讀書會2 NanZen Study Club2

 南禪28號潮州讀書會2

 

讀書會問題之1，比較太虛大師跟虛雲老和尚的入定境界，

 

把以前讀過的資料，找出來看，

我的眼光通常是比較全面性的，因為「入定」通常佔據的時間不多，而影響一位修行者的是很多有關於他個人的遭遇跟時代背景，

 

所以我喜歡用比較全面性的問題來看待，最近會想為什麼我當年沒有去追陳寅恪先生的研究，

 

剛好讀書會有問題要回答，就去找一下來做個解答，入定也應該去看看，修行者的背後背景，或許可以了解到更多。

 

半寄

 

 

以下AI資料： 陳寅恪先生的佛學研究與日本學者（如高楠順次郎、宇井伯壽、鈴木大拙等）的關係，可以用**「同源而異流」**來形容。   兩者在20世紀初都深受歐洲「東方學」（Orientalism）的洗禮，強調利用梵文、巴利文、藏文等多種語言對勘佛典。但在研究的終極關懷上，兩者存在著顯著的差距：   1. 研究動機的差距：以佛證史 vs. 以佛證佛   這是兩者最大的分歧點。 • 陳寅恪（以佛證史）： 他對佛教教義（如涅槃、空性）的哲學辯證興趣不大。他研究佛學是為了**「補史之闕」**。 他想知道的是：這個佛經故事如何演變成中國民間傳說？這部譯經如何反映了當時的民族遷徙或政治權力？   • 日本學者（以佛證史/佛學主體）： 日本擁有深厚的宗派傳統，日本學者（如宇井伯壽）的研究更傾向於**「佛學主體化」**。 他們致力於建立嚴密的「印度哲學史」或「佛教邏輯學（因明）」，側重於教義的演變與哲學體系的構建。   2. 資料處理的差距：微觀考據 vs. 宏觀集成 • 陳寅恪： 像是一名**「外科醫生」**。他往往從一個極小的點切入（如一個譯名、一個神話原型），精確地解剖出背後的歷史真相。他的作品多為隨筆、跋文，缺乏像日本學者那樣的大型通史著作。   • 日本學者： 像是一群**「建築師」。日本學界在20世紀完成了驚人的基礎建設，例如編纂了《大正新脩大藏經》**（這是現代佛學研究的標準版本）。他們的研究通常具有極強的系統性，涵蓋從原始佛教到大乘各宗派的完整發展史。   3. 語言應用的差距：考據工具 vs. 文獻整理 • 陳寅恪： 他將梵、巴、藏語視為**「偵探工具」**。他能利用語言的細微差別發現漢譯佛經的誤譯， 進而推翻某段歷史記載。   • 日本學者：  他們將多語言對勘**「標準化」**。日本學者如荻原雲來、河口慧海等人， 對梵、藏文獻的整理是全面性的，旨在還原整部經典的原始風貌，而不僅僅是為了解決某個歷史問題。   具體優劣對比表   陳寅恪 核心目標：解決中國中古史問題 主要貢獻：發現佛經對中國文學、史實的滲透 研究視野：民族、政治、文化交流史 侷限性：缺乏系統性的佛學理論著作   日本學術界（20世紀中期） 核心目標：建立佛教哲學與歷史體系 主要貢獻：完成《大正藏》編纂、系統化印佛史 研究視野：宗教學、文獻學、心理學 侷限性：早期部分研究帶有強烈的宗派成見。

 

 

NanZen Study Club in Chaozhou on March 28 2

 

The first question in our study club concerns a comparison between the meditative states of Master Taixu and Elder Master Xuyun.

 

I looked back at materials I had previously read. My perspective is usually more comprehensive, because “entering samadhi” does not occupy most of a practitioner’s time. What truly shapes a cultivator is often their personal experiences and the historical context in which they lived.

 

So I prefer to approach such questions from a broader perspective. Recently, I have also been wondering why I did not pursue research on Mr. Chen Yinke in the past.

 

Since the book club required an answer, I decided to look up relevant materials and prepare a response. When discussing meditative absorption, we should also examine the background of the practitioner. This may help us gain a deeper understanding.!

 

Master Banji

 

 

AI Data Mr. Chen Yinke’s study of Buddhism and the work of Japanese scholars like KōnanJunjirō, Ui Hakuju, and Suzuki Daisetsu can be described as “coming from the same source but going in different directions.” In the early 1900s, both were influenced by European Orientalist scholarship. They compared Buddhist texts in Sanskrit, Pāli, Tibetan, and Chinese. However, their main goals were quite different. 1. Different Goals • Chen Yinke: He did not focus much on Buddhist philosophy itself, such as nirvana or emptiness. He studied Buddhism mainly to solve problems in Chinese history. For example, he asked: How did a Buddhist story become a Chinese folk tale? What does a translation tell us about politics or ethnic groups at that time? • Japanese scholars: Japan had strong Buddhist traditions. Scholars like Ui Hakuju wanted to build Buddhism as a complete academic field. They studied Indian philosophy and Buddhist logic and tried to explain how Buddhist ideas developed over time. 2. Different Research Styles • Chen Yinke: He worked like a careful surgeon. He would start from one small detail—such as a translated word—and use it to uncover historical truth. He mostly wrote essays instead of large, systematic books. • Japanese scholars: They worked more like architects. They built large research systems. For example, they compiled the Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō, which became the standard modern edition of the Buddhist canon. Their work covered the whole history of Buddhism. 3. Different Use of Languages • Chen Yinke: He used Sanskrit, Pāli, and Tibetan as tools to check translations and correct historical mistakes. • Japanese scholars: They carefully organized and compared texts in different languages to restore the original form of entire scriptures. Comparison Table (Summary) Chen Yinke • Main goal: Solve problems in medieval Chinese history • Contribution: Showed how Buddhism influenced Chinese literature and history • Focus: Ethnic, political, and cultural exchange • Weakness: Did not build a full Buddhist philosophical system Japanese scholars (mid-20th century) • Main goal: Build a full system of Buddhist philosophy and history • Contribution: Compiled the Taishō Canon and systematized Indian Buddhist history • Focus: Religion, texts, philosophy • Weakness: Some early research was influenced by sectarian bias

 

 

讀書會問題1 Study Club Questions

 南禪28號潮州讀書會問題提問

 

來貼一些讀書會要說的內容做收假體操。

三月份的時候我有三個讀書會要開，

我回來才兩天，純德社長就把社團要討論的內容都準備好，傳給我了！

一大長串差點沒暈倒。

半寄

 

「南禪28號潮州讀書會讀書會問題提問

 

. 第一則回應（採不記名方式進行）

 

太虛大師的三次入定沒有固定模式（兩次在閱讀思考，一次在聽經），都發生在他領經（註：應為「年輕」）的時候，之後好像他就無法再進入定的狀態，請問師父，既然是偶發的，我們要如何能修定成功？

 

2. 第二則回應

 

太虛大師的入定與四禪八定的次第似乎沒有關係，請問師父，這是否意謂四禪八定的次第僅供參考，實務上，因人而異呢？

 

3. 第三則回應

 

虛雲老和尚的入定似乎能隨性意志進行，譬如在煮芋頭時，也是自主進入定的狀態，請問師父，虛雲老和尚與太虛大師的入定方式是否與修行方式有關？（一位是禪宗大師，一位是主張人間佛教）

 

這些問題主要在探討太虛大師與虛雲老和尚兩位佛教大師在「入定」經驗上的差異與修持法門。」

 

Questions for NanZen Study Club in Chaozhou on March 28 Nanchan 

 

I’m sharing some points here as a warm-up for our study club discussion.

 

In March, I will lead three reading groups. I had only been back for two days when President Chunde had already prepared all the discussion topics and sent them to me. The message was so long that it almost made me dizzy!

Master Banji

 

Study Club Questions

 

1. Question One

Master Taixu entered deep meditation three times. There was no fixed way it happened. Twice it happened while he was reading and thinking, and once while he was listening to a sutra. All of this happened when he was young. After that, he seemed unable to enter that state again.

 

Master, if such experiences happen only occasionally, how can we practice meditation successfully?

 

2. Question Two

Master Taixu’s meditation experiences do not seem to follow the traditional steps of the Four Dhyānas and Eight Samadhis.

 

Master, does this mean these steps are only general guidelines, and that in real practice it depends on each person?

 

3. Question Three

Venerable Xuyun seemed able to enter deep meditation whenever he wished. For example, he could even enter meditation while cooking taro.

 

Master, is the difference between Venerable Xuyun and Master Taixu related to the kind of practice each followed? (One was a Chan master, and the other promoted Humanistic Buddhism.)

 

These questions mainly discuss the differences between Master Taixu and Venerable Xuyun in their meditation experiences and ways of practice.

洪雅玲老師提問

 

洪雅玲老師提問：

太虛大師三次入定與思想

太虛大師在第一次入定中看到的「萬法唯識」，所有外界現都是心識的顯現。

以唯識學為骨架。

第二次入定時感受到的「身心與宇宙合一」。以真常唯心為本體。他強調「現實」不是冰冷的物質，而是充滿靈性與覺性的「真如」。這與印順法師單純講「空」不同，太虛大師更強調「不空的佛性」，這給了救世者極大的精神動力。第三次入定中體悟到的空性與悲心。

印順導師將太虛大師的思想正式歸納為以下三種

虛妄唯識（唯識）

真常唯心（如來藏）

性空唯名（中觀）

太虛大師之所以在《真現實論》中力保「真常唯心」，是因為他認為這最具「建設性」：

1. 肯定的力量： 如果只講「空」，一般人容易陷入虛無主義（既然都空，那努力幹嘛？）。講「真常」，是告訴你「你有佛性」，這能給人極大的自信。

2. 道德的根據： 因為每個人內心都有「真常」的佛性，所以每個人都有行善、覺悟的潛能。

3. 與中國文化契合： 中國儒家講「良知」，道家講「道」。太虛大師認為「真常唯心」最能與中國傳統文化接軌，讓佛教在中國發揚光大。

雖然「真常唯心」很美，但印順法師曾提出警告：如果過度強調一個「永恆不變的心」，這聽起來會不會很像印度教講的「梵我」（一個永恆的靈魂）？

這就是師徒兩人的主要論戰點：太虛大師認為這是佛陀慈悲的最高教法；印順法師則認為這只是為了吸引外道而說的「方便法」。

 

半寄回應：

我回查AI

「您看到的上面文字，並不是從《太虛大師傳》直接摘錄的原文，而是後人（或是某種佛學講義）將「太虛大師的禪定經驗」與「印順法師的教理批判」揉合在一起後的總結。

為什麼您在傳記沒看過？

1. 用語太現代： 傳記用的是民國初年的僧侶語言，這段文字用的是現代分析性語言。

2. 觀點的錯置： 傳記通常是站在大師的立場寫，不會主動去強調他被學生（印順法師）批評「像印度教梵我」的部分。

3. 系統化包裝： 將三次入定精確對應到三種思想，這是為了好記而做的「簡化」，並非大師本人的自述。」

 

雅玲回應：

了解。因爲我看了也覺得有點奇怪，為什麼三次入定會對應三種思想？我想還是要看太虛大師傳比較好。

謝謝師父。

 

Teacher Hong Yaling’s Question

 

Hong Yaling’s question

Master Taixu’s Three Experiences of Samadhi and His Thought

Master Taixu entered deep meditation three times. Later, people connected these three experiences with three different Buddhist ideas.

 

In his first experience of samadhi, Master Taixu realized that “all phenomena are consciousness-only”—everything is created by the mind.

This became the framework of his Yogācāra (Consciousness-Only) philosophy.

In his second samadhi, he experienced the unity of body, mind, and the universe. This reflects the idea of “True and Eternal Mind” (Tathāgatagarbha) as the ultimate reality. He emphasized that “reality” is not cold matter, but a spiritual and awakened “Suchness.” This differs from Master Yinshun’s emphasis on “śūnyatā.” Master Taixu stressed the “non- śūnyatā Buddha-nature,” which provided great spiritual motivation for those seeking to save the world.

In his third samadhi, he realized śūnyatā and great compassion.

Master Yinshun later organized Master Taixu’s thought into three systems:

1. Illusory Consciousness-Only (Yogācāra)

2. True and Eternal Mind (Tathāgatagarbha)

3. Śūnyatā in Name Only (Madhyamaka)

In The Theory of True Reality, Master Taixu strongly defended “True and Eternal Mind” because he believed it was the most constructive teaching:

1. Affirmative Power: If one speaks only of “emptiness,” ordinary people may fall into nihilism (“If everything is empty, why make an effort?”). Teaching “True Permanence” affirms that everyone possesses Buddha-nature, giving great confidence.

2. Moral Foundation: Since everyone has this true Buddha-nature, everyone has the potential to do good and attain awakening.

3. Cultural Compatibility: Confucianism speaks of “innate moral knowledge,” and Daoism speaks of the “Dao.” Master Taixu believed that “True and Eternal Mind” best connects Buddhism with traditional Chinese culture and helps it flourish in China.

 

However, Master Yinshun warned that if we talk too much about an eternal mind, it may sound like the Hindu idea of“Brahman-Atman” an eternal soul.

So their main difference was this:
Master Taixu saw it as the Buddha’s highest compassionate teaching.
Master Yinshun saw it as a teaching method used to guide non-Buddhists.

 

Banji’s Response

I checked with AI again.

“The text you saw above is not a direct quotation from The Biography of Master Taixu. Rather, it is a later summary that blends Master Taixu’s meditation experiences with Master Yinshun’s doctrinal critiques.

Why didn’t you see this in the biography?

1. The language is too modern. The biography uses early 20th-century monastic language, while this passage uses modern analytical terms.

2. The perspective is shifted. A biography usually presents the master’s viewpoint and would not emphasize criticism from a student comparing him to Hindu ‘Atman.’

3. It is systematized packaging. Matching the three samadhi experiences with three philosophical systems is a simplified structure for easy memory, not Master Taixu’s own description.”

 

Yaling’s Reply

I understand. When I read it, I also felt something was strange—why would three samadhi experiences correspond exactly to three philosophical systems? I think it’s better to read the actual biography of Master Taixu.

Thank you, Master.

雅玲老師提問

 

截圖文稿 洪雅玲: 我是用Gemini查得的資料，所以還是不能太相信AI 半寄: 是的 洪雅玲: 我剛在線上買了太虛大師傳的電子書。 半寄: 雅玲愈來愈用功 洪雅玲: 過年前看到AI的資料，一直感到很疑惑，也因為讀書會的關係，       驅使自己去看書。謝謝師父 半寄: 對啊，那些畢竟都是片段的資料，要看書才能理出一個頭緒）

雅玲老師提問的內容，

不管寫的對不對？

那些專有名詞我現在幾乎都不用。

再有時代背景也不一樣，那時候是處於第一、二次世界大戰之間的研究，

 

全世界的思想在創新與封閉（封建）之間，夾雜戰爭做混亂的交接探索。

 

如今我更用現代語去詮釋，這些佛法的專有名詞內容，個人覺得效果非常好。

 

太虛大師主張人間佛教，後來在印順導師的慈濟系統做得非常好，

但佛法畢竟有其修持境界的問題，

很多境界還是令修行者嚮往的！

在出世與入世之間要取得平衡，一樣有如登天關，

 

而不論佛法研究的如何絕妙，

如不能進入境界裡面實際的體悟一下，再好的佛法也索然無味！

 

入佛法的境界裡面受到滋潤以後，

才能從容、勇敢的應對，生老病死。

 

這種基礎功，不管再如何深入人間佛教，

修行境界一旦消失，佛法本身的支持力量就了無蹤跡，剩下的是人跟人之間的善意溫暖了！

 

半寄

 

Teacher Yaling’s Question

 

About Teacher Yaling’s question, no matter whether what was written is right or wrong, I rarely use those special Buddhist terms now.

The historical background was also very different. It was the time between World War I and World War II.

 

At that time, ideas around the world were moving between innovation and old feudal thinking, mixed with the confusion brought by war.

 

Now I explain these Buddhist ideas in modern language. Personally, I think this works very well.

 

Master Taixu advocated Humanistic Buddhism, and later this vision was carried out very successfully in Master Yinshun’s Tzu Chi system.

 

However, Buddhism ultimately involves levels of spiritual cultivation and realization. 

Many of these inner states are still deeply inspiring and attractive to practitioners.

 

Finding a balance between engagement with the world and transcendence of the world is like passing through a heavenly gate—it is not easy at all.

 

No matter how brilliant Buddhist scholarship may be, if one cannot personally enter into those spiritual states and experience them even briefly, then even the finest teachings will feel dry and lifeless.

 

Only after being nourished by direct experience of the Dharma can one calmly and courageously face birth, aging, illness, and death.

 

This kind of foundational practice is essential. No matter how deeply one engages in Humanistic Buddhism, once the actual experience of spiritual realization disappears, the inner supporting power of the Dharma also vanishes. What remains is simply the warmth of kindness between people.

 

Master Banji

 

Screenshot Transcript   Hong Yaling: I looked up the information using Gemini, so we still shouldn’t trust AI            too much. Banji: Yes.   Hong Yaling: I just bought the e-book biography of Master Taixu online. Banji: Yaling is becoming more and more diligent.   Hong Yaling:  Before the Lunar New Year, I saw some AI-generated information and felt very confused. Because of the reading group, I was motivated to start reading the book. Thank you, Master. Banji: Yes, after all, those were only fragmented pieces of information. You really need to read the book to sort things out.