重點提示Main PointReminders

重點提示

 

大家好！

 

我畫出的紅線，

才是一個佛法修行者一生必須在大腦裡面理解的佛法問題，

這才是根本的參佛法。

提供參考。

 

說個笑話，

我之前教的佛法，很多大德聽不懂，

所以大家都扯著我說：

師父，這個你幾年前講過，那個幾年前講過，什麼⋯⋯

意思是，我都不能變動，不能有新的理解！

結果，就害怕說我在教人！

所以現在都說，提供參考喔！哈哈😁

 

佛法裡面《雜阿含經》、《中觀論》有很多題目大都是ㄧ般大眾無法理解的，這個是對佛法有熱忱的修行者，必須去正視的問題。

更正確的說：

後來的北傳佛法或是部派佛教都一定說唯心、唯識、或真如、清凈，

如果對比婆羅門的《奧義書》就可以知道這一些都是印度婆羅門教的教義，

 

（到現在才能提到《奧義書》，我自己都很感慨，真正把佛法的精華講出來太困難，《奧義書》我40年前就看過。）

 

佛陀在提出因緣法的「無我」、「無常」之後，

有四聖果的證入或理解，不是什麼都沒有的空洞，

 

但是世人似乎懼怕「無我」之後的空，

所以一定要有一個唯心、唯識、真如可以抓著，

這也就是後來佛法幾個派系的大前提。

 

網路說明佛法有幾個好處，至少可以讓多數的人看到其他的佛法說明，

直接面對人群，其實是有一定困難的。

非常感謝大家。

 

半寄

Main PointReminders

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

The words I underlined in red highlight the essential Dharma question that every practitioner must fully understand in their lifetime. This is the true foundation of Buddhist study and practice. Just some thoughts for your reference.

 

Let me share a joke: when I used to teach, many practitioners couldn’t follow what I was saying. They would remind me, “Master, you already said this years ago,” as if I were not allowed to develop new insights. To prevent disputes stemming from a misunderstanding of the Dharma, I now simply say, “This is only for reference. Haha 😁”

Many topics found in the Saṃyukta Āgama and Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā are far beyond the understanding of the general public. Yet for practitioners deeply committed to the Dharma, these are the very issues they must confront.

More accurately, later Northern traditions and Buddhist schools tended to emphasize ideas like “mind-only,” “consciousness-only,” “true suchness,” or “purity.” But when compared with the Upanishads of Brahmanism, it becomes clear that these notions are rooted in Brahmanical thought.

(It is with mixed feelings that I mention the Upanishads now. I first read them forty years ago, and it has always been difficult to bring out the essence of the Dharma so directly.)

After presenting dependent arising, the Buddha emphasized “non-self” and “impermanence.” These lead to realization of the four stages of awakening. This is not a meaningless śūnyatā.

Yet many people fear the “śūnyatā” that follows the comprehension of “non-self.” Thus, later Buddhist schools tended to establish a graspable principle—whether “mind-only,” “consciousness-only,” or “true suchness.”

The internet is useful in allowing more people to see diverse presentations of the Dharma. Speaking face-to-face with large groups can be very challenging. For this, I am truly grateful.

 

Master Banji

 

(translation of the screenshot contents)

Saṃyukta Āgama, Volume 5, Sūtra 104

Original Passage:
Śāriputra said: “I will now ask you; please answer freely. Yamaka, is form permanent or impermanent?”

Answer: “Venerable Śāriputra, it is impermanent.”

Śāriputra continued: “If it is impermanent, is it suffering?”

Answer: “Yes, it is suffering.”

Śāriputra asked further: “If it is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, would a well-learned noble disciple regard it as self, as something other than self, or as something that exists in relation to self?”

Reply: “No, Venerable Śāriputra!”

 

Plain Explanation:
Śāriputra further asked: “For something impermanent, full of suffering, and constantly changing, would a disciple who has heard and understood the true Dharma ever see in it a permanent self, or a substance independent of the self, or a being mutually dependent with the self?”
Yamaka answered: “No, Venerable Śāriputra!”

 

雜阿含104經Key Points of Samyukta Āgama 104

雜阿含經卷5，104經重點解說

 

大家好！

 

13號讀書會要討論的內容。

《雜阿含經卷5，104經》重點解說

1.

爾時，有比丘名焰摩迦，起惡邪見，作如是言：「如我解佛所說法，漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終更無所有。」

時，有眾多比丘聞彼所說，往詣其所，語焰摩迦比丘言：「汝實作是說：『如我解佛所說法，漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終更無所有』耶？」答言：「實爾。諸尊！」

」

2.舍利弗言：「我今問汝，隨意答我。云何，焰摩迦！色為常耶？為非常耶？」

答言：「尊者舍利弗！無常。」復問：「若無常者，是苦不？」答言：「是苦。」

復問：「若無常、苦，是變易法，多聞聖弟子寧於中見我、異我、相在不？」

答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」「受、想、行、識亦復如是。」

復問：「云何，焰摩迦！色是如來耶？」答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」

「受、想、行、識是如來耶？」答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」

復問：「云何，焰摩迦！異色有如來耶？異受、想、行、識有如來耶？」

答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」復問：「色中有如來耶？受、想、行、識中有如來耶？」

答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」復問：「如來中有色耶？如來中有受、想、行、識耶？」

答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」復問：「非色、受、想、行、識有如來耶？」

答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」

「如是，焰摩迦！如來見法真實、如住，無所得、無所施設，汝云何言：『我解知世尊所說，漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終無所有。』為時說耶？」

答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」

復問：「焰摩迦！先言：『我解知世尊所說，漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終無所有。』云何今復言非耶？」

焰摩迦比丘言：「尊者舍利弗！我先不解、無明故，作如是惡邪見說，聞尊者舍利弗說已，不解、無明，一切悉斷。」

 

3.

復問：「焰摩迦！若復問：『比丘！如先惡邪見所說，今何所知見一切悉得遠離？』汝當云何答？」

焰摩迦答言：「尊者舍利弗！若有來問者，我當如是答：『漏盡阿羅漢色無常，無常者是苦，苦者寂靜、清涼、永沒。受、想、行、識亦復如是。』有來問者，作如是答。」

舍利弗言：「善哉！善哉！焰摩迦比丘！汝應如是答。所以者何？漏盡阿羅漢色無常，無常者是苦，若無常、苦者，是生滅法。受、想、行、識亦復如是。」

尊者舍利弗說是法時，焰摩迦比丘遠塵離垢，得法眼淨。

 

 Key points from Saṃyukta Āgama, Volume 5, Sūtra 104

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

Here is the focus for our reading group on the 13th.

Key Points of Samyukta Āgama Volume 5, Sūtra 104

1. At that time, a monk named Yamaka held a wrong view, saying:

“In my understanding of the Buddha’s doctrine, when an Arhat, whose outflows are exhausted, dies, nothing further exists.”
On hearing this, several monks approached him and asked:
“Did you indeed assert, ‘In my understanding of the Buddha’s doctrine, when an Arhat dies, nothing remains’?”
He replied: “Indeed, venerable sirs, I did.”

 

2. Venerable Śāriputra questioned him in sequence:
“Yamaka, is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, venerable Śāriputra.”
“If impermanent, is it suffering?”
“Yes, it is suffering.”
“If it is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, could a wise disciple regard it as self or belonging to self?”
“No, venerable Śāriputra.”
“So also with feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.”

 

Śāriputra asked further:
“Is form the Tathāgata?”
“No, venerable Śāriputra.”
“Are feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness the Tathāgata?”
“No, venerable Śāriputra.”
“Does the Tathāgata exist outside of these aggregates?”
“No, venerable Śāriputra.”
“Is the Tathāgata within them?”
“No, venerable Śāriputra.”
“Do these aggregates exist within the Tathāgata?”
“No, venerable Śāriputra.”
“Is the Tathāgata to be found beyond them entirely?”
“No, venerable Śāriputra.”

Śāriputra concluded:
“Thus, Yamaka, the Tathāgata realizes reality as it is—with nothing to grasp, nothing to posit. How then could you say, ‘When an Arhat dies, nothing remains’? That is not the proper teaching.”
Yamaka admitted:

   “Venerable Śāriputra, I spoke so earlier out of delusion and ignorance. Hearing your instruction, my delusion and ignorance are entirely eliminated.” 

 

3. Śāriputra asked again:
“If someone now asked you, ‘What insight freed you from your former wrong view?’ how would you reply?”
Yamaka answered:
“I would reply: ‘For the Arhat, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering is peace, coolness, and cessation. The same is true of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.’”
Śāriputra approved:
“Excellent, Yamaka! That is exactly how you should reply. For the Arhat, form is impermanent, impermanence is suffering, and whatever is impermanent and suffering is subject to arising and ceasing. This also applies to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.”

When these words were spoken, Yamaka was freed from defilements and attained the purity of the Dharma eye.

釐清否定句

 

大家好！

沒想到很多人對佛法的理解有著高度的熱忱，

既然這樣我們再把下面這些觀點在讀書會時來釐清。

下面《雜阿含經卷5，104經》的內容要先釐清一下否定句，這是我個人要講述的資料。

半寄

 

AI資料 印度婆羅門教（主要是吠陀—奧義書傳統） 和 佛教（特別是早期佛教與中觀） 在語言表達上「否定句」的使用情況，做一個比較：   1. 婆羅門教（吠陀、奧義書） 特點：常以「肯定」為主，透過「梵（Brahman）」的存在、宇宙原理、祭祀力量來建立世界觀。 但在奧義書裡，也出現了不少「否定式」的表達，最有名的就是 「neti neti（不是這個，不是那個）」，用來說明梵超越一切語言概念。   否定句的功能： 不是要否定存在本身，而是要排除一切錯誤的限定與屬性，最後指向一個「絕對的肯定」（梵）。 可以說婆羅門教的否定是一種「排除法」，最後導向一個最高實在。   2. 佛教（尤其是早期佛教與中觀） 特點：否定句的比例更高，尤其在「無我」「緣起」「空」的論述中。 例子：「此非我、此不異我、此不相在。」（雜阿含中對五蘊的否定）      「非色、非受、非想、非行、非識」 中觀（龍樹）更強調以「否定邏輯」來破除一切戲論，幾乎完全用「不生、不滅、不常、不斷、不一、不異、不來、不去」的八不中道來展開。 佛教的否定往往不是為了指向某個「肯定的絕對存在」，而是要顯示一切概念與執著的空性。   3. 總比較 婆羅門教：否定句有，但目的在於超越有限語言，最後導向「梵」的絕對肯定。 佛教：否定句更多更核心，用來破除「有」與「無」的兩邊執著，最後不建立一個肯定的「實體」。 👉 總結來說： 佛教的語言比婆羅門教更多使用否定句，而且是哲學方法的主軸。婆羅門教的否定則比較有限，主要出現在奧義書的「neti neti」，仍是輔助性的。

 

Clarifying the use of negative sentences

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

I didn’t expect that so many people would show such strong enthusiasm for understanding the Dharma.
Given this, we should further examine the following perspectives in our upcoming study club.

For the content of Saṃyukta Āgama, Volume 5, Sūtra 104, it is important to first clarify the use of negative sentences. This will be the focus of my own presentation.

Master Banji

 

AI Data: A comparison of how negative sentences are used in language between Indian Brahmanical tradition (primarily the Vedas and Upanishads) and Buddhism(particularly Early Buddhism and the Madhyamaka school).   1. Brahmanism (Vedas and Upanishads) • Characteristic: Primarily affirmative in tone, establishing its worldview through Brahman, cosmic order, and ritual efficacy. Yet, the Upanishads introduce negative formulations, most notably neti neti(“not this, not that”), to express that Brahman transcends all conceptual categories. • Function of negation: It does not deny existence itself, but excludes all false attributes and limitations, ultimately pointing toward an absolute affirmation—Brahman. Thus, Brahmanical negation functions as a method of elimination, leading to the ultimate reality. 2. Buddhism (especially Early Buddhism and Madhyamaka) • Characteristic: Employs negation more extensively, particularly in discussions of non-self, dependent arising, and emptiness. • Examples: o “This is not self, not different from self, not within self.” (applied to the five aggregates) o “Not form, not feeling, not perception, not formation, not consciousness.” • The Madhyamaka school (Nāgārjuna) developed a philosophy of negation, dismantling all speculative views through the “eightfold negations”: not born, not ceasing, not permanent, not annihilated, not identical, not different, not coming, not going. Here, negation does not aim at affirming a higher positive existence, but at demonstrating the emptiness of all conceptual fabrications. 3. Comparative Overview • Brahmanism: Negation exists, but its purpose is to transcend finite language and affirm Brahman as absolute reality. • Buddhism: Negation is more pervasive and central, aimed at overcoming clinging to “existence” and “non-existence,” without positing an ultimate substance. 👉 Summary: Buddhism makes negation its central philosophical method, while Brahmanism employs it more sparingly, especially in the Upanishadic “neti neti,” where it remains secondary.

 

 

問題回答Response to the Question

問題回答

 

大家好！

 

有讀者想問如何「轉識成智」

 

在之前我寫過「四聖果」的內容就是「轉識成智」的內容。

讀者可以試想，

我們這一代身處新的學問、新的東西產生速度到嚇人的地步！

 

只有一顆大腦怎麼可能承受這麼多，所謂過去式跟現在進行式的一切呢？

如果真的還要從貪、瞋、痴下手，

可能是記憶跟應付都來不及，不要說還要修行。

 

時代踩著高步伐在前進，我們也得想想在基礎功力不能廢之間，有沒有其他的方法？

我個人採用直接思考的方法，

例如；痴被解釋為：

愚癡、無明、不明白真理。

 

就愚痴而言應該包括頑固、多情、自以為是⋯⋯。

那愚痴裡面有無責任、義務？

 

因為誰也沒有辦法判定所謂愚痴狀態的標準吧？

 

哈！搞不好你認為的「愚痴」

剛好是別人的正義感，

既然判別太困難了，

把這一條思索線拉長、拉深、拉廣理解的範圍就加以擴大，

理解範圍的深廣度，一定會改變固守佛法「專有名詞」的見解，

 

這裡面最重要的，當然是你要給自己對的思考方向及內涵。

 

我個人覺得理解的範圍越多，才可以把「善根」紮好，而這整個過程就已經在轉識（原來的認知）成智（佛法真正提出的智慧），

 

而解脫必須仰賴足夠的智慧，就算不證悟果位，也可以在人間立足。

 

當然這已經不是傳統《唯識學》的內容，但我寫這樣應該易於理解。

 

如果說讀者能夠從這裡面吸取到足夠的經驗，

那麼下一步修行者該怎麼做，修行者自己會清楚，

這也是修持佛法追求的，

 

修行者必須有自己的清楚度與判斷、決定力，有這些生命裡頭需要有的基礎功力，應該就具足了！

 

半寄

 

（照片中的白雲也可以說人間就如；白雲蒼狗，

也可以說是雲對光線的展示，

還有雲是怎麼聚集的？

就看個人的知識，能幫你解讀什麼，在沒標準答案下養出內涵）

 

Response to the Question

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

A reader asked me how one can “transform consciousness into wisdom.”

 

In fact, my earlier discussion on the “Four Fruitions” already points to this idea. We live in an age where new learning and new phenomena emerge at a staggering pace. With just one brain, how could we possibly hold everything from the past and present?

 

If practice is confined solely to confronting greed, hatred, and ignorance, the sheer burden of memory and response is overwhelming, leaving little room for spiritual cultivation.

 

Thus, as time marches swiftly forward, we must ask whether, while preserving foundational disciplines, another method might be possible. My own path has been to employ direct contemplation. Ignorance, for example, is defined as folly, delusion, or failure to perceive truth.

 

Ignorance may manifest as stubbornness, sentimentality, or self-righteousness. But ignorance, too, should imply responsibility and obligation. After all, who can establish an absolute standard for ignorance?

 

Ironically, what we call “ignorance” may actually be someone else’s sense of justice! Since judging is so difficult, we can extend and deepen our way of thinking. The wider our understanding, the less we get stuck on rigid Buddhist “technical terms.”

 

The essential point is to establish for oneself a sound direction and depth of thought. The broader one’s perspective, the more firmly one’s wholesome roots are planted. This very expansion is already the turning of mere cognition into liberating wisdom.

 

Wisdom is indispensable for liberation. Even withoutattaining enlightenment, one can still stand firmly amidst human affairs.

 

Though this is no longer the framework of classical Yogācāra, my way of presenting it should be more accessible.

 

When practitioners draw sufficient experience from this process, the path forward will reveal itself. Practice demands clarity, discernment, and resolve. With these essential strengths, the foundation of cultivation is established.

 

Master Banji

 

(Consider, too, the clouds in the photograph. They may be read as the fleeting forms of impermanence, or as a luminous interplay of light and vapor, or as a meteorological process of condensation. Each interpretation depends on one’s knowledge. With no fixed answer, each perspective enriches one’s inner life.)