前世今生2Past lives, present life2

前世今生2

Past lives, present life 2

修習佛法，個人總認為藉由佛法的智慧，看透自己不是單獨的個體，進而在複雜的人際脈絡裡，找到自己的立足點，這比去追尋飄渺虛無的前世更加有意義。

許多可以直接觸摸的佛法，一旦被帶往看不見的世界做著墨，徒增修行者無謂的疲憊感。一件事情藉由佛法弄清楚該怎麼辦才是最好的，實地去做，一旦衝開個人的極限，將感受到生命成長的喜悅，每一次對的著力點，步步在劃開前途，這種個人心靈的茁壯，應該是千金不換的。

修行志在追求對佛法的清楚與實踐，自己前世是誰！除了修行者本身有能力解開生命的枷鎖以外，一般人連立足點都無著落之際，探索前世也只是讓自己對時空更加錯亂而已！

個人很慶幸在年輕時候，紮下一些清楚的觀念，足以抵擋昏暗言論的襲擊，不在錯誤的信息裡窮打轉。

One thing I’ve learned from my study and practice of Buddhism is that we are not unitary individuals, but rather multifaceted beings. Add to this the complexity of interpersonal relationships and the task of figuring out your fundamental view of life, and it’s all much more meaningful and interesting than trying to figure out who we might have been in a past life.    

There’s so much in Buddhism that is directly accessible in the here and now that there’s not much point in groping around for things that we can’t directly experience; doing so is an exercise in futility. The best approach is to use the teachings of Buddhism to make things clear so that we can deal with them in an effective manner. Whenever we come up against our limitations, we should be pleased to have an opportunity to become more mature; every time we make some effort in a skillful way, we go a bit further on the path. This kind of spiritual growth is priceless! When you are sincere in your intention to understand the Dharma and put it into practice, you won’t take any interest in who you might have been in a previous life. Sure there are some highly advanced individuals who can recollect their past lives, but for most people there are much more pressing issues to be dealt with, in which case trying to figure out who you might have been in a past life only exacerbates your confusion. In my own case, I was lucky enough to have understood this clearly when I was still young, so I didn’t get involved 

with dubious or heterodox teachings.

 

王國維‧《浣溪沙》

山寺微茫背夕曛，鳥飛不到半山昏，

上方孤磬定行雲。

 

試上高峰窺皓月，偶開天眼覷紅塵，

可憐身是眼中人。

Wang Guowei, “Sands of the Washing Stream”

Mountain temple, hazy silhouette in the fading dusk behind; flying birds’ shadows disappear halfway up the darkening slopes; above, a solitary chime pins down the moving clouds.

Let me mount the summit, to gaze upon the moon so bright; the divine eye---let it open that I may see the red dust; alas, it is only me I see.

 

年輕時這首《浣溪沙》常伴著苦思佛法的自己，一心拼命的想解開眼前的障礙，哪裡會想到前世！哈哈！

This was the poem I frequently recited in my youth, while struggling to wrap may brain around some abstruse Buddhist doctrine. So when your full attention is occupied with solving the conundrums that are right in front of you, the question of past lives doesn’t even come up!

Master Ban Ji

  Translated by Ken Kraynak

 

 

前世今生1Past lives, present life1

前世今生1

Past lives, present life 1

         有人說：為什麼有些人會知道自己過去的生命是誰？（也就是上輩子）但仔細聽內容，大都會說自己的上輩子跟皇室有關係！哈

真要提到前世的話，如果只是身份問題倒是好解決！如果提到跟身份有關的恩怨時，上輩子就變得複雜了！人們總期望自己的過去是完美的，或下輩子是完美的，但人活在跟人相處的世界裡，其中演變的人生，恐怕是比上輩子是誰還重要的，人跟人的緣分至少是由一個家族開展出來，不是一個人的問題，透過通婚讓緣分的展現更加複雜，人生光是這樣的歷程，今生想釐清楚都有困難，更何況是前生！

Someone asked why it is that some remember their past lives. As I see it, it would be better to ask why in most of their past lives they were members of the imperial family! Ha!

Now, the real significance of our past lives is not so much who we were, but rather the emotional tones associated with them, which adds another layer of complexity. We naturally hope that our past lives were ideal, and the same goes for our future lives. Yet what’s more important is one’s current life, embedded as it is in a web of relationships formed as we interact with others. The family in which one is born is the primary stage in which these relationships get played out, with relationships through marriage adding another layer of complexity. So when it’s already hard enough to clearly understand the relationships of the present life, it’ll be even harder to make sense of our past lives!

 

       一個修行者透過今生努力的修持，也未必可以化解生活中人與人的歧異，例如；達賴喇嘛的流亡奮鬥，也是一世無法解決的事情。一世的事就複雜的可以，上輩子的事，真的只是自己身份問題嗎！？

果真許多人都是皇室家族再來重生，皇室已滅，真看到自己是皇室成員時，該當如何！？

佛法講的世界很廣大，有些世界肉眼看不到，人們容易在看不到的世界賦予想像，如果用今生的經驗反推，看不見的世界也不會太神秘的。

半寄

Even someone who’s devoted his entire life to Buddhist Practice may not be able to solve certain difficulties he has with others. Take, for example, the Dalai Lama; he’s spent most of his life in exile, and there’s not much chance that he will ever return to Tibet. When the affairs of the present life are already so complex, how could simply knowing who you were in a past life be of much use? Lots of people who claim to remember their past lives say they belonged to the imperial family in a previous incarnation, but seeing that the imperial family is no more, how should one feel about having been a member of it?

Buddhism speaks of various worlds that can’t be experienced with the normal sense faculties, and it’s easy for us to project our own imaginations onto these unseen worlds. However, if we use our experience of this world to extrapolate about these unseen worlds, they will seem less mysterious.

 Master Ban Ji

Translated by Ken Kraynak

 

 

Correct interpretation and Misinterpretation of Non-attachment

Correct interpretation and Misinterpretation of Non-attachment

People nowadays talk all the time about non-attachment. After investigating it, it is supposed to be a term used to make Buddhist teaching more easily comprehensible.

In practicing The 4 Noble Truths (suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation), the level of non-attachment is supposed to be located between ‘its cessation’ and ‘the path to its cessation’, which is Nirvana. Since everything in human world is totally irrelevant to a nearly-enlightened saint, it is obviously not necessary for him to attach or let go.

However, the teaching of non-attachment evolves into a daily expression and a sanctuary commanding others to follow, where a person who adheres appears to be ordinary. No one wants to become vulgar.

Apart from a catch phrase, a throwaway remark of non-attachment /letting go is self-contradictory since worldly people can not live without adhering or shouldering.  This teaching deserves deeply examining.

So does Buddhist Practice. But for adherence to examining the right path to Buddhism, how can a practitioner know if he advances?

I adhere to examining the idea I accept, and especially, the path I step on while striving to let go of what I was attached to. What a joy when having let go of the past! Therefore, the wise know clearly that adhering is indispensable.

Master Ban Ji
translation. Grace Tsai

不執著的正義與反義 Correct interpretation and Misinterpretation of Non-attachment

the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.)

(原貼在2019.07.05)

 

不執著的正義與反義 Non-Attachment: Its True Meaning and Misinterpretation

 

時下人們常掛在嘴邊的不執著，真正去了解不執著的內容，「那應該是佛法教學上面為讓大家易於明白，而採用的詞語。」在苦，集，滅，道四聖諦的修道裡面，如果可以放入不執著的境界，應該是在「滅」而要進入「道」的境界，也就是要涅槃了，所以人世間的一切跟一個要證入涅槃的聖者，不再相干，當然也無須執著與放下。

只是，這不執著的教學方法，怎變成了日常用語，跟要求別人要這樣做的殿堂，彷彿執著了就只是凡夫俗子，而大家都害怕自己是俗人！？

掛在嘴邊的不執著，除了只是口頭禪以外，隨便說出的不執著、放下，如同常常在打自己的嘴巴，因為一般人不執著與不挑著，將如何生存！？這要思慮一下！

就是修行也一樣，不執意於佛法的道路究竟對不對，將如何知道自己是否有前進了！？

我時時都執著於檢視自己接受的想法對嗎？更執著於自己的腳步踏在何方！同時也努力讓自己能放下已經走過的執留，真能放下以往，又是如何欣喜啊！

所以，聰明的人們應該很清楚執著是必要的！

半寄

People often talk about non-attachment, but to truly understand it, we must recognize that it is a teaching tool in Buddhism, meant to simplify complex ideas. 

 

In the Four Noble Truths, i.e. suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation, if non-attachment applies, it belongs to “cessation” leading to the path, meaning one is approaching nirvana. At that stage, worldly matters no longer concern the enlightened one—there is no need to cling, nor even to let go. 

 

Yet, how did this Buddhist teaching become a casual phrase in daily life, even a demand imposed on others? It’s as if having attachments makes one an ordinary person—and people fear being seen as ordinary! 

 

When non-attachment becomes just a meaningless slogan, telling people to simply "let go" contradicts itself—because in reality, how can one survive without holding onto anything? This deserves deep examining! 

 

Even in spiritual practice, if one has no commitment to the Buddhist path, how can they know if they are progressing? 

 

I constantly hold on to examining my own thoughts and ensuring my steps are on the right path. At the same time, I strive to let go of what I no longer need—what a joy it is to truly move forward! 

 

Therefore, the wise know clearly that attachment is necessary.

Master Ban Ji

 

接受是修行也可以是毒藥Acceptance as a virtue and as a drug

接受是修行也可以是毒藥

Acceptance as a virtue and as a drug

日前跟一位女士聊天，她說：佛教的辯經這兩個字她聽起來很刺耳，《經》為什麼要辯呢？

我說：那叫做《因明學》，也就是把不懂的人事物透過辯論去理解，當然也包括經典。

她很生氣的說：她只能接受就是接受，不能還要辯論。

我說：比方:我口吃，天生身體有缺陷，在佛法而言，都可以透過辯論問問為什麼我跟別人長得不一樣！？

她說：就是接受啊！

這位女士一生應該都是幸福的！

A few days ago I was chatting with a laywoman, and she said that the whole idea of debating the scriptures strikes her as quite odd and of dubious value.

I explained that Buddhism has a long tradition of logic and debate, and that it’s used to refine and verify our understanding of important matters, including the meaning of the scriptures.

She wasn’t very happy with my explanation, and said that even though she might have to accept the role of debate in Buddhism, she has no intention of engaging in it herself.

I replied, “Suppose I have a congenital stammer. In the Buddhist approach, we could use debate to inquire into how it came about that I’m different from others in this respect.”

She reiterated, “Enough already; I accept it!”

I suppose she is the type of person who never has any problems!

Buddhism, she has no intention of engaging in it herself.

I replied, “Suppose I have a congenital stammer. In the Buddhist approach, we could use debate to inquire into how it came about that I’m different from others in this respect.”

She reiterated, “Enough already; I accept it!”

I suppose she is the type of person who never has any problems!

Master Ban Ji

 Translated by Ken Kraynak

 

失落的地平線

失落的地平線

       昨天中午1點來了1位近20年不見的不速之客，還帶另一位居士前來，被打擾的我沒生氣，還問他們吃飯沒！怕沒吃飯不能喝茶，有喜歡喝什麼茶？
       不料他帶來的居士反問我，我們喝茶都不挑了，師父還挑茶喝！……（我差點回答說：昨晚媽祖託夢給我，要我這樣問的，佛陀請原諒我！哈哈！很後悔把禪杖丟掉。）
         我經常要面對跟我說：他們已經什麼事都不執著的人們，說完不執著後，馬上問我，師父我現在的苦惱該怎麼辦？
但我從沒反問，你們不是不執著了！？
台灣的宗教教育錯亂的可以。
      這兩天才知道，最近流行人家跟你說什麼話，不要辯，就接受，然後心就會靜下來。那如果開口回應，就成罪人！？
半寄

南禪朋友大家好

南禪朋友大家好
要看讀書會錄影檔的朋友，請上YouTube查詢「南禪精舍」從「慧解脫」開始看。
YouTube裡面的錄影檔比較多。
謝謝！半寄上

佛陀，孔子，老子Buddha, Confucius, Laozi

佛陀，孔子，老子

Buddha, Confucius, Laozi

經常在一些有關佛法講說場合，會聽到所謂佛，儒，道（老莊）最後都是歸到「道」的範圍！每次聽到這樣的言論都會想

要大笑！

如果孔子還在人間，去問他老人家您讚成佛法的修行嗎？他老

一定說：那是什麼理論？太消極。同樣的話問問佛陀，佛陀一

定說：世間苦處，當修行得大解脫！所以，我永遠聽不懂什麼

是儒，道，釋的道路是殊途同歸的！（個人相信真正想走道路

的人，在不同的三條道路奔走，其結果是還沒到達終點，就已

經累死了！）

我向來尊重各種學問的存在，也由衷佩服各家學問講學成脈絡

過程的辛苦，但說各家學說都是相通的，聽了實在是消化不良！

我只懂佛法！而且絕不敢輕易的說也可融合別人的學問

In discussions relating to Buddhism, I’ve repeatedly heard it said that

 the three main religions of China---Buddhism, Confucianism, and

 Daoism---are not very different, and that the former two should be

 seen as arising out of the latter. This strikes me as rather ludicrous!

If Confucius were still alive and you asked him what he thought of

 

 Buddhism, he would surely reply, “What sort of a doctrine is that?

 

 It’s much too negative and pessimistic.” And if you asked the

 

 Buddha what he thought about Confucianism and Daoism, he would

 

 surely admonish you with words such as, “The world is the abode of

 

 suffering; liberate yourself from it by practicing with diligence.”

So I’ve never really understood why people say that these three

 religions are a way of reaching the same goal by different means. As

 I see it, if you try to walk three paths at the same time, you’ll just

 tire yourself out without getting anywhere!        

I’ve always had a lot of respect for various philosophies, and I

 sincerely appreciate all the hard work that has gone into

 systematizing them into a coherent school of thought, but to say that

 they are all saying the same thing is ridiculous.

I only know Buddhism, and I would never think of trying to combine

 it with other systems of thought.

 

在老子的《道德經》裡面，充滿了比喻；例如：「上善若水」

觀察到水是萬物所需，進而讚嘆水的功德。

然而，這其間我始終不能明白，水若惡時，當如何！？

直到閱讀黑格爾的哲學書時，黑格爾直接點明老莊哲學是屬於

「經驗理論」，從德國人的判讀裡面，似乎得到理解。經驗會

隨著事物的轉變而改變當事人的看法，所以，當相反的經驗出

現時，會對原來的經驗產生不知所以的無奈或措手不及。

原來自己經歷的事物也需要時間的考驗。

這麼不同的觀點，如何讓佛，儒，道融合！？

關於佛陀的說法，請參考YouTube裡面半寄「四聖果」的講解。

Laozi’s Daodejing (The Classic of the Way and its Power) is full of

 metaphors and analogies. For example, he writes, “Supreme

 goodness is like water,” which could mean that goodness, like water,

 is something that is required by all living things; or it could be a way

 of praising the virtues of water. The problem for me is that I’ve

 never been able to really imagine what evil water would be like!

Then I read something quite interesting by Heidegger. He describes

 Daoist philosophy as a kind of empiricism, and this seems to fit wel

l into the German way of thinking about such things. When we

 experience things changing, it changes our view of things, and if it

 happens that that view is contradicted by subsequent experience, we

 have a hard time making good sense of it.

So you could say that our experience has to stand the test of time.

Seeing that the perspectives of Buddhism, Confucianism, and

 Daoism are so divergent, how could they possibly be integrated into

 a single coherent system of thought?

For more on the Buddhist way of explaining things, see my talk on

 YouTube titled “The Four Noble Results.”

 

回應

在我所傳達的佛法裡面，找出個人的衝突點，去促使自己內心

層次的進步，也是佛法學習裡面的一大挑戰！

PostscriptIn Buddhism, especially the way I teach it, one of the

 biggest challenges is to discover what you’re having difficulty with,

 and then using that as a springboard for increasing your depth of

 self-understanding.

Master Ban Ji

  Translated by Ken Kraynak

 

 

 

Not Coming, Not Going

Not Coming, Not Going

Here is a joke. When I try to compare ‘a few seconds’ to the popular term ‘This Instant’, my mind, being trained by Buddhist practice,

keeps shutting down. Since my brain has investigated and calculated

the existence of ‘a few seconds’, it does not know how to apply

‘This Instant’. Readers may feel confused by now.

Let me clarify it in the following example. Say seeing and

comprehending what happened take only a few seconds. When

trying to describe ‘a few seconds’ with ‘This Instant’, I question

myself right away, ‘Were it not for “a few seconds”, what would be

the percentage of “This Instant” in “a few seconds”?’  Ha! And then I

find myself too stupid to adopt this popular term because I realize

that it is about gathering of ‘a few seconds’, instead of about ‘This Instant’

Mūlamadhyamakakārikā’s ‘Not Coming, Not Going’, about time and

movement, analyzes issues of time staying. After analyzing it

critically, I am aware what minutes and seconds are like and will

follow and execute my recognition automatically. That is, my

recognition of minutes and seconds goes beyond this popular term,

stops me from adopting it, and thus I become too stupid to keep up

with the trends.

The bygone is gone,

‘This Instant’ is not staying,

The coming is not coming yet.

The three points above clarify Buddhist viewpoints of ‘not coming,

not going’, which is one of the essence of Śūnyatā. I keep observing

how time affects me and find myself having shaken a lot off and also

advanced a lot unconsciously along the way.

Ban Ji
Translated by Grace Tsai

不來不去Neither Coming Nor Going

不來不去

說個笑話，我曾嚐試用「幾秒間」跟時下流行用語「當下」做比較。

結果，自己受過佛法訓練的大腦一直當機，因為已經接受過「幾秒」到底能不能存在的訓練，「幾秒」的存在都計較過，所以不知道「當下」是怎麼使出來的？哈！看的人一定一頭霧水！

舉個例子：就算只用眼睛看一件事情，應該會有「幾秒」的時間存在，如果事情用「當下」形容的話，就會自己問自己，剛看那些事明明就是「幾秒」的時間，「當下」到底是幾秒之幾？哈！然後覺得自己真是癡呆！明明就只是個流行用語，自己用起來就是不能接受，因為自己明明感受到是「秒」的匯聚而不是「當下」！

《中觀論》有個「不來不去」的時間跟運動的概念，會分析到時間駐留的問題，很認真分析後，會去執行分、秒在自己身體的感覺，所以就癡呆的不會流行了！哈！

去者已去

當下不住

來者未來

這三個點，訴說佛法「不來不去」！更是空的精神之一。

金剛經裡面有「過去心，現在心，未來心皆不可得」，或許也可以跟「不來不去」做個參考。

我常觀察時間對自己的影響力，不知不覺遺落很多，也前進很多。

（大家好：這些屬於空的寫出都只是介紹性質的文章，想了解更多的大德們，可以參閱印順導師著作《中觀論頌講記》一書）

Neither Coming Nor Going

Here is a joke. I once tried to compare the

phrase “a few seconds” with the popular expression “the present moment.” 

The result? My Buddhist-trained mind

completely froze. I had already undergone rigorous training on whether “a few seconds” could even exist—analyzing the very existence of seconds themselves. So, how was I supposed to understand *the present moment*? Ha! Anyone watching me think this through would be totally confused! 

For example, even when simply looking at

something, there must be “a few seconds” involved. But if we describe the experience as happening “in the present moment,” I immediately start questioning myself: “Wait, what I just saw clearly took“a few seconds”—so exactly how many fractions of a second count as ‘the present moment’?” Ha! And then I realize how ridiculous I’m being. It’s just a trendy phrase, yet my brain refuses to accept it because, to me, it feels like a collection of seconds rather than a single, undefined ‘moment’! 

Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

discusses the concept of “neither coming nor going” in relation to time and movement. If one analyzes it deeply, it leads to an examination of how time *remains*—eventually making someone overly aware of the seconds and minutes within their own body. That’s how I ended up too “dazed” to keep up with modern slang! Ha! 

 The past is

gone, 

The present does not remain, 

 The future has not yet arrived. 

These three points illustrate the Buddhist concept of “neither coming nor going,” which is also a key aspect of śūnyatā. 

Similarly, the Diamond Sutra states: 

 “The past mind is unattainable, 

 The present mind is unattainable, 

the future mind is unattainable.” 

Perhaps this can also be considered alongside the idea of “neither coming nor going.” 

I often reflect on how time influences

me—losing much along the way, yet moving forward as well. 

(For those interested, these writings are

just introductory thoughts on śūnyatā. If you’d like to explore further, I recommend Master YinShun’s A Commentary on the Verses of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.)

 

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1

A lot of misunderstandings of Śūnyatā are being transmitted and the most common one is ‘Śūnyatā is nothingness.’ According to it, all is void, and therefore there is no point seeking fame and fortune or clinging to anything.

Another beautiful misunderstanding is ‘Śūnyatā is a kind of emptiness which includes all.’

Nagarjuna advocated "Everything is based on Nidānas, that I said is Śūnyatā." Nidānas are conditions and dependencies (that needs to be satisfied for existence of something). For example, air, food and water are the main dependencies for existence of one’s life.

However, it is not appropriate to apply ‘Śūnyatā is emptiness including all’ to including soil, a dependency for food, in dependencies for life.

Soil is another dependency in our life. The satisfying of necessary dependencies stimulates assembling and then arouse a phenomenon. Śūnyatā serves as the assembling factor of concrete solids/dependencies.

Therefore, to break up solid hindrance and misunderstanding, like a rigid way of thinking, and thus to empirically understand Śūnyatā are what Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's "Not unity, not plurality" trying to advocate. And they are also the true essence of Śūnyatā.

Ban Ji

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 2

Śūnyatā is transmitted as ‘giving all up’ in many occasions. But few doubt it. If it is true, how could Buddhist followers balance the pressures of nothingness and life?

I was told a folktale about travel that the Buddhist texts in Thailand were flooded when crossing a river and the print became blurry. Therefore they were interpreted variously with different individuals. After hearing this, I was nervous and enquired the taleteller right away if he was talking about novels like The Journey to The West or The legend and The hero? No one dare to say that true Buddhist texts can be interpreted at personal will. What if they are misinterpreted, how can they be practiced? Buddhist texts are the rigorous theories and practice methods from Buddha and his pupils. If they can be interpreted variously with different individuals, how can later Buddhist followers settle down and get on with their practice?

Besides, what is the value of Śūnyatā if it is void and giving up all?

Or if ‘Śūnyatā includes all’, what is it trying to convey? Nonobstruction among individual phenomena? It doesn’t seem to exist in the world. (It does in Utopia)

However, if Śūnyatā is about "No-unity, no differentiation", it makes a huge difference. I myself am not only one but also Śūnyatā. Because I am the assembly of all the conditions. Who is the self if any of the conditions being missed?

Those who have studied Chinese and Western philosophy will be marveled once they understand Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's "Not unity, not plurality".

Not merely theories, Buddhist teachings can be applied to practice. Therefore, theories and practical practice can advance simultaneously in reality. Those Buddhist teachings failing to be practiced are just absurd personal interpretations.

Ban Ji

Śūnyatā and Inclusion3

Buddhist theoreticians have done lots of specialized interpretations of Śūnyatā. I focus on the practical part of Śūnyatā and use it for self-practice. I find it interesting to disassemble myself with ‘concepts of conditions’.

I often consider conditions/elements of Yin (Cause) and Yuán (Conditions) when dealing with personnel matters and problems of things. When conditions are not complete, I strive to make up the deficiency. And while conditions disappear, I practice accepting it. Wandering back and forth between them, I demand myself to accept Śūnyatā of the gathering and disappearing of conditions. And the path progresses between gathering and disappearing of conditions.

Note: I have dedicated myself to reading ‘simple and dynamic’ koans from Chinese Zen recently. Swapping suddenly into writing such complex articles about Śūnyatā are virtually torturing myself. One should treat himself fine when he is old. (Laugh, laugh.)

  Master Ban Ji
  Translated by Grace Tsai
   Proofread by Sophiea Kuo

 

 

空與包容 1-3 Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1-3

空與包容 1

 

空法的傳達裡面充滿誤會，最常見的是「空是無」，也就是什麼都是空的，所以不要追逐名利與執著！

 

再來是對空的美好誤解，「空是一種無所不包的虛空」！

 

龍樹菩薩說：「因緣所生法，我說即是空」。因緣是條件的意思，人需要空氣，食物與水的主要條件生存，不能因為講空而認為泥土也是食物的條件（包容）。

 

例如；蔬菜已經變成食物的時候，不能因為講「空」

就把泥土=食物做一個等號，

就好像他們認為空=虛空，無所不包，

一旦用了空就是一路用到底，這是很奇怪的論點。

 

泥土是生活裡面另一種條件，條件相容便是激發與和合的作用，而固體與固體可以和合是「空」的作用。

 

破解固體的阻力與誤解，包括大腦固定的認知，進而達到對「空」的體會與認識，就是龍樹菩薩《中觀論》的「不一不異」理論，也是空的精神之一。

 

Śūnyatā and Inclusion 1

 

There are many misunderstandings about the concept of śūnyatā (emptiness). The most common one is equating śūnyatā with nothingness—believing that since everything is empty, one should abandon all pursuits of fame, wealth, and attachments.  

 

Another common misconception is the idea that śūnyatā is an all—encompassing void that contains everything.  

 

Nāgārjuna said, "Everything is based on Nidānas, that I said is Śūnyatā." Conditions refer to the necessary factors for existence. For example, humans need air, food, and water to survive. But just because we speak of śūnyatā, it does not mean that soil is also a necessary condition for food (inclusiveness).  

 

For example, once vegetables have become food, you can't say that soil is the same as food just because of the idea of " śūnyatā."

This is similar to those who interpret śūnyatā as boundless void or space encompassing everything. 

Once they adopt the idea of śūnyatā, they apply it to everything without limits, which is a strange way of thinking.

 

Soil plays another role in life—it is a different condition. The compatibility of conditions allows for interaction and harmony. The fact that solid objects can merge or combine is a function of śūnyatā.  

 

Breaking through the resistance and fixed perceptions of the mind helps one understand and experience emptiness. This aligns with Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) and its principle of “neither unity nor diversity,” which embodies the essence of śūnyatā.  

 

Master Banji

 

空與包容  2 Śūnyatā and Inclusion 2

 

許多有關佛法「空」的傳遞裡面，「空」是放棄一切的說法。果真如此，那追隨佛法的人們又將如何

在「無與生活」的壓力間平衡？！這些說法很少人會提出質疑？

我曾經聽過旅遊的民間故事，傳說泰國的佛經因為載運過河道被水淹過，字跡模糊了，所以佛法就變成個人的解釋！我聽這段故事大為緊張，連忙問說的人；請問：你在說西遊記或封神榜嗎？那是小說耶！

真實的佛教裡面，沒有人敢說佛經可以隨便解釋！因為說錯跟聽錯了要如何修行？佛教有佛陀丶追隨的弟子及嚴謹的修行理論與方法，如果是個人的解釋，將讓修學佛法的大德們，何處安身心？！

 

同樣的，空法如果只是放棄的意思，那「空」有何價值？！

空法如果是包容太虛的解釋，又想說明什麼？事事無礙嗎？人世間似乎沒有事事無礙（這是理想國）！

 

但空法如果是「不一不異」，就大大的不同。

「我是一、也是空，因為是條件下的我，但離開條件的自己又是誰？」

相信讀過中、西哲學的人，如果讀通《中觀論》「不一不異」的思想，會大大禮讚的！

 

佛法不是理論而已，佛法可以修持出來，所以，理論跟現實是同等的延伸，不能延伸的佛法才是隨人。解釋的荒謬。

Many interpretations of *śūnyatā* claim that it means giving up everything. But if that were true, how could Buddhist practitioners balance the pressures of life and so-called nothingness? Surprisingly, few people question this view. 

 

I once heard a folk tale about Buddhist scriptures in Thailand. The story goes that they were transported across a river, got soaked, and the ink blurred—so from then on, Buddhism became open to personal interpretation! 

 

Hearing this, I was alarmed and quickly asked the storyteller, “Are you talking about Journey to the West or The Investiture of the Gods? Those are novels!” 

 

In real Buddhism, no one dares to say that scriptures can be interpreted however one likes. If both teachers and listeners misunderstand the teachings, how can true practice be achieved? Buddhism is a philosophy with rigorous theories and practice methods from Buddha and his pupils. If everything were left to personal interpretation, how could devoted practitioners find peace and guidance? 

 

Similarly, if śūnyatā only meant abandonment, what value would it have? 

And if it were merely an all-inclusive void, what exactly would it explain? That everything is without obstacles? But in reality, nothing is completely free of obstacles—this is an idealized fantasy. 

 

However, if śūnyatā is understood as “neither unity nor different,” then it takes on a completely different meaning. 

“I am myself, and yet I am empty—because I exist under specific conditions. But without those conditions, who am I?” 

Anyone familiar with both Eastern and Western philosophy would deeply appreciate Nāgārjuna’s principle of “neither unity nor diversity” after reading the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. 

 

Buddhism is not just theory—it is something that can be practiced and realized. True Buddhist teachings extend seamlessly from philosophy into real life. Buddhist teachings that cannot be applied is merely an absurd misinterpretation.

 

 

空與包容 3 Śūnyatā and Inclusion3

 

關於「空」的解釋，佛教的論師學派做了很多專精的詮釋，而我個人偏重於跟自身修行有關的「空」，用「條件的概念」拆解自己，相當有趣！

 

我自己做人與做事常常去思考著「因緣的條件」，條件不足盡力補足條件散去，盡力接受常常要求自己接受因緣聚散的「空」

 

路在聚散間不斷演繹！

（最近浸在禪宗「簡單的行動公案」裡，又寫這種複雜的「空」論，簡直在虐待自己的大腦！人老了要對善待自己，哈哈！）

半寄

Buddhist scholars have provided many specialized interpretations of śūnyatā. Personally, I focus on its relevance to my own practice—using the concept of “conditions” to deconstruct the self. It’s quite fascinating! 

Master Ban Ji

 

In both life and work, I often reflect on the Yin (Cause) and Yuán (Conditions). When conditions are lacking, I do my best to fulfill them. When they disperse, I strive to accept it. I constantly remind myself to embrace the arising and passing of conditions—this is *śūnyatā*. 

 

The path continuously unfolds through these cycles of gathering and dispersing! 

(Lately, I’ve been immersed in Zen’s “simple action koans,” yet here I am writing about the complex philosophy of śūnyatā. It feels like I’m torturing my own brain! One should be kinder to himself as he grows old.—haha!)