七處徵心3-4 Seven Places the Mind is Sought 3-4

七處徵心3

 

華人讀者都說：

華人大修行者也很多大德有入定的修持，

我當然知道，

但是我想在其他的地方看看其他的修行者怎麼說，

至少日本學者站在人性的角度出發，

我在看「出定後」語後，

就安定下來埋頭苦幹，

 

而部派佛教的修行者寫到無欲、無貪，這到底是一個故意設的文字障，

（因為整個感官知覺沒有的時候，是要涅槃的）

還是因為其他什麼原因，時代相隔久遠不得而知？

縱使是佛陀入過大定出來教授與說法，

都不可能教出這樣的修法，

 

陳義太高的結果到「千山鳥飛絕，」

然後，就一點小事就在那裡吵到不可開交，

這也是佛教後來分裂的主因，

參考大天五事。

半寄

 

Seven Places the Mind is Sought 3

 

Chinese readers often say:

There are many great Chinese practitioners who have reached deep meditation.

Yes, I know that.

But I also want to see what practitioners in other cultures say.

 

At least, Japanese scholars look at things from a human perspective.

When I read the phrase "after emerging from deep meditation,"I felt calm and ready to work hard on my practice.

 

Some early Buddhist monks wrote about having no desire or craving.

But was that just a confusing way of writing on purpose?

(Because when all sensory perception ceases, it implies nirvana.) 

Or is it due to other reasons, lost to time and history?

 

Even if the Buddha came out of deep meditation to teach,

he probably would not have taught a method like that.

 

When philosophical ideas are set too high or abstract, it leads to situations like:“Not a single bird flies across the thousands of mountains.”

Then trivial matters become grounds for endless dispute—

which, ultimately, was a key reason behind the schisms in Buddhism.

For further reference, consider the “five theses” of Mahādeva.

 

Master Banji



七處徵心4

 

華人讀者很難體會，

我想在修行的線索找一個確實切入點的急迫性。

 

台灣的印順長老對「大天五事」也多所著墨，但是沒下什麼定論。

 

那時的我也無法分出凡夫跟聖體之間的感官差別，

 

但我們學佛法不一直都是在感官差別性，這裡搞不懂嗎？

 

坦白說；這個感官差別點，如果沒有辦法搞清楚我是不甘心的！

 

從人性下手，華人一直不願意面對人性，

反而所有的文字都在遮蓋人性，

從人性下手什麼歷史題目通通清楚了。

 

半寄

 

Seven Places the Mind is Sought 4

 

Chinese readers often don’t understand why I feel it’s so urgent to find a real and solid starting point for spiritual practice.

 

Venerable Yinshun in Taiwan also wrote a lot about the “five theses” of Mahādeva, but he didn’t really come to a clear conclusion.

 

Back then, I couldn’t tell the difference in how ordinary people and enlightened beings experience their senses.

 

But isn’t learning Buddhism all about understanding the differences in perception?

Why is that still confusing?

 

Honestly, I can’t feel at peace until I figure out this key difference in sensory experience.

 

If we start by looking at human nature—

Chinese culture often avoids facing human nature directly.

In fact, most writing tries to hide it.

 

But if we face it honestly, then many historical questions suddenly become clear.

 

Master Banji

七處徵心2 Seven Places the Mind is Sought 2

七處徵心2

 

印度部派佛教論師論的「心與心所」的問題，

個人看的時候都會覺得好像沒有人的存在，

後來我在看日本木村泰賢教授的研究，

看到紅筆畫出的「出定後」，

 

還有他們假設佛陀入森林的時候那麼年輕，應該是驚恐的，

都給我大的震撼！

 

後來我明白了，部派佛教很多修行者根據他們自己入定觀察到的微細心理（心行）

 

還有大腦的動態，寫出「心與心所」，所以一大半也是一般人看不懂的！

 

正確說；已經沒有人間煙火的存在，哈

 

我根據日本學者假設的方向，恐懼的心理，跟入定的經驗，

把握住這兩個方向，專攻自己的弱點，沒想到走出一條康莊大道。

 

修行說到底是人的事，有沒有必要陳義過高，也是佛學者得想一想的。

半寄

 

Seven Places the Mind is Sought 2

 

When I read how Indian Buddhist scholars explained “mind and mental factors,” it felt like there was no real person involved.

 

It was only later, when I read Professor Taiken Kimura’s research in Japan, that I was struck by a particular phrase I had highlighted in red: “after emerging from meditative absorption.”

 

Also, the assumption that the young Buddha probably felt scared when he entered the forest really shocked me.

 

These insights were deeply impactful.

 

I came to realize that many of those Buddhist scholars were describing their deep meditation experiences, watching very subtle mental movements and brain activity.

That’s why most of it doesn’t make sense to ordinary people.

 

To put it accurately: there's no trace of worldly life left in it—ha!

 

Using the Japanese researchers’ ideas—focusing on fear and meditation—I tackled my own weaknesses.

Unexpectedly, this opened up a wide and promising path.

 

After all, spiritual practice is a profoundly human matter.

Buddhist scholars should think about whether it’s necessary to make things too theoretical or distant from real life.

 

Master Banji

七處徵心 Seven Places the Mind is Sought.

七處徵心

    

大家好！

 

有讀者希望我講說《愣嚴經》七處徵心的解說。

 

我截圖兩個資料，一個是「七處徵心，」

一個是南傳佛法說：心與心所。

 

以前跟國外學者的交流，他們就問過我這個問題，

佛經的「心」到底是肉體的感官知覺，還是指精神心理，

佛教一直沒有交代清楚。

 

沒錯，我也覺得在部派佛教時期，

一直想把「心理、身體、修行」做三大結合，把《阿含經》沒有細細推敲的心的問題，加以解說。

 

這裡邊牽扯到一個關鍵，

比如說；

你在打坐中看到的自己跟在繁忙中看到自己是會完全不一樣的，

 

所以心與心所可能是修行者自己的課題，

佛法心的解說不管是肉體或精神是伴隨修行存在的。

 

我個人也是盡量閱讀其他的觀點，來補充這方面的不足。

 

平實而論在距今約2千年的時候，修行者會考慮到心理問題是非常了不起的，

只是那些文字對現代人來講過於陌生，

 

南傳佛法把心與心所的詞彙用的比北傳佛法還好，但是無貪，無欲教的比佛陀本身還苛刻，

 

佛陀還教少欲，可見後代人的佛法已經脫離人性。

 

楞嚴的「七處徵心，」

否認心的不管有形還是無形，

最後用「如來藏心」取代人們可以認知的心。

 

個人沒研究「如來藏心，」

所以不會講「七處徵心」。

只提供資料參考。

半寄

Seven Places the Mind is Sought.

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

Some readers asked me to explain the "Seven Places the Mind is Sought" from the ŚūraṅgamaSūtra. I’ve attached two references: one on "Seven Places the Mind is Sought" and another from Theravāda Buddhism on "Citta and Cetasikas" (mind and mental factors).

 

A long time ago, some foreign scholars asked me: what does "mind" in Buddhist texts really mean? Is it something physical, like our senses? Or something mental, like thoughts and feelings?Buddhist texts don’t really give a clear answer.

 

In my view, early Buddhist schools tried to bridge body, mind, and practice—elaborating on areas that were less precise in the Āgamas.

 

> For instance, the self you observe during meditation is completely different from the one you perceive in daily life. So, "mind and mental factors" are not fixed objects but experiential phenomena, unfolding uniquely through practice.

 

Whether physical or mental, the Buddhist idea of mind always exists in relation to practice.

I read different ideas to try to understand this better. Honestly, it's amazing that people 2,000 years ago were already thinking deeply about psychology. But their way of writing can feel really unfamiliar today.

 

Theravāda Buddhism explains the mind more clearly than Mahāyāna, but sometimes it asks for too much—teaching complete non-desire, while the Buddha only taught to "desire less."

 

The Śūraṅgama’s "Seven Places the Mind is Sought" ends by denying all conventional ideas of the mind—both physical and formless—and ultimately replaces it with the concept of "Tathāgatagarbha" (Buddha-nature).

 

Since I haven’t studied the Tathāgatagarbhadoctrine, I won’t comment further on it. Just sharing materials for your reference.

Master Banji

 

對談7-8 A Conversation 7-8

對談7

 

早上一位讀者說：虛幻才能無限的存在。

哈哈😆

拈花微笑😊

 

「生不是真正的生，

滅不是真正的滅」，

對比「不生不滅」是兩個天懸地隔的思想。

龍樹菩薩的「八不論空」，在因緣生起時論空性，

在條件聚合時論存在性、變動性、時間性。

豐富到爆表的天書。

半寄

 

 

A Conversation 7

 

This morning, a reader said, “Only illusions can exist infinitely.”

Haha 😆

I smiled silently, like the Buddha holding a flower. 😊

 

"Birth is not truly birth,

And extinction is not truly extinction " —

this stands in stark contrast to the idea of "neither arising nor ceasing."

They are fundamentally distinct views.

 

Nāgārjuna’s teaching of the Eight Negations of Śūnyatā explains "śūnyatā" based on dependent origination:

Śūnyatā is analyzed when causes arise;

Existence, change, and temporality are examined when conditions converge.

 

A scripture of overwhelming richness and boundless content — like a treasure from heaven.

 

Master Banji

對談8

 

如果你唸佛號、誦經，集中心力還可以照顧自己，讓自己心靈得到休息，

 

你要了（接受）一個虛幻的理論，

虛幻充滿至盡虛空、遍法界的無限大還是虛幻。

 

如果你調整心境，及想法，讓自己貼近變動的真相「無常」，你最後也會進步。

 

為什麼大家會對虛幻的理論頂禮膜拜？

從年輕到現在的我一直沒有辦法搞懂，

自己也急著趕路，沒空理那麼多。

想說那又不是我的事，

 

如今上了年齡反而看不下去了！

那些包裝在詭論的撲朔迷離文字。

 

半寄

 

A Conversation 8   

 

Chanting the Buddha’s name or reciting scriptures with focused attention can help center your mind and provide inner peace.

 

But chasing after some abstract theory—even if it sounds huge and all-encompassing—doesn’t change the fact that it’s still just an illusion.

 

If instead, you work on adjusting your mental state and outlook to align with the reality of change—impermanence—you’ll make meaningful progress.

 

Why do people worship these illusory theories?

 

I never really understood it—not when I was young, and not now.

I was always in a hurry, busy moving forward, with no time to care.

 

I used to think: it’s none of my business anyway.

But now that I’m older, I can’t ignore it anymore— especially

those convoluted texts wrapped in paradox and mystery.

 

Master Banji

 

 

 

 

對談5-6A Conversation 5-6

 

對談5

 

代強昨天來問了我一些問題，

並且說：常常我寫在Line群組的一些跟其他人的對談，他看不懂。

拿出手機給他看了一些其他人傳給我的資訊，

就是下面解《般若心經》的文字，

我說：

佛法也不見得一定要講得很深，

但是有時候你面對詭論，就是講得這麼詭辯，

沒有辦法破解也不行，

而且其他居士傳的問題，想清楚，我也得解說，

所以沒有辦法在群組照顧這麼多，真是抱歉！

 

以下的文字南禪居士想問的：

「觀行者，

因為各種事物都沒有自體，沒有自體故而

生不是真正的生，滅不是真正的滅；

垢不是真正的垢，淨不是真正的淨，

增不是真正的增，減不是真正的減。

所以，於無自性中具體找不到哪一法是真正的色，

對於受法、想法、行法、識法也一樣。同樣的道理」

 

半寄解讀：

從這邊切入；生不是真正的生，

滅不是真正的滅，

生不是真正的生

已經生出來的是什麼？

滅也不是真正的滅？

那生跟滅都存在了！

會是什麼世界？

 

不提因緣法的聚合直接談「無自性」會錯亂，按裡面的文字又會進入虛虛幻幻的美妙境界，

 

而那篇《般若心經》的文也引導入美妙世界。

 

每次我看到這種文字，都會想起在美國有人讓我們偷看一眼滿室吸大麻的煙霧，

 

「空」一旦離開因緣邏輯的解讀，便滿室的煙霧。

 

半寄

 

A Conversation 5

 

Daiqiang came to ask me some questions yesterday.

He also mentioned that he often doesn't understand the conversations I post in our Line group, especially those involving discussions with others.

He showed me some information others had sent him—specifically, a passage interpreting the Heart Sutra.

 

I told him:

You don’t always need to explain the Dharma in a complicated way.

But sometimes, when you're faced with confusing arguments, you have to respond just as carefully—otherwise, you can’t clear up the confusion.

And since other people send in questions that need to be thought through, I also have to answer them.

So I’m sorry I can’t always take care of everyone’s needs in the group.

 

This is the passage a layman in NanZen brought up:

 

“The contemplator sees that all things lack an inherent essence.

Because of this, birth isn’t truly birth, and extinction isn’t truly extinction. 

Dirt isn’t truly dirty, and purity isn’t truly pure. 

Increase is not truly increase, and decrease is not truly decrease.

So in this lack of self-nature, there is no real form.

The same applies to feeling, thinking, actions, and awareness.

The principle remains consistent.”

 

Banji’s interpretation:

Let us begin from this point:

Birth is not truly the beginning,

nor is extinction truly an end.

If what we call birth is not actual arising, then what has come into being?

And if what we call extinction is not true cessation,

then both arising and ceasing coexist— what kind of world is this?

 

If we talk about “no self-nature” without first explaining how things come together through causes and conditions, it gets confusing.

 

This kind of writing often ends up sounding dreamy and vague.

 

In fact, this interpretation of the Heart Sutra leads people into a beautiful but unreal fantasy.

 

Every time I read this kind of writing, I recall someone in the U.S. once secretly let us peek into a room full of marijuana smoke.

When "śūnyatā" is discussed without the logic of dependent origination, it becomes nothing but a haze-filled room—subject to arbitrary interpretations that blur its original meaning."

 

Master Banji

 



對談6

 

基於讀者的反應再來說明：

 

「生不是真正的生，滅不是真正的滅。」

 

這個問題可以想一想，

一個存在的東西，你不承認

它，（《中論》還認為他是世俗必須給予的承認）

它的滅亡，也不承認它滅亡了，

 

這樣的結果會導致存在的矛盾，

所以一定要導向虛幻，

如果沒有導向虛幻，沒有辦法自圓其說，

這樣大概就可以知道「虛幻學說」從哪裡來了。

希望更深入地說明，可以幫助大家了解。

 

半寄

 

A Conversation 6

 

In response to readers' reactions, let me elaborate:

 

“What is called birth is not truly birth;

what is called extinction is not truly extinction.”

This paradox invites serious reflection.

 

If you deny the existence of something that clearly exists—

(even The Middle Way says we should acknowledge such things in everyday terms) —

and simultaneously deny its extinction,

such a stance creates contradictions in the nature of existence.

 

Therefore, it necessarily points toward illusion.

Without embracing illusion as the framework,there’s no coherent way to explain these contradictions.

 

And so, from here we can begin to understandwhere the doctrine of illusion originates.

 

I hope this deeper explanation helps clarify things.

 

Master Banji