論三時了不可得3 On the Unattainability of the Three Times3

 大家好！

 

論三時了不可得3

 

佛法在南北傳分裂以後就只剩下一個魔說，南傳佛教認爲大乘經典不是佛說，不是佛陀所說當然是魔說，

所謂的魔說，所提出是魔的內容是空洞的，除了魔說還是魔說，根本看不到論證。

（阿毗達磨不在這討論的範圍）

 

而大乘經典裡面也有很多處提到魔說；像《楞嚴經》便是其中的一部經典。

我在閱讀這些經典的時候，對魔說感到疲乏與厭倦，

這魔來魔去，佛來佛去的，像一場爛帳，

要是沿著佛教歷史研讀，則收獲顯得不一樣，

在我個人的佛法寫作裡，從來不用魔字，

能提出辯證才是正事。

佛說、魔說，把後來者對經文再深細研究解釋的工夫被「佛說、魔說」這些文字抹煞了。

 

後人的腦力思考也是一大佛學資源，

我想讀者可以接受這一點，

因此後代的修行者如果對於提出經典再解釋的解讀能力都沒有，

那豈不是可悲嗎？

 

佛與魔兩者之間，如果沒有具體的去進行辯證，這些字眼顯然是沒有意義。

《中論27道題》第7章對於俗諦（有為法）

提出說它不是勝義，也從幾個觀點去論說為什麼不認爲「有為法」是存在的？

這裡邊從沒有出現過夢幻泡影的字眼。

 

是的，論證到最後是提出「空」觀點，

而不是為了證明如夢幻泡影的幻影，

 

就算以近代「微觀」的觀點看去，

如有修行者有能力在幻影的思索裡面證入無我、無常那真是值得禮敬。

半寄

 

（照片裡面的論證，我想說至少給我這個論證，讓我去知道佛法。）

 

On the Unattainability of the Three Times 3

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

After the division between Southern and Northern traditions of Buddhism, what remained was a single narrative: the notion of “demonic teachings.” Theravāda Buddhism holds that Mahāyāna scriptures are not the words of the Buddha. And if they are not the Buddha’s words, then by default, they are labeled as demonic. But this accusation is hollow—nothing is offered beyond the label “demonic,” and no real argument or reasoning is provided. 

(The Abhidharma is not within the scope of this discussion.)

 

Ironically, many Mahāyāna sutras also talk about “demonic teachings.” The Śūraṅgama Sūtra is one such example. As I read these scriptures, I often grow weary and disheartened by all this back-and-forth about Buddhas and demons. It feels like an endless, messy dispute. Reading through the history of Buddhism, I find more value in what can be learned along the way.

 

In my own writing about the Dharma, I never use the word “demon.” What truly matters is the ability to present a well-reasoned argument.

 

The labels "Buddha's teaching" or "demonic teaching" have often overshadowed the diligent and in-depth interpretations of scriptures made by later scholars.

I believe readers can appreciate the viewpoints that the intellectual efforts of those who came after are also a valuable resource in the study of Buddhism.

 

So if later practitioners completely lack the ability to reinterpret and understand the scriptures more deeply, wouldn't that be a cause for regret?

 

If the terms “Buddha” and “demon” are not supported by concrete reasoning, they are ultimately meaningless.

In Chapter 7 of Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika, the discussion of conventional truth (conditioned phenomena,saṃskṛta-dharma) does not once mention illusions, dreams, or mirages. Instead, it offers reasons why “conditioned phenomena” are not considered ultimately real.

 

Yes, the ultimate aim of the argument is to present the concept of “śūnyatā,” not to prove that phenomena are merely illusions like dreams or mirages. 

 

Even from a modern, microscopic perspective, if a practitioner is able to realize anattā (non-self) and anicca (impermanence) through contemplating this so-called illusion, then that is truly worthy of respect.

 

Master Banji

 

(As for the argument presented in the photo—at the very least, gives me that reasoning, so that I may understand the Dharma.)

論三時了不可得2 On the Unattainability of the Three Times 2

 

大家好！

 

論三時了不可得2

 

佛陀所說：「緣起甚深，」其實是無法理解的。

 

中觀八不論證，一直在朝解開緣起方向努力，

緣起不困難，佛陀的「性空才能緣起」

究其根源要培養出何等邏輯思維能力才能深入。

 

 

世上體悟佛陀講的「緣起甚深」，大概只有舍利弗尊者和龍樹菩薩兩位。 

舍利弗尊者聽聞「諸法因緣生，諸法因緣滅，我佛大沙門，常作如是說」之後，即入證果位。

龍樹菩薩以緣起探討當中的變化性、綿延性和不可定位性（不住性）試圖解開，但以上三性以及不易明白的「三心了不可得」都必須從「空性」下手，或許這也是另一種不同角度的理解方法。

 

但佛法畢竟有修證的問題，

 

一個修行者如何在修行裡面觸及「變化性的空-無我、無常。」將決定修行者修持生涯的前途。

空性是不是虛幻性呢？

大家自己去解答。

 

總不能一個有修證體系的佛法，任由「夢幻虛境」如入無人之地的存在，

在修證與夢幻泡影間像得分裂症。

半寄

 

On the Unattainability of the Three Times 2

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

The Buddha once said, "Dependent origination is profoundly deep"—it is truly beyond ordinary understanding.

 

The Madhyamaka (Middle Way) school, through the Eight Negations, has consistently aimed to unravel the mystery of dependent origination. 

 

Yet dependent origination is not difficult in itself. What the Buddha taught is that “only through emptiness can dependent origination be possible”.

To truly understand this, one must cultivate a very refined and logical way of thinking.

 

In the course of human history, perhaps only Venerable Śāriputra and Nāgārjuna truly realized the depth of what the Buddha meant by “profound dependent origination.”

Śāriputra attained realization immediately upon hearing: 

“All phenomena arise from causes and conditions;

all phenomena cease due to causes and conditions.

The Buddha and the Great Shramana have always taught in this way.”

 

Nāgārjuna approached dependent origination by analyzing its “impermanence, continuity, and non-abiding nature”.

These three aspects—as well as the subtle concept of " "the minds of three times (past, present, future) are ultimately unattainable"—must all be approached from the perspective of śūnyatā. 

This may offer a different way to understand the same truth.

 

Yet Buddhism is ultimately about realization, not just philosophy.

 

For a practitioner, the ability to experience “impermanence and non-self through the śūnyatā of constant change” is what determines the course of their spiritual path.    

Is śūnyatā just an illusion? 

That is something each individual must examine for themselves.

 

After all, a Dharma path rooted in realization can't afford to let "illusory dream-like states" roam freely like phantoms in a lawless realm.  

Otherwise, we risk turning the path of realization into one of inner conflict, torn between awakening and delusion.

 

Master Banji

論三時不可得1 On the Unattainability of the Three Times1

 

大家好！

 論三時不可得

 《解讀中論27道題》p.84

「已住」的實體現在不住，

「未住」的實體現在不住，

「現在住」的實體現在不住。

這三個觀念是不是跟金剛經的，

「過去心，現在心，未來心」了不可得有著異曲同工的味道。

 

我個人的理解是，「已住、未住、現在住，」先從現象界探討深入，不失為是好的題目，

「過去心、現在心、未來心，」了不可得也是好題材，

只是《金剛經》後來的結尾是「如夢幻泡影」，似乎又跟前面的論證互相矛盾。

觀察中的「不住」與「了不可得」不等同夢幻泡影，

「夢幻泡影」剛開始就成立的話，那就用夢幻泡影就好，

任何可看到的一道彩虹消失都是很好的觀察，

但整個生命與現象都如一道彩虹般的消失嗎？

這不僅矛盾而已，又把佛法簡化到模糊，

原因，也有可能是為了傳播佛法的方便。

但這也可以窺見「無自性的空」，修佛法者一直沒有把握好，

以致於，

到最後都要冒出一個夢幻讓人不知所以！

 

AI題材：「空性：這個世界的所有事物都不具備獨立、自性的存在。它們依賴於因緣條件，並不真實存在，而是依照某些條件和關聯而呈現。像泡影、夢境、幻象一樣，事物只是在特定的條件下顯現，並不具備固有的真實性」

 

讀者可試想一下，當空性與泡影，夢境一起論證時，其意義何在？

雖然這乍看之下，似乎是有這麽一回事。

半寄

 

On the Unattainability of the Three Times

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

In Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika (p.84), it says:

"The entity that has already abided does not abide now,

the entity that has yet to abide does not abide now,

the entity that is presently abiding does not abide now."

Aren't these ideas somewhat similar to the Diamond Sutra's statement that " the past mind is unattainable, the present mind is unattainable, 

the future mind is unattainable.”?

 

In my view, starting with "already abided," "not yet abided," and "currently abiding" and then deeply exploring from the level of observable phenomena is a good approach. Similarly, "past, present, and future mind being unattainable " is also a meaningful topic.

 

However, at the end of the Diamond Sutra, it concludes that "All phenomena are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, and shadows."

This seems to contradict the earlier logical reasoning.

 

Observing "non-abiding" and realizing "unattainability" is not exactly the same as saying everything is like an illusion.

If everything were like a dream or illusion from the beginning, why bother with so much detailed analysis beforehand?

One could just state it outright.

 

Yes, any rainbow that appears and then vanishes is a good metaphor for observing impermanence, 

but can the entirety of life and all phenomena be reduced to the vanishing of a rainbow? 

 

This approach not only creates contradictions, but also risks oversimplifying the Dharma into something vague.

Perhaps this approach was adopted for the sake of easier communication and teaching.

Still, it reveals a deeper issue: many practitioners have struggled to fully grasp the meaning of " śūnyatā without self-nature" .

As a result, they often resort to using "illusion" as a metaphor — leaving listeners confused and bewildered.

 

AI Data: Śūnyatā : Everything in this world lacks independent, inherent existence. All things arise based on causes and conditions. They do not exist independently but appear according to certain conditions and relationships, just like bubbles, dreams, and illusions — appearing temporarily without possessing true, fixed reality.

 

Readers may think about this:

When " śūnyatā " is explained together with metaphors of illusions and dreams, what is actually being conveyed?

At first glance, it sounds reasonable — but is it truly so?

 

Master Banji

(Leica相機的魅力)

深淵 Abyss

 大家好！

 

深淵

 

《解讀龍樹菩薩中論第27道題》p.87

 「反自反性」很久前就讀過，

現在要講課又再讀一遍，

我常常陷入跑到問題核心中，名詞，名相已不復存，

要講解又跑出來讀專有名詞，

大腦常常搞得很疲乏，

經常，很同情自己的大腦，來來去去。哈

半寄

 

Abyss

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

In Nagarjuna’s Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika (p.87), it talks about ‘ir-reflexivity’.

I read about ‘ir-reflexivity’ a long time ago.

As I have to give a lecture, I’m reading it again.

I often find myself diving straight into the core of the issue, where terms and conceptual labels no longer remain.

Then, when I need to explain it, I jump out again and return to studying the technical terminology.

My brain gets exhausted from this constant back-and-forth.

Often, I feel quite sympathetic toward my brain——caught in this cycle. Ha. 

 

Master Banji

                                              臺灣日月潭

宿緣 Karmic Connections from Past Lives

「那些正義使者敢說：

佛陀要求給孤獨長者黃金鋪地是貪財嗎？

佛陀去救他的兒子羅睺羅怕被毒蛇咬，是自私嗎？

佛法，麻煩再去研究一下。」

 

大家好！

 宿緣

 宿緣是佛法認為的輪廻生命中有關於上一輩子的ㄧ切。

真正提及宿緣，除了當事者，

第三者想知道必須具備修行的能力才能告知。

這個跟阿難在佛經結集被拒絕進入阿羅漢僧團是一樣的。

在沒有「宿命明」的共識下去解讀過去世的生命，其誤解程度是可以想的，

但就像我分享的《Yesterday's Children》前世今生電影一樣，宿緣的解開對當事者的心理程度具有關鍵性的意義，

根據我個人修行能知道的，很多人的心理痛苦，是沒有解開的宿緣，也是無題式深沉苦痛的。

以致於在佛法的修行裡面「宿命明」是佔據重要的位子。

我慢慢理解到：宿命如同昨天的事情沒有解決，今天要往前走顯得困難是一樣的。

 

而面對宿緣內容的誤解，需要解釋嗎？

 

過去，印順法師只寫西方極樂世界是太陽神的崇拜，就被告密及換來佛教界的撻伐，

這對當時有研究佛學的佛教徒而言，豈止是天大的笑話而已！

 

我也沒有看過印老出來說他的研究是不對的，來止息風波。

印老還說是太陽神的崇拜。

但他們還不滿意，那要寫什麼？

寫淨土宗是至高無上的最神聖修法？

那動動筆也做得到，印老有作嗎？也沒有。

 

修行中能「看到」宿緣是通過困難重重才能有的功力，不是想看，想說就可以有，

我也不會去更改，我「看到」的宿緣就這麼簡單。

半寄

"Do those so-called defenders of justice dare to say:

Was the Buddha greedy when he asked Anathapindika to pave the ground with gold?
Was he selfish when he went to save his son Rāhula from a snake bite?

Please study the Dharma more carefully."

 

Karmic Connections from Past Lives

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

In Buddhism, karmic connections refer to all aspects of one’s past lives within the cycle of rebirth. 

To speak of karmic ties accurately, only the individual directly involved can truly know. 

For a third party to understand such matters, they must possess the ability gained through spiritual practice. 

 

This is similar to how Ānanda was initially denied entry into the arahant assembly during the Buddhist canon’s compilation. 

Without shared recognition of the “divine insight into past lives”, any attempt to interpret previous lives can easily lead to misunderstanding.

As shown in the film Yesterday's Children, which depicts past life memories, uncovering karmic ties can be deeply meaningful for the person involved. 

From what I’ve learned in my own practice, much of people’s emotional pain stems from unresolved karmic connections—an unspoken, deep suffering without clear causes.

 

That’s why “divine insight into past lives” holds an important place in Buddhist practice. 

I’ve gradually come to see that karmic fate is like unresolved issues from yesterday—until resolved, it’s hard to move forward.

 

So when karmic ties are misunderstood, do they really need to be explained?

 

In the past, Venerable Yinshun wrote that the Western Pure Land had roots in sun-god worship. 

He was reported and harshly criticized by the Buddhist community for this statement. 

To Buddhist scholars at the time, it was more than a joke—it was absurd.

 

Yet I never saw Venerable Yinshun withdraw his view to end the controversy. 

He continued to say it was sun-god worship. 

But even then, critics still were not satisfied. 

What did they want him to write instead? 

For him to declare Pure Land Buddhism the supreme and most sacred path? That’s easy to write. 

But did Venerable Yinshun ever write it? No, he didn’t.

 

The ability to perceive karmic connections through spiritual practice is something that comes only after overcoming great difficulty.

It is not something one can see or speak of at will.

 

As for me, I won’t change what I’ve seen. 

What I’ve perceived about karmic ties is just as it is—simple and clear.

 

Master Banji