偽經4-5 A Spurious Sūtra 4-5

偽經4

 

《阿含經》裡面會常常出現佛陀弟子提出這個說法我不了解，那個地方我不清楚，質疑的聲音總是不斷。

 

以虛老的「真如，是遍地的山河大地」而言，人在這裡是看不到的，

 

山河大地是沉默的，而大部分的麻煩或喜樂都是人群製造出來的，

 

相對於山河大地的沉默，人群是最複雜的，

《阿含經》談了很多人群的事，反而覺得索然無味，

 

祖師們入三摩地，一下子把最麻煩的人弄掉了，所以往往給追隨者、閱讀者一種爽朗的感覺，

假如，追隨者、讀者變成修行者的時候，

會發現這裡面想要切入的點是非常困難的，

因為入定是祖師們的，而那裡面充滿沈默，

你很難從裡面思考出什麼來？

 

入定的輕安、喜樂讓修行者駐留其中，

還有華人祖師的悲願大菩薩道也分散了注意力，

所以經典真偽在華人圈裡面一直不是重要的問題，

因為一代代的華人祖師都倚靠那一些，後來考證是偽經而證悟的！

可能祖師們也不明白，這裡面主導他們修行的，大部分是他們的善根與福報，

累世之福所成就的三昧（三摩地）。

 

最終，唯心、唯識、真如、極樂世界都可以跟「夢幻泡影」混雜在一起，

這相對於「四聖果」而言根本比天方夜譚還誇張，

不懂為什麼這麼辛苦地修行到最後要跟夢幻泡影畫上等號，

而且還認為必定要有夢幻泡影才是最高超的？

從來沒想過這已經是失去佛法邏輯的幻想。

一切有為法是空性的存在。

 

半寄

 

A Spurious Sūtra 4-5

 

In the Āgama Sutras, it's common to see the Buddha's disciples openly express confusion, pose doubts, or admit lack of understanding. Questioning is a recurring theme. 

Take Master Xuyun’s statement, “True Suchness is the mountains and rivers all around us.” From a human perspective, this isn’t something we can see directly. Nature—the mountains and rivers—is silent. But most of our joy and suffering are created by human society.

Nature’s silence contrasts sharply with the complexity of human society. The Āgamas, focusing extensively on the affairs of people, may appear somewhat prosaic to modern readers.

By contrast, the patriarchs who entered samādhi (deep meditative absorption) seemed to transcend these mundane concerns altogether. For followers, this creates an impression of refreshing detachment. However, for actual practitioners, samādhi is extremely difficult to attain—and once attained, it is full of silence. It’s hard to think or analyze anything in that state.

 

The lightness and bliss of meditative absorption entice practitioners to remain immersed. Meanwhile, the expansive vows of Chinese Mahāyāna masters—like the Bodhisattva ideal—further disperse analytical focus. As a result, in Chinese Buddhism, the question of textual authenticity has not been a major concern.

 

In fact, many patriarchs attained realization through scriptures now recognized as inauthentic. What truly powered their realization may not necessarily have been the texts they used, but their own deep karmic roots and accumulated merit over lifetimes.

 

Ultimately, concepts such as Mind-Only, Consciousness-Only, True Suchness, and the Pure Land have become entangled with the notion that everything is merely a dream or illusion. When compared to the Four Fruitions of Enlightenment, such ideas appear even more exaggerated than fairy tales.

It’s hard to understand why one would endure such intense spiritual effort only to conclude that everything is, in the end, nothing more than an illusion.

 

Even more puzzling is the belief that recognizing this illusion is somehow the highest realization.

Few seem to reflect on the fact that this view may already have strayed from the coherent and logical structure of the Buddha’s original teachings.

 All conditioned phenomena are inherently śūnyatā.

Master Banji

偽經5

 

佛法流傳已久自有其不可撼動的地位，

 

寫這些只是希望幫助佛法更清澈，

讓廣大的佛教徒更得到慧學的助力，

幫助用功的人們有更寬闊、明朗的佛法指標，

僅此而已！

 

一切有為法是空性的存在。

 

半寄

 

A Spurious Sūtra 5

 

The Buddha-Dharma, having been transmitted through the ages, possesses an unassailable and enduring status.

My writing is composed solely in the hope of clarifying the Dharma.

To help more followers of Buddhism deepen their understanding and insight.

And to offer earnest cultivators a more precise and discerning compass within the path of the Dharma.

Nothing beyond this humble intention.

 

All conditioned phenomena are inherently śūnyatā.

 

Master Banji

 

偽經3 A Spurious Sūtra 3

 偽經 3

 

在佛陀的聖果與祖師輩的三摩地（三昧）相作比較「四聖果」的內容是最豐富的，

來看下面內容：

「AI. 三摩地指的是一種高度專注、心一境性的禪定狀態。 心專注一境，不散亂 → 遠離雜念，內心安住。 身心平等安住 → 不隨境界起伏，寂靜安定。」

 

佛教的部派佛教到華人的祖師輩所敘述的證悟內容都是一個三摩地的敘述，

入定是基本功，但入定後大腦是不會起思考的，當然有天眼通的人可以用天眼看，但看跟深入其實是兩回事。

 

例如：

一件事情的發生想要知道來龍去脈必須深入去研究，

能夠一眼就看穿事情始末的其實很少，就算有天眼通的修行者還是必須深入才可能知道事情的始末。

 

就連具有神通也不可能是暢行無阻的，

如果能夠把這些內容弄清楚，我個人一定選擇「四聖果」做為修持的主題，不動腦對我個人而言，絕對不能接受。

 

虛老說：他的證悟是看到「山河大地遍皆真如」，

那就說明他是看到的是三摩地的清淨，光明，安定，這裡面有著「身心脫落」的痛快感！

 

這情況像扒掉一件穿很久的厚重舊大衣後，同時穿上新絲綢的愉悅，但這種經驗是發生在修行者的身體。

 

我們稍微論述一下就可以清楚，證悟中的「真如」如包括山河大地，那就是等於修行者可以扭轉乾坤，

 

但是事實上，我們只要向第二者、第三者去溝通所產生的困難就會出現，所以真如的清淨與光明是存在修行者自己的福報所累積的世界中，

 

這之前我在探討廣老的極樂世界，也提過佛教「變現」的問題，讀者也可以往下找。

 

或許有讀者認為既使是這樣，高僧們也夠厲害的，這個點我完全認同，但除了致上我個人的敬意以外，個人不會跟他們修行的，

 

理解真正佛陀所說的佛法所延伸出來的修道樂趣，範圍是很大的，

 

入定在一處的「身心脫落」，只稍作體驗就好。但對於修行者而言，這種體驗也必然要具備過，才能再走入下一步。

 

半寄

 

A Spurious Sūtra 3

 

In comparing the Buddha’s the Four Fruitions of Enlightenment with the samādhi described by the patriarchal masters, the “Four Fruitions” present a far richer and fuller teaching.

Consider this description:

AI Data: Samādhi refers to a state of profound concentration, where the mind abides in a single focus. The mind remains undistracted → free from distraction, inwardly settled. The body and mind rest in balance → unmoved by external conditions, calm and serene.

 

In the schools of early Buddhism, and later in the Chinese tradition, enlightenment is commonly presented in the language of samādhi.
Meditative absorption is the fundamental skill, yet once established in it, thinking will cease to function. Even those gifted with the “divine eye” may perceive visions, but perception is not the same as insight.

For instance:

To discern the full causal web of an event, one must examine it deeply.
The capacity to grasp the entire sequence at a glance is extremely rare. Even those with supernatural vision must probe further to reach true understanding.

Thus, even with spiritual powers, there are limits.
On this basis, I would unquestionably choose the Four Fruitions as the axis of cultivation. To abandon the activity of mind altogether is, for me, wholly unacceptable.

Master Xuyun once said: his realization was to perceive that “mountains, rivers, and the great earth are all True Suchness.”
This indicates he experienced the purity, brilliance, and stability of samādhi—together with the liberating joy of “body and mind falling away.”

 

It is like shedding a long-worn, heavy coat and at once putting on a garment of new silk—a vivid delight. Yet such rapture occurs only within the practitioner’s own embodied experience.

 

If we reason further: if True Suchness is said to encompass mountains and rivers, this would imply the practitioner could overturn heaven and earth.

 

In reality, difficulties already arise when trying to communicate with others. Thus, the purity and clarity of True Suchness are confined to the realm conditioned by the practitioner’s own accumulated merit.

 

Previously, when discussing Venerable GuangQin’s Pure Land, I also raised the issue of “manifestation” in Buddhism. Readers may revisit that.

 

Some may argue: even so, such masters are extraordinary. I fully agree. I offer them my respect, yet I do not adopt their path of cultivation.

 

The true Dharma taught by the Buddha opens a far wider joy in practice.

The experience of “body and mind falling away” within samādhi should indeed be touched, but only as a preliminary taste. For the practitioner, such an experience is required in order to proceed to the next step.

 

Master Banji

 

 

偽經2 A Spurious Sūtra 2

偽經 2

 

1.我們對比佛法原始教典《阿含經》的阿羅漢境界，阿羅漢境界必須解脫「無色愛」，也就是對精神世界方面的徹底解脫，

 

以現代人能理解的字義來說，是指理智方面也徹底得到昇華解脫，而這不是哲學的理解，是加入了修行的境界所成就。

 

「2.  AI. 中國《虛雲和尚年譜》裡記載，他在雲棲寺閱《楞嚴經》到「覺海性澄圓，圓澄覺元妙」處，忽然大徹大悟，說道：「山河大地，悉皆在我心中」。

 

《虛雲和尚口述年譜》有提到他悟境時「山河大地，遍皆真如」。」

後來的華人禪師普遍有上面虛老的體悟，

 

為什麼同樣修佛法，從佛陀口中親自說出的修法流傳到中國以後會相隔千萬里？

 

這等於說印度的佛法跟中國是完全不相干的，

雖然不相干，但也一樣各自有證入境界，這個說法是不是比較持平呢？

 

我個人從禮敬廣欽老和尚到印順導師以後，致力在這方面想要做出個人可以理解的佛法與境界，

那就是為什麼佛法修行者之間的修行所得會相距如此遙遠？

 

一路馬不停蹄的追去，或許像崇山峻嶺的阻隔一般，地域、民族、人文的認知把佛法變成各家要的樣式了！

 

半寄

 

A Spurious Sūtra 2

 

In the early Buddhist scriptures, the Āgamas, the Arhat is described as one who has fully overcome attachment even to the formless realms—signifying a complete liberation that includes intellectual and spiritual transcendence. This is not only the understanding of philosophy, but also the highest level of achievement in spiritual practice.

 

The Chronicle of Master Xuyun recounts that, while reading the Śūraṅgama Sūtra at Yunqi Monastery, he encountered the line, “The ocean of awareness is clear and perfectly still, its clarity intrinsically wondrous.” At that moment he experienced great awakening, declaring: “Mountains and rivers, the entire earth, are within my mind.” In his oral record, he further expressed: “Mountains and rivers, everywhere, are none other than true suchness.”

Such expressions of realization became characteristic among later Chinese Chan masters.

 

Why, then, should the Dharma spoken by the Buddha himself, once transmitted to China, diverge so profoundly? It almost appears that Indian Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism are worlds apart. Yet, despite this distance, both lead to yield a realm of realization that is unique to the practitioner. Would it not be fairer to acknowledge this?

From venerating Elder Master Guangqin and then to Master Yinshun, I have sought to make sense of this divergence: Why are the attainments of Buddhist practitioners so vastly different?

Perhaps it is like being separated by vast mountains—geography, culture, and ways of thought have shaped Buddhism into different forms in different lands.

 

Master Banji

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!”