讀書會問題回答2
問題2：
關於要脱離語言、文字的綁架！
是說：譬如1."我"這個字眼，加強了我對"我”的執著？
2.桌子的稱呼，強化了我對桌子的刻板印象，其實它的材料是木頭？我忘了它的因緣、本質？
半寄：
我用「我」的概念時就會對「我」產生執著是錯誤的。
要不然你要怎麼樣形容你所想要的事？
這也是很怪啊。
記得我年輕時去聽課，有人在講「無我」，他不斷提出「我」來做舉例。台下就有人說：
「他不是講無我嗎？為什麼一直講我？」
我聽了也覺得很奇怪，
心想，他不講「我」，你怎麼知道他要講「無我」？
可見我們都一直想越過了「我」的界線，
「我」這個媒介，就想直接跳到「無我」，
事實上根本不可能。
因為講了「有我」，就加強了對我的執著，事實上是錯誤的。
因為人不可能完全形而上學活著，
如果完全形而上學，你把自己這個肉體屏除掉，還有人嘛？
再來有主張，修行人應該去除自我中心，去除自我中心，不是等於把自己毀滅嗎？
你一定是靠著自我中心往上爬，爬到你有能力把自我甩掉，
也就是你往「無我」的境界越深，
才可以把「有我」這個概念，自然就脫落。
跟我講血緣的法性一樣，
它自然就會去感應，佛陀不需要去什麼忉利天。
但當修行者還沒有能力脫掉外衣的時候，
請問憑什麼說「無我」？
單純把它形而上學，
那形而上學你要抓空氣，不可能的？
而這都是在佛經的教育裡面，它陳義過高，你不要用桌子，我現在沒有這個桌子怎麼辦？
沒有東西用，
但是你去用它，你被它牽制，那是你的事喔。
當我們用肉體的時候，
健康的肉體很好用，
要動腦可以動腦，要動手可以動手。
但是你被這個好用牽制了，那也是我們自己的事。
所以，不要朝「有我」這個觀點去前進才對，
應該是說，你好好地利用「我」可以思考、我有大腦、我有能力去解析佛法、解析無我，往這條路去前進才對，
如把肉體拋捨掉，你要運用什麼？
如果你沒有功力。萬萬不能。
不要一直在字義上解脫，
字義上的解脫「無我」也只是文字而已。
應該是利用有我去把「無我」那一條線索修出來。
修出來以後，你那個線繩不需要了，攀繩的繩子不需要，你已經跳上去，
這個時候，「有我」跟「無我」，是你自己的事，因為你已經懂得怎麼用它了。
不可能因為理論上的「無我」就把「我」踢掉，這是教學上的錯誤。
重申一遍是教學上的錯誤。
不可能因為要認識木材，全部把桌子拆掉吧？
Responses to the Study Club Questions 2
Question 2: About “escaping the limits of language
When I talk about letting go of the limits that language places on us, I mean things like this:
(1) Using the word “I” makes my sense of self stronger;
(2) Calling something a “table” makes me see it only as a table, even though it is really just wood put together by certain causes and conditions. I forget its true nature.
Banji replies:
Using the word “I” does not automatically make our attachment stronger.
How can we explain anything we want to say if we never use the word “I” ?
I remember attending a lecture on “non-self.” The speaker kept using the example of “I,” and someone in the audience asked: “Isn’t he teaching non-self? Why does he keep saying ‘I’?”
I thought, “but if he didn’t say “I,” how would you even know he is trying to explain “non-self”?
We repeatedly cross the boundary of the word “I.”, and try to leap from “I” as a medium directly into non-self, which is unrealistic.
The belief that merely mentioning “I” reinforces self-attachment is, in fact, incorrect—because no human being can live in a purely metaphysical way.
If we remove the physical body entirely, what person remains?
Some people claim that practitioners should eliminate self-centeredness. But isn’t removing self-centeredness completely the same as destroying yourself?
We rely on this sense of self to grow—until we have enough strength to let it go.
As we move closer to non-self, the concept of “I” falls away naturally, just like the Dharma of bloodline affinity naturally resonates without the Buddha having to physically ascend to the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven.
But if a practitioner hasn’t reached that level yet, how can they talk about non-self in any real way?
Reducing everything to pure philosophy is like trying to grasp air—impossible.
These problems arise because Buddhist teachings sometimes set the standard too high. When the teachings say, “Don’t cling to the idea of a table,” but in real life, what do we do when we need a table? We still have to use it. If we get attached to it, that’s our own problem.
Our physical body is the same. A healthy body is extremely useful—we can think, act, and practice with it. But if we become trapped by its usefulness, that is our own issue.
So we should not move toward a view that denies the self. Instead, we should skillfully use the “I”—the thinking mind, the brain capable of understanding the Dharma and contemplating non-self. If we discard the body before we have the capacity to transcend it, what will we rely on?
Without the requisite power, it’s impossible.
Do not seek liberation merely through words. The “non-self” of textual interpretation is only a concept.
We use the sense of self to find the path toward non-self. Once we’ve climbed that path, we no longer need the rope. At that point, whether there is self or no-self doesn’t matter anymore—because we know how to work with both.
Do not throw away the self just because the theory of non-self. That is a teaching error—let me repeat, a teaching error.
We wouldn’t tear apart a table just to study wood. That would miss the point.
問題3： 請問：有關唯識第七識的末那。
半寄：
我直接講我的經驗可以嗎？
第七識，
那第七識就像我剛剛講的你已經到了那種很淡化的腦力了，這個時候我升起一個「有我」的觀點，我認為應該是有我才對，
因為我爬到這麼高了，也找不到無我。
這個時候我能夠在很及時的時候就抓到那個點，
不對啊，我是在追求無我，
為什麼到這個境界反而認為我追求的目標有問題？
那就是我功力紮得不深。
能及時抓到那個想法的時候，也就是大腦的思想，
那一刻可以轉變，那個叫轉識成智，
這樣清楚嗎？
問題4：
轉識成智，有大德講說要把八識轉成佛的四智，然後就是第七識末那... 末那識就要轉成就是平等性智。
其實這也是我之前在問說，那個平等跟分別到底差在哪裡？
半寄：
那是學院派的教法。佛法它到那爛陀大學成立，它有教學內容，它必須有教學內容，
很多佛經裡面是有學院派的問題，它必須羅列了很多專有名詞，那專有名詞為了什麼？為了教學。
譬如說你今天看一件事情，你已經有平等觀了，
那需要對號入座再去把那個專有名詞拿出來對號，應該不用吧！
自己該清楚，對別人的傲慢，跟之前比較一下，目前這個平等觀整體有提升嗎？
要證入四聖果的過程裡面，修行者的腦力必須經過激烈的震盪，激烈震盪就等於整個在「轉識成智」，這同等唯識學。
很多人疑問：既然佛陀講「四聖果」，為什麼後來的「唯識學」會被認為更高級？
唯識學看似「高明」，是因為它將佛法內容過度專有名詞化，並發展出龐大的教學體系。但這種專有名詞化，反而掩蓋了四聖果的實質內容。
結果，大眾誤以為四聖果不夠深度，必須修唯識學才算偉大。這是因為唯識學創造了大量專有名詞，並用華麗詞彙形容其智慧更廣大。
但實質上，並沒有更高明。
你必須抓著自己，而且很清楚的去判斷自己，這是一個修行者必須要做到的。
做到這一些，反而去比去討論那些唯識學的內容好。那些內容理論是因為當時候學校(印度那爛陀大學)除了打坐外，還必須要有教學的內容。
但是我們必須了解那些內容已可歸類成學院派的教理。
修道不同於物質世界的創造，有一個產品的產出。修道沒有可視的成品，而是個人內心世界的提升。至於內心世界有沒有提升，應該自己最清楚，不是別人。
Question 3: About the Seventh Consciousness (Manas) in Yogācāra
Banji replies:
Can I just explain it based on my own experience?
From my own practice, when the mind becomes very still, a thought of “I” may arise:
“I must still exist, because I’ve climbed this high and still haven’t found non-self.”
Yet I can immediately recognize the error and correct it:
“That can’t be right. I am pursuing non-self—so why am I now doubting the goal?”
This means my cultivation is not deep enough.
Catching and transforming that thought on the spot exemplifies turning consciousness into wisdom.
Question 4: About turning the eight consciousnesses into the four wisdoms
Someone says we should transform the eight consciousnesses into the Buddha’s four wisdoms. The seventh consciousness, manas, is transformed into the Wisdom of Equality. This connects to the question I asked before: What is the actual difference between equality and discrimination?
Banji replies:
This belongs to scholastic teaching. Once Buddhism was institutionalized at Nālandā, it required a formal curriculum, so many specialized terms were created for teaching. specialized terminology became necessary for instruction.
But if you already understand equality in your heart, you don’t need to label your experience with complicated Yogācāra terms.
Ask yourself: “Am I less arrogant than before? Is my sense of equality stronger?”
A practitioner knows these things inside.
The strong inner shifts that happen on the path to the four noble attainments are basically the same thing as Yogācāra’s “turning consciousness into wisdom.”
Many people wonder: Since the Buddha taught the Four Stages of Enlightenment, why is Yogācāra later regarded as more advanced?
Yogācāra appears “superior” only because it heavily specialized and systematized Buddhist teachings, creating an extensive framework filled with technical terminology. Yet this very specialization obscures the essential content of of the Four Stages of Enlightenment.
As a result, people mistakenly assume that the Four Stages of Enlightenment lack depth, and that true greatness lies in studying Yogācāra. This misconception arises because Yogācāra employs an extensive set of specialized terms and grand expressions that make it sound superior.
In reality, it is not.
A practitioner must firmly grasp themselves—clearly discern their own mind and state. Achieving this is far more valuable than discussing the theories of Yogācāra.Those theories emerged because institutions like Nālandā University needed academic material in addition to meditative practice. We should recognize that these teachings belong to the scholastic, academic branch of Buddhism.
Spiritual cultivation is not like producing a physical object. It yields no visible product. What is refined is one’s inner world. And the only person who can truly know whether that inner world has improved is oneself—not others.
