偽經1A Spurious Sūtra1

大家好！

偽經1

有讀者都希望我再談談《楞嚴經》。

前兩年南禪的居士有人帶《楞嚴經》來要問問題，

我跟他說那是偽經不用問了！

結果他二話不說就把它留在精舍，

昨天找一找看到了！

其實我還是沒有辦法再說什麼，

看了一下大陸地區新的解說，《楞嚴經》被捧得⋯⋯唉😮‍💨

大陸也有人在研究原始佛教，

只要把《楞嚴經》跟《雜阿含經》比較一下，就知道這兩者應用的文字天差地別，

《雜阿含經》用了很直接的話語在談論佛法，

偽經反而用了很玄奧的文字在談佛法。

佛法明白以後是要進入修行的，如果文字用的這麼玄奧可以搞死你一輩子。

我個人清楚很多人喜歡玄妙的文字跟語言，那就是喜歡的人的事了！

偽經往往華而不實，卻又晦澀難懂。
或許正是它們精心雕琢的晦澀難懂才吸引了讀者。哈哈！

大家文化水平都很高，自己對照著看就明白，我不想再解釋那一本書，

漫天漫地的講得完嗎？

半寄

（資料來源AI)

A Spurious Sūtra 1

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

Several readers have asked me to discuss the Śūraṅgama Sūtra more.
Two years ago, a lay practitioner from NanZen brought me a copy, seeking clarification.
My response was simple: “It is a spurious scripture; there is no point in inquiry.”
He said nothing more and left it behind in the vihara. I looked for it yesterday and found it!

 

I still have little to add. I reviewed some recent commentaries from Mainland China, and I was struck by how highly the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is exalted… sigh 😮‍💨

 

There are, however, scholars in China who study Early Buddhism. A simple comparison between the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and the Saṃyukta Āgama immediately reveals the vast difference in language and approach.

 

The Saṃyukta Āgama conveys the Dharma in direct and plain terms,
whereas the spurious scripture employs elaborate and abstruse phrasing.

 

Once the Dharma is understood, the point is to enter into practice. If the language itself is overly abstruse, one could waste a lifetime entangled in it.

I am aware that many people delight in obscure and esoteric language. That is their personal preference.

 

False texts often appear ornate yet impenetrable.
Perhaps it is precisely their polished obscurity that draws an audience. Ha!

 

Given everyone’s educational background, one only needs to compare the texts to see the difference.
I have no desire to explain that scripture further. With such an overwhelming mass of commentary, how could it ever be exhausted?

 

Master Banji

 

(Source: AI)

不倚一物 Not Depending on Anything

大家好！

不倚一物 

 

 讀者說「不倚一物」是不可能的，

禪師高調唱得太過分了！哈！

 8月讀書會講到「好簡」的問題，

 腦袋沒有準備一直轉不過來，

印象中是胡適先生對中國禪宗的看法。

 我的回答是； 我也覺得高調唱得太過份，所以在「不倚一物」裡面加入了無常、無我，希望對讀者有幫助。

 8月讀書會也說了華人禪師開悟，開悟的內容是什麼？事實上是籠統的， 但籠統並不代表禪師修行都無所成就，

 應該是各宗教的修行都會有所成就，

但具體內容是值得商榷的。 

 如果是修持佛法，當然能熟悉佛法內容對修行者的幫助是最大的， 只要是人體，不可能「不倚一物」而活， 這跟無我、無常是建立在因緣聚合與變動之中的架構上顯然不同。 

 半寄 

 以下AI資料： 胡適曾說過中國人「好簡便」，喜歡找捷徑，不愛嚴格推理。 他批評傳統學術「好簡而成習」，意思是說習慣於簡略、不嚴謹的方式，久而久之就成了習慣。

 Not Depending on Anything Greetings, 

friends of NanZen! 

 A reader said that “not relying on anything” is unrealistic, and that the Zen master exaggerated too much! Haha! At the study club in August, we discussed the issue of “preferring simplicity.” At first, as my mind was not settled to this topic, only with the impression that this was connected to Hu Shi’s critique of Chinese Chan Buddhism. My reply was: I also felt that the claim was overstated, which is why I added the perspectives of impermanence and non-self into “not relying on anything,” hoping this would help the readers. We also discussed in August what it means when Chinese Zen masters say they are enlightened.In fact, the descriptions are often vague. However, being not specific does not imply that Zen masters achieved nothing in their practice. Rather, as in all religions, spiritual practice brings achievements, though the specific details are open to discussion. In the case of Buddhist cultivation, familiarity with the Dharma is undoubtedly the most helpful to practitioners. Since we are human beings, it is impossible to live by “not relying on anything.” This is obviously different from the Buddhist teaching of non-self and impermanence, which are based on the dynamic interplay of conditions and constant change. Master Banji AI Data: Hu Shi remarked that Chinese people tend to prefer simplicity and shortcuts instead of rigorous reasoning. He criticized traditional scholarship as being “fond of shortcuts,” suggesting that over time, this tendency toward brevity and looseness hardened into a habit.

佛法The Dharma

佛法

 

大家好！

 

佛法是人類史上在精神解脫方面，最偉大的發明，

這世上沒有誰可以告訴你，你憑藉自己的善根、福報、腦力（智慧）的理解可以走到另外一個境界（世界）。

 

這個精神世界的開創者-佛陀，

是人世間唯一的智者，

 

智者-代表這不是一個宗教的信仰，

完全靠人腦的發達走到另外一個世界，

 

遍觀世界所有的宗教，

還有精神方面的解脫，

是沒有人可以做這一系列教學的！

 

追隨祂的修行者必須有這樣的認知，才可能獲得成就，

華人禪師對於解脫的註解是-不倚一物而活。

不倚一物而活如注入無我、無常的內容，

就算無法達到解脫，也為個人的精神世界注入豐富的生命力。

半寄

（照片為2012、9月的攝影，這兩天跑出來覺得還不錯，又把它貼一次，梨花更勝梅花）

 

The Dharma

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

The Dharma stands as the most profound contribution in human history toward spiritual emancipation.

No one can simply tell you how to attain a higher state of being — it is only through your own karmic potential, merit, and intellectual insight that such transcendence becomes possible.

 

The founder of this spiritual world — the Buddha —

is the only person with true wisdom among humankind.

 

To be a " person with true wisdom " implies that the Dharma is not a matter of religious faith,

but rather a path accessible through the cultivated capacity of the human mind.

 

Across all world religions and spiritual traditions,

none offer such a complete and systematic approach to liberation as the Buddha does.

 

To genuinely walk this path, one must recognize this essential truth —

without it, realization remains out of reach.

 

A Chinese Zen master once defined liberation as:

“Living without dependence on a single thing.”

If this way of thinking is further infused with the ideas of non-self and impermanence,

then even without attaining full liberation, it still brings depth and vitality to one’s spiritual life.

 

Master Banji

 

(Photo taken in September 2012. I recently rediscovered it and still find it quite beautiful, so I’m sharing it again. Pear blossoms outshine plum blossom)

讀者注意‼️

 我們的網站有人在搗亂盜用包括臉書，請注意‼️

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.