震驚Astonishment

震驚

我震驚地發現，自己從《雜阿含經》——這部早期佛教經典中所得到的修行體驗，竟然還未超出當時印度所記錄的一切範圍。
（當然，修行與思辨的內容，都必須經過慎重的選擇與取捨。）

要怎麼形容這種感受呢？
我驚訝-深深地、一次又一次地驚訝。

在早期佛教經典中，初果聖者（入流者）斷除了三種結縛，其中最核心的一項就是「疑」。

這意味著修行者不再懷疑佛法的真實性，因為他已經親自證見並直接體悟到因與果之間的相互關聯——這種境界稱為「法眼淨」（dhammacakkhu-visuddhi）。

當這種清楚的見解被運用來解開人生中的謎團與衝突時，其價值便無可估量。
世間沒有任何事比學會這一課更為重要。

在我看來，這樣的證悟遠比研究「真如」、「唯心」或「心性本淨」等抽象概念更加珍貴。

當一個人能親眼見到因果法則的運作及其內涵的意義時，
「唯心」與「唯識」又有什麼難以理解的呢？

無論人們如何讚頌佛法，或用多麼高貴的詞藻來描述它，

都比不上親身以佛法解決自身內在問題的力量。

當佛法真正被體證並運用於自我轉化之時，
一切語言上的讚嘆都不及那從心底自然湧出的真實讚嘆。

半寄

 

Astonishment

 

I was astonished to realize that everything I have gained in my practice from the Saṃyukta Āgama—the early Buddhist scriptures—has not yet gone beyond what was already recorded in India at that time.
(Of course, the content of both practice and dialectical reflection must be carefully chosen.)

 

How can I describe it? I am astonished—deeply and repeatedly astonished.

 

In the early Buddhist texts, the first stage of enlightenment—the Stream-enterer—transcends three fetters, among which “doubt” is central.

This means that the person no longer questions the truth of the Dharma, because he has personally realized and directly seen the interdependent relationship of cause and effect—a state known as the purification of the Dharma eye (dhammacakkhu-visuddhi).

 

When this kind of clear understanding is used to solve the puzzles and conflicts of human life, it becomes priceless.
Nothing in this world is more important than learning this lesson.

In my view, this realization is even more valuable than studying abstract ideas like tathatā (suchness), mind-only, or the originally pure mind-nature. 

Once one has seen the law of cause and effect with one’sown eyes and grasp its inner meaning, what difficulty remains in understanding “mind-only” or “consciousness-only”?

 

No matter how splendidly the Dharma is praised or how noble its terminology becomes,

nothing surpasses the power of using the Dharma to solveone’s own inner problems.

When the Dharma is realized and applied to transform oneself,
all verbal praise fades beside the sincere praise that naturally arises from within. 

 

Master Banji

印度思辯Indian Dialectics

 印度思辯

 

補充不執著的概念：

個人認為南、北傳佛法的認同似乎呈現定局狀態，事實上以印度人的習慣都應該還存在思辯的空間才是正確的。

 

然而辯論早已經沒落，不管是在印度或是其他流傳佛法的地區，那些已經被寫為經典的佛經不斷延用誦讀、供奉，專有名詞去解釋它，再無其他的可能性，

 

印度人善於思辯在原始教典或部派佛教時期都呈現豐富多元的思辯能力，早在佛陀的時代，他們的思想在達到高峰時期，很多問題都被提出來辯論過及問過佛陀本人。

而當時歐洲的思維模式在城邦的建立，倫理、邏輯架構。

印度跟歐洲都有邏輯的思考架構，但裡面的內容是截然不同的，

主因是：

一個想藉由佛法系統的實證-融合完整的理性架構及實際修行必有的精神境界而達到解脫，

一個注重哲學，致力於思慮與規劃人生，尤其強調實踐公德生活。

 

而這兩者我個人都興致高昂。

 

漢系佛法對「不執著」的觀念用的興高采烈，完全不覺其立足點根本不存在，

因為沒有通過辯論很多的所謂佛法已經是「單方面存在的問題」

沒有「雙方面性」的思辯過。

來看印度人自己的看法：

AI資料 「《好思辨的印度人》（The Argumentative Indian） 這本書是諾貝爾經濟學獎得主阿馬蒂亞．森（Amartya Sen）的文集，書名*本身就概括了其核心主題。   核心內容與主題： 這本書的主要內容是顛覆西方及世人對印度的刻板印象，強調印度文化中悠久且豐富的「論辯」和「理性思辨」傳統的重要性。   阿馬蒂亞．森主張，印度的偉大之處不僅在於其精神性、宗教性或靈修面向，更在於其對話、討論、理性爭辯以及包容異議的傳統，這些是印度文化乃至其民主制度的基石。   主要論述重點： 1. 辯論的傳統： • 本書貫穿的核心觀點是：辯論精神是印度歷史上一個強大且活躍的傳統。 • 他追溯至古代史詩《摩訶婆羅多》中充滿的激烈對話和不同觀點的交鋒，以及阿育王和蒙兀兒皇帝阿克巴等歷史人物對公共討論和理性對話的提倡。 2. 民主與世俗主義的根源： • 他認為，印度當代的民主制度和世俗主義並非完全是西方移植的產物，而是深深根植於印度社會內部長久以來就存在的多元觀點和討論的傳統。」

 

Indian Dialectics

 

Supplementing the Concept of Non-Attachment:

I think both Southern and Northern traditions of Buddhism have already become fixed in what they believe. But according to the Indian intellectual habit,there should still be space for open discussion and debate—that’s the right way to understand the Dharma.

 

Unfortunately, debate has long declined. In India and in other Buddhist countries, the scriptures that were once discussed are now simply recited and worshiped. People rely on special terms to explain them, and that leaves no room for further philosophical development. 

 

Indians were once very good at reasoning and debate. In the early Buddhist period, they showed strong and diverse ways of thinking. As early as the Buddha’s time, their thought had reached a high point—many issues were debated and even directly questioned to the Buddha himself.

 

At that same time, European thinkers were forming ideas through city-states, ethics, and logic. Both India and Europe had logical systems, but what they aimed for was very different.

• In India, people try to reach liberation by combining reason with real spiritual practice, forming a complete system of understanding and experience.

• In Europe, people focused more on philosophy and building a moral and responsible life.

Both traditions deeply inspire me.

 

In Chinese Buddhism, the idea of “non-attachment” is often praised, but few notice that its foundation is weak.Without dialectical testing, much of Buddhist thought has become one-sided—never having been examined through two-sided debate.

So, let’s take a look at how the Indians themselves understood it.

 

AI Data: The Argumentative Indian This book, The Argumentative Indian, is a collection of essays by Nobel Prize–winning economist Amartya Sen. Its title itself encapsulates the book’s central theme. Main Idea: Sen wants to challenge the common image that people in the West—and many others—have about India. He shows that Indian culture has a long and strong history of debate, reasoning, and open discussion. Sen believes that India’s greatness is not only about religion or spirituality. It also comes from the Indian habit of talking, questioning, debating, and accepting different opinions. These qualities are the base of both Indian culture and Indian democracy. Main Points: 1. The Tradition of Debate o Sen says that debate and discussion have always been important in India’s history. o He gives examples from the ancient Mahābhārata, which is full of different opinions and lively discussions, and from leaders like Emperor Aśoka and Emperor Akbar, who both encouraged public reasoning and fair dialogue. 2. The Roots of Democracy and Secularism o Sen explains that India’s democracy and secularism did not come only from Western influence. o They are deeply connected to India’s own long tradition of many voices, open discussion, and respect for difference.

 

Master Banji    



關於修行這堂課On the Lesson of Spiritual Practice

 關於修行這堂課

 

昨天提到泰國叢林派的修行者，瑞典讀者就多了起來，

《我可能錯了：森林智者的最後一堂人生課》 (I May Be Wrong: And Other Wisdoms from Life as a Forest Monk)。

 

這本書的主要作者是

• 比約恩．納提科．林德布勞 (Björn NatthikoLindeblad)

 

這本書據説是瑞典的暢銷書籍，我也是看了這本書以後驚覺到佛法的傳播已經超乎想像的離譜，

 

本來台灣人吸收的佛法我都懶得理，哈，看到這本書以後覺得忍耐不下去了，

 

好端端的佛法被傳播到這麼簡單，歐洲有很多對佛法想了解的讀者，也都覺得這「守著一個念頭」的說法是不能想像的簡單論述，

 

昨天文章一播出就覺得歐洲讀者很激動，歐洲有很多的漢學家跟許多人們在從事佛法的修行探索，

 

不管是歐洲或是美國，有些人們他本來就是清教徒的觀念，

（AI資料 清教徒人格特質：

• 指涉對象： 指那些生活非常儉樸、嚴肅、自律的人。

• 重點特質： 強調克制慾望、勤奮工作、道德嚴謹，以及對享樂持否定態度。）

 

清教徒在他們的本質上是很優質的，

• 比約恩．納提科．林德布勞 (Björn NatthikoLindeblad)在修行裡面的用功與誠意也值得讚許，

只是這可能跟中國的修行者一樣，很用功於他們自己的修行與菩薩道，但是對於佛法這一區域的理解也薄弱的可以。

 

希望我的文章對你們是有些幫助的。

 

半寄

 

 

On the Lesson of Spiritual Practice

Yesterday’s mention of Thailand’s Forest Tradition unexpectedly drew a wave of Swedish readers. The book I May Be Wrong: And Other Wisdoms from Life as a Forest Monk by Björn Natthiko Lindeblad is said to be a bestseller in Sweden.

Reading it made me realize how astonishingly simplified Buddhism has become in its Western transmission.

I used to ignore the popular interpretations of Buddhism in Taiwan, but after reading this book, I found it difficult to stay silent.

The original depth of the Dharma has been reduced to something overly simple. Many European readers genuinely believe that the phrase “holding on to one thought” fully expresses Buddhist practice—an idea that is far too simplistic.

After my article yesterday, I could sense the excitement among European readers. There are indeed many sinologists and sincere practitioners in Europe and America exploring Buddhism.

However, many of them come from a Puritanbackground.

AI Data: Puritan Personality Traits ● Who they are: People who live simply and seriously, with strong self-discipline. ● Key traits: They try to control their desires, work hard, live by strict morals, and usually avoid pleasure or luxury.

Puritans are admirable in their essence.
Björn Natthiko Lindeblad’s dedication and sincerity in practice deserve respect.
Yet, like many Chinese practitioners, though they work hard in their own cultivation and on the Bodhisattva path, their grasp of the Dharma remains rather limited.

I hope my thoughts can offer you some insight.

Master Banji

 

問題回答2 Question and Reflection 2

 問題回答2

 

把下面這兩種佛法證入「初果」解釋都貼出來，我個人是依據原始教典的記載「四聖果」內容才大大的跨步往前走，

 

北傳佛法不斷地強調不執著，但是不執著與個人修行範圍必須去做出判別，這裡面的衝突是很大的！

有心佛法修行的大德，必須細細去思辨這個問題。

 

假如，你覺得「不執著」的說法是最殊勝的、最貼切的，那你就用它吧！

 

我個人沒有意見，也不想再多做出解釋，畢竟大家都有著一定的教育程度，這是很容易做判別的。

（這兩天我在私下的佛法討論上提過這一個點，

關於北傳佛法「不執著」的說法，這種不執著的陳述，既抓不著重點，

當然也找不出錯誤，更無展開著力可言。

這對有心修行的修行者殺傷力太強，根本就是不利的。）

 

 半寄

 

（以下AI資料加我的修改） 「預流果（初果）在《金剛經》中的內容   「須菩提！於意云何？須陀洹能作是念：『我得須陀洹果』不？」 須菩提言：「不也，世尊！何以故？須陀洹名為入流，而無所入；不入色、聲、香、味、觸、法，是名須陀洹。」   • AI解釋： 「預流果的聖者雖然斷除了見惑，開始見到真理，但他之所以是預流果，是因為他心不執著於這六塵境界，也就是心無所住。如果他執著於「我已經證得預流果了」，那他就又落入了我執和法執，就不是真正的預流果了。」   《阿含經原始教典》的初果證果標準：斷「三結」 凡夫證得初果「須陀洹」的標誌是斷除見惑（知見上的煩惱），也就是斷盡「三結」： 三結內容 身見：見解上的我執。不再執著於五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）是「我」或「我所」（我的）。 戒禁取見：執著於不正確的戒律或儀式。不再迷信於非因非道（不是解脫的真正原因和道路）的苦行或儀式能帶來解脫。 疑：對四聖諦的懷疑。及對佛陀教法因緣果、以及四聖諦（苦、集、滅、道）開始清楚的掌握。」

 

Question and Reflection 2

 

Here are both explanations concerning the realization of “First Stage of Enlightenment.”
In my own case,it was through studying the Four Stages of Enlightenment recorded in the early Buddhist scriptures that I made a great leap forward in my own practice.

 

In Northern Buddhism, people often stress the idea of “not being attached.”
Yet, in actual practice, it is essential to distinguish how “non-attachment” relates to the actual scope of one’s personal practice—these can sometimes conflict with each other.

Anyone serious about learning the Dharma should think about this carefully.

 

If you feel that “non-attachment” is the best and most fitting way to understand the path, then follow it.
I have no objection and see no need for further explanation.
After all, we are all fairly-educated to make our own judgment.

 

(During recent private discussions on the Dharma, I raised the issue of how Northern Buddhism often speaks of “non-attachment.”

This notion, while seemingly flawless, fails to grasp the essential point or to offer foundation for deeper insight or progress.
For earnest practitioners, such ambiguity can be deeply harmful and ultimately detrimental to spiritual progress. )

 

 

Master Banji

 

Understanding Stream-entry (the First Stages of Enlightenment) in the Diamond Sūtra (AI-based explanation refined by the author) From the Diamond Sūtra: “Subhūti, what do you think? Does a Stream-enterer ever think, ‘I have attained the fruit of Stream-entry’?” Subhūti said, “No, World-Honored One. Why not? The term ‘Stream-enterer’ refers to one who has entered the stream, yet there is no stream to enter. He does not enter into form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharma. Therefore, he is called a Stream-enterer.”   AI Explanation (revised): A Stream-enterer has already let go of wrong views and begun to see the truth. He is called a Stream-enterer because his mind does not cling to sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, or thoughts. If he thinks, “I have achieved Stream-entry,” then he becomes attached again—to the idea of “I” and to the “Dharma.” That means he has not truly entered the stream.   In the early Buddhist texts (Āgamas), the sign of reaching this first stage is cutting off the three fetters—the wrong views that keep ordinary people trapped. The three fetters are: 1. Self-view: The belief that the five parts of a person (form, feeling, perception, action, and consciousness) are “me” or “mine.” 2. Attachment to rules and rituals: Believing that certain outward actions or ceremonies alone can lead to freedom. 3. Doubt: Uncertainty regarding the Four Noble Truths. One who attains the first stage of enlightenment begins to clearly comprehend the Buddha’s teaching on dependent origination and the Four Noble Truths: suffering, its cause, its end, and the path leading to its end.

 

問題回答1 Question and Reflection

 問題回答1

 

昨天有居士提問關於色聲香味觸的問題。

 

回答：

「味（rasa），指舌識所緣的對象，即一切味覺。

分為甘、苦、酸、辣、鹹、淡等食物的滋味。（AI資料）」

 

以上的說法在佛教列歸為修行範圍，自己可以慢慢做很深刻的體會，食物在你的嘴巴產生的味道、知覺你要如何判別它？

 

你真的可以都沒有味覺嗎？

 

除非你自己把飲食「物化掉」，

物化，例如；擺在眼前的飯、茶及其他食物都是用看的而不去食用它，

不用食用就沒有味道的問題產生。

 

我個人認為對於佛法有興趣的大德，必須動腦去慢慢思考你所接受的佛法思想到底該怎麼引用，及其可行性的高低度。

 

曾經印度有一個教派主張只吃樹上掉落的果實，如果你伸手去摘果實或是摘了蔬菜都被視為殺生，

我以為這個主張已經在印度絕跡，但它卻流傳的很好，

根據我看過的影片，英國曾經流行過這個教派，有一次我還把它截圖到南禪

line群組。

 

再來泰國的叢林派主張跟佛陀一樣不要穿鞋，寧願赤腳走路天天盯著腳下四周有沒有毒蛇或是玻璃、鐵釘之類的，而他們認為這才是真正的修行？

 

問題是佛陀那個時代有鞋子可以穿嗎？

 

我對佛法的認識除了看書、思維，還有我在吃東西的時候，會一直想我怎麼可能對它沒有知與味覺？

我要天天跟食物打仗嗎？這一仗到底要維持多久？

 

把這些問題都想過了，再來提出問題吧！

半寄

 

Question and Reflection1

 

Yesterday, a lay practitioner asked about form, sound, smell, taste, and touch.

Answer:
“Rasa (taste) refers to the object perceived by the tongue consciousness — all experiences of flavor,
including sweet, bitter, sour, spicy, salty, and plain. (AI data)”

 

This explanation falls within the scope of Buddhist practice. One must explore it inwardly and understand it through experience.
When you taste food, how do you discern its flavor?

Can you truly live without any sense of taste?

 

Unless you deliberately “objectify” food —

for example, treating the rice, tea, and other dishes in front of you as mere objects to look at without eating them —

then there would be no issue of taste arising.

 

Personally, I believe that those genuinely interested in the Dharma must think carefully about how the Buddhist ideas they receive can actually be applied, and to what extent they are practical.

 

Once, there was a religious sect in India that insisted on eating only fruit that had fallen naturally from trees.

To pluck fruit or harvest vegetables was considered an act of killing.

I once thought such a sect had disappeared, but to my surprise, it continues to exist.

According to a video I watched, it even found followers in Britain — I once shared a screenshot of that in the NanZen LINE group.

 

Likewise, in Thailand, the Forest Tradition teaches monks to go barefoot like the Buddha, walking carefully each day to avoid snakes, glass, or nails — believing that such hardship is true spiritual practice.

 

But the question is: did the Buddha even have shoes to wear in his time? (Refer to the screenshot below)

 

My own understanding of Buddhism comes not only from reading and reflection, but also from daily experience — even while eating, I keep wondering:

How could I possibly have no awareness or perception of taste?

Am I supposed to be fighting with my food every day? And how long must that struggle go on?

 

Think through these questions first — and then raise new ones.

Master Banji

 

Screenshot (ChatGPT) Data In the Buddha’s era (circa 5th century BCE), most people in India — especially commoners and monastics — usually went barefoot. Wearing shoes was a privilege reserved for a limited and distinct segment of society.