees will begin to thrive again, and then 

 

get blown over by a typhoon or chopped down), and when that 

 

happens, how will I feel?      

It was Shifu’s article “Orchid Fallen on the Ground” that got me 

thinking like this.          

(From Linda Ya-ling Hung, a teacher at Qinai Elementary School in Nantou.)     

 

Another teacher, Zhimei Tsai, responded:      

Ya-ling, that’s great! That’s exactly what’s meant by “the suffering 

 

and doubt that arises when we get stuck in a state of emotional 

 

attachment.” Even though we clearly see “the way it is,” why is it 

 

that we can’t accept it? Ya-ling, you’re being overly modest; thanks 

 

for pointing out this conundrum!

(From Hong Yaling, a teacher at Qinai Elementary School in Nantou.)     

 for pointing out this conundrum!

 Linda Ya-ling Hung

 Translated by Ken Kraynak

 

 

 

訪客A visitor

訪客

A visitor

達利博士又來拜訪了！這此他已經可以跟加拿大藉的阿明解釋佛法，翻譯的工作頓時輕鬆很多，一步一腳印！

學佛需要慈愛一切嗎？阿明的問題。我說：應該先讓自己站穩，像禪師只會把「你是誰」的問題拋給你！那管你愛不愛別人呢？！

Doctor Dali came for another visit! He helped explain some things about Buddhism to Aming from Canada. As a result, the translation work has gotten a lot smoother and is now progressing steadily.

Aming asked if loving kindness towards all is a prerequisite for practicing Buddhism? I explained it like this: First get yourself firmly grounded in the practice. When the Chan master does nothing but ask “who are you,” what does that have to do with whether or not you love others?

 

南泉禪師

昨夜三更失卻火

天明起來失卻牛

Chan master Nanquan:

Last night in the depth of night the fire wet out;

At dawn I got up and a cow was missing.

 

Master Ban Ji

 Translated by Ken Kraynak