2025年12月9日 星期二

匯流3 Convergence 3

 匯流3

 

讀者如果想要多了解入定的情況,可以想像人體脫離地心引力的感受,最直接的感覺就是重力的脫離。

修行者從可以入定開始,不管其程度深淺,一定會感受到身體的感覺轉輕,這就是初禪天裡面形容的「輕安」。

 

入定,我曾經描述過,這是一種肉體的熱量燃燒降到最低點,這種感覺不會是抽象的,反而是具體的,肉體的熱量轉到低點,也是肉體重力的轉折點,

但轉折點的出現,能不能具有優勢的再往前行

,是修行者自身的資質(糧)問題。

 

(拙著,《佛法最終的實現》書描述了四禪八定)

 

還有一點可以確認,人體脫離重力的牽制時,時間跟空間的感受這時才真正出現,佛陀說的:過去、現在、未來也在這個時候比較可以具體的體會。

 

以我個人而言,記憶中,20年前我曾經跟俊得居士抱怨說:

每次開車都好像新手上路,會覺得很陌生,俊得斬釘截鐵地說不可能,他最喜歡開車的速度感,這是他認為不可能發生的事。

 

而我的生活裡面大部分是靜態的,

開車是有事才會出門,靜態裡面很專注,一下子跑到馬路車水馬龍,總感覺是在兩個世界裡面做轉換,


在20年前,處於這些點牽制的我,都很努力的甩開靜與動的不平衡,

因為我個人很清楚動中的型態,有動中型態的收穫,

 

很多事你不親處於現場,是沒有辦法理解的,反而常處於定態對我是不具吸引力的。

舉個例子:有人在電話中跟我說他的腳力不行,我只能理解幾分,等看到人才知道腳傷嚴重!

還好,我沒對我的理解抱不加予證實的心態,

否則,只喜歡處於自己的境界,等看到事實的時候會受到嚴重的打擊。

 

再者,學問的思想體系養成也是需要閱讀的,不是靠定力就可以懂得,


也可以說:學問是很多人群的精英者腦力激盪且歷經時空的淬煉而集成,

個體也是在他人的智慧匯集裡,養成自己智慧的。

當然,定力有加分效果,但定力與腦力都會給予個人牽制,這是必須清楚的。

半寄

 

Convergence 3

 

If readers want to know what deep meditation(Samadhi)feels like, they can imagine the feeling of the body suddenly becoming free from gravity. The clearest feeling is that their body no longer feels heavy.
As soon as someone enters meditation—no matter how deep—he will always feel his body becoming lighter.This light feeling is what the first dhyāna calls "light ease."

 

I have previously explained Samadhi as a state where the body’s heat dropping to a very low level. This is a real physical feeling, not something vague. When the body cools, the practitioner also reaches a turning point where his sense of gravity changes. However, whether the practitioner can use this change to keep moving forward depends on his own ability and “inner resources.”

 

(Refer to the section on the Four Dhyanas and Eight Samādhis in my book Ultimate Realization in Buddhism.)

 

Another point is certain: when the body is free from gravitational pull, the real sense of time and space begins to appear. Only then can one tangibly sense the past, present, and future, as the Buddha taught.

 

Personally, I remember that 20 years ago I told Layman Junde that every time I drove, I felt like a novice on the road, as if everything was unfamiliar. Junde immediately rejected this idea; he loved driving and the feeling of speed, so he saw my experience as impossible.

 

Most of my daily life is quiet and still. I only drive when I need to. Jumping from stillness into busy traffic felt like switching between two different worlds. Back then, I tried hard to overcome the imbalance between stillness and movement, because I knew that movement has its own value.

 

Some things can only be understood when you experience them directly. Remaining constantly in meditative stillness does not appeal to me. For example, if someone tells me over the phone that their leg strength is weak, I can only grasp it partially; only when I see them in person do I realize how serious the injury is.Fortunately, I do not cling to my limited understanding; otherwise, living in my own mental world would leave me shocked by reality.

 

Moreover, intellectual understanding also requires study; it cannot be gained through meditation alone. Knowledge comes from many wise people sharing ideas and refining them over long periods of time. Each individual grows wiser by learning from others. Meditation can enhance this process, but both concentration and thinking have their limits. This must be understood clearly.

 

Master Banji

 

2025年12月8日 星期一

匯流1-2 Convergence1-2

 匯流1

 

台南讀書會成員,讀書會上各自談了一些自己在佛法的所得,

其個人所理解的佛法陳述,彷彿是一場大豐收,

 

嘉瑜說:潮州南禪精舍讀書會關於《唯識學》錄音檔,她重複聽了好幾遍。

她自己思緒很亂,就乾脆讓她自己的大腦一直想,一邊做家事時,也一邊想,想的內容導入我們討論的佛法,沒想到可以達到連做夢都自覺,而且可以關機,結束夢境!

 

淑青說:讀到太空人上太空後回地球的落寞,想想從月球到地球的感受,來回之間已改變之前的認知。

半寄入大定也是這種狀況,佛教的修行者入定後的身心狀況得到改變,大都更不願再去面對事實,導致所說語言產生嚴重隔閡,無從解讀。

 

重德:準備了《維摩詰經》的段落,

提到生病的問題,認為生病都是由於顛倒妄想執著而起。

半寄:導致生病的原因多到數不清,

後代佛法會特別強調,屬於顛倒妄想產生的心理疾病,要用佛法去治療它,

 

但這是一個大篇幅論述的問題,不是用「此病起,皆由著我,是故我不應生著,既知病本,既除我想及眾生想,當起法想。」

 

用一個思維做反思;如何不執著,要放下左手或右手或者是大腦?

 

惠宜與純德都提及面對工作上的困難,用問題產生的原因去做理解,反而讓她/他們在工作上勝任。

 

基金會執行長芳純說:

她學習心理學也帶給她某種程度的成長
,經過一段時間,她發覺心理學到了一個瓶頸,這個時候她吸收到佛學,
她個人覺得無常跟無我的概念,讓她個人突破了障礙點,

至今,她在學習變動性的可能下,覺得路越走越寬。


雅惠、秀容、百秀、郁媚各自陳述了自己的體會,感謝2025年大家的參與,願2026年更上層樓。

半寄




 

Convergence1

 

During the NanZen Tainan Study Club, members shared their individual understandings of the Dharma, creating a sense of collective fruition.

 

Jiayu described re-listening many times to recordings of Yogācāra studies from the NanZen Chaozhou Study Club.

Letting her mind run freely—even during housework—she integrated our discussions into her reflections. Surprisingly, she developed lucid dreaming and could even “shut off” a dream at will.

 

Shuqing related astronauts’ feelings of solitude upon returning to Earth and imagined how the shift between the Moon and Earth alters one’s perception.

Master Banji responded:

Deep meditative absorption brings comparable changes. After such experiences, many practitioners resist returning to everyday reality, creating communication gaps that make their speech hard to decipher.

 

Zhongde read from the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, discussing how illness is said to arise from confused and mistaken thinking.

Master Banji emphasized:

Illness has countless causes. Later Buddhist teachings note that psychological afflictions rooted in delusive thinking should be addressed through the Dharma. 

But this is a complex topic, not something solved by simply reflecting:

“Since this illness comes from attachment to self, one should let go of self and others and establish the view of Dharma.”

 

The real question is: What does it mean to let go?

Which hand do we release—the left, the right, or the mind itself?

 

Huiyi and Chunde said that analyzing the causes of workplace problems helped them perform better in their jobs.


CEO of our Foundation Fangchun said that learning psychology helped her grow. After some time, however, she realized she had reached a bottleneck in psychology. At that point, she encountered Buddhist teachings. She feels that the concepts of impermanence and non-self helped her break through her obstacles. To this day, as she continues learning amid constant change, she finds her path becoming broader and broader.


Ya-Hui along with Baixiu, and Yumei, shared their insights and expressed gratitude for 2025 and hopes for improvement in 2026.

 

Master Banji

 


匯流2

 

純德社長分享他還沒有到南禪精舍之前是信仰藏密的,做完10萬遍大禮拜、幾萬遍的咒語持誦,

還是沒解決他自己的問題,

後來南禪精舍,聽我講解因緣法後,應用在職場上,終於解決了他自己的困難。

 

我個人運用龍樹菩薩「八不-空」的觀點,整個從陌生、毫無頭緒,到可以稍微運用,直至貫徹「只破不立」的立場,也受益良多。

半寄

 

Convergence II

 

President Chunde said that before joining NanZen Vihara, he practiced Tibetan Buddhism. Despite completing 100,000 prostrations and tens of thousands of mantra recitations, his issues persisted.

After learning the principle of dependent origination at NanZen Vihara and applying it at work, he finally resolved them.

 

I myself have benefited from applying Nāgārjuna’sdoctrine of the “Eight Negations—Śūnyatā.”

From unfamiliarity, I gradually learned to use it and eventually adopted the approach of “deconstructing without constructing,” which has been deeply transformative.

 

Master Banji

 

 

2025年12月7日 星期日

龍樹《迴諍論》心要分享 Key Insights from Nāgārjuna’s Vigrahavyāvartanī:


龍樹《迴諍論》心要分享

 

大家好!

純德社長今天在台南讀書會分享個人心得內容,我們提供參考。

 

今天開心參加台南讀書會受益良多吃的又好

以下提供我今天分享的廻諍論的一些重點請各位師兄師姐指教:

 

龍樹《迴諍論》心要分享:語言的功能與對「量」的批判

龍樹菩薩的諍論回應印度正理學派等實在論者對「一切法皆空」核心教義的質疑,從語言與知識論的基礎動搖其執著,揭示中道智慧。

分享聚焦二大核心:(一)「空」的語言如何言說真理?(二)知識基礎「量」如何被徹底解構?這兩千年前的辯論,幫助我們更加理解中觀思想

 

(一) 核心論:空性語言如何言說?

實在論者主張「名實相應」:名稱須對應真實自性,無體無名。原文詰難:「諸法若無體,無體不得名,有自體有名,唯名云何名。」既然萬法有名,即證其有自性。

 

他們進一步挑戰中觀:「若一切無體,言語是一切,言語自無體,何能遮彼體?」即:語言若空,如何否定他法實有?這如用影子移石,邏輯致命。

 

龍樹的論辯依「緣起性空」承認語言無自性,正因無自性而能在世俗約定中,指涉與溝通。為證「空」物仍有作用,他用幻化喻破執

 

化喻如「化人於化人幻人於幻人」——幻人可破另一幻人。語言雖空,在世俗諦中,卻能幫助我們破除「實有」執著。這譬喻在現代更可延伸:

 

人工智慧AI乃人造之模型,無自性,卻能依算法與數據緣起,回答複雜問題、模擬對話,甚至引導人類思辨,證明「空」現象在世俗層面生真實作用。

 

龍樹承認語言無自性,但不妨礙其功能性。由此,轉向知識基石「量」。

 

(二) 破除基礎:對「量論」的二層批判

 

當時印度哲學視「量」為絕對可靠的知識基礎,猶如現代「基礎主義知識論」。正理學派提出四種量:

 

現量(感官直覺)、比量(邏輯推理)、譬喻量(比喻與類比)、聖言量(聖典或可靠言說見證)。龍樹從緣起視角,層層破解正理派的「量」論:

 

1.自證與他證的困境:龍樹詰問「量」能自證還是他證?論敵回說都可以

自證批判:若主張量自證其可靠性,明顯與事實不合,正如火不能自照(火需照他物,方顯光亮),暗不能自覆(黑暗需掩他物,方顯遮蔽),尺不能自量。量的作用是指向他物而不是自身,當然不能自證。

他證批判:若依他量證明,則他量又需另一個他量來證明,知識體系陷永無止境後退,如無首骨牌,無一知識可絕對成立。

 

2.量與所量的相依性:「量」如果依賴「所量」來成立 而「所量」又要依賴「量」來成立,則陷入關係錯亂之困境,到底是父生子還是子生父?龍樹提出量(能知)與所量(所知)非獨立,乃相互依存對待,從此角度來理解父子關係乃互依就非常合理。

 

雙重批判指向:正理派的實有之量在「自證他證」與「量與所量」皆站不住腳中觀的空性之量 才能幫助我們認識這個世界。

 

總結:

針對論敵的挑戰語言與量若空,豈陷絕境?龍樹以「二」為我們完美論述:

若不依締, 不得證真諦, 若不證真諦, 不得涅槃證。

世俗:世間人與人之溝通,語言與量為必要舟

勝義:超越言說,一切法無自性,空乃是而是中道實相,破除一切執著。

 

 

Key Insights from Nāgārjuna’s Vigrahavyāvartanī:

 

Greetings, friends of NanZen!

 

President Chunde presented his personal insights at today’s Tainan Study Club. We are providing them here for your reference.

 

Hello everyone!

Today I was delighted to join the Tainan Study Club—great learning and great food! Here are the main points from my sharing on Nāgārjuna’s Vigrahavyāvartanī,offered for your reference and further guidance.

 

Nāgārjuna’s Vigrahavyāvartanī responds to the realist schools of classical India—including the Nyāya tradition—who questioned the Mahāyāna doctrine that “all dharmas are śūnyatā.” Nāgārjuna dismantles their assumptions beginning from language and epistemology, revealing the wisdom of the Middle Way.

My sharing focused on two core themes:

(I) How does the language of " śūnyatā " articulate truth? (II) Why “valid knowledge” (pramāṇainot absolute? These debates from 2,000 years ago still illuminate Madhyamaka thought today.

(I) How does the language of " śūnyatā " articulate truth? 

The Realists believed in "Name-Reality Match": a name must point to something real and independent (svabhāva). 

They argued, giving a difficult challenge to the Madhyamaka school: 

● If things aren't real, they can't be named. 
● Since everything has a name, it must be real."

And if language itself is śūnyatā, how can it deny that things are real? That would be like trying to push a rock with a shadow.

 

Nāgārjuna answers with the idea of Dependent Origination and Śūnyatā:

All things arise from causes and conditions, and therefore, language has no fixed essence. But because it has no fixed essence, language can still work through shared conventions. To prove that " śūnyatā" things still have a function, he used a famous example:To show that “śūnyatā” things still function, he uses the example of illusions:

Illusion Example: An illusory person can defeat another illusory person.
In the same way, even though language is śūnyatā, it can still help us overcome our mistaken belief that things truly exist on their own. 
Today, we can see a similar idea through AI:

AI is man-made and has no fixed nature of its own. It exists because of algorithms, data, and many conditions coming together. Yet it can answer questions, hold conversations, and help people think. This shows that something that is śūnyatā can still be very effective in everyday life.

Nāgārjuna therefore says: language is śūnyatā, but it still works. With this, he turns to the question of how we know things, or pramāṇa.

(IIDismantling the Foundation: Why “valid knowledge” (pramāṇa) is not absolute? Nāgārjuna’sTwo-Layer Critique of Pramāṇa Theory

In classical Indian philosophy, pramāṇa was regarded as the absolutely reliable basis of knowledge—similar to modern foundationalism. The Nyāya school described four kinds of pramāṇa:1.DirecPerception 2. Inference3.Analogy /Comparison 4.Testimony (authoritative or reliable speech)  

Nāgārjuna challenges Nyāya’s theory of pramāṇa with the idea of Dependent Origination.

1. The Problem of Proving Reliability (Self vs. Other Proof): Nāgārjuna asked: Can a pramāṇa prove itself or must another prove it? The opponent claims: “Both are possible.”
● Against Self-ProofIf it proves itself, that makes no sense:
Fire doesn’t light itself—its light appears only when it shines on something else.
Darkness doesn’t hide itself—it hides other things.
A ruler cannot measure itself.
● Against Other-Proof: If one Pramāṇa is proven by another, that second one must be proven by a third, and so on. This creates an infinite regress (a chain with no starting point). Like dominoes without a first tile, no piece of knowledge can be absolutely certain.
2. The Mutual Dependence of Knowing and the Known: If the Pramāṇa (the means of knowing)depends on the Prameya (the things being known), and the Prameya depends on the pramāṇa, we get a contradiction:
Which comes first—the father or the son? Nāgārjunaexplains: neither exists independently. Knowing and the known arise together in mutual dependence, just as a father and son exist only in relation to each other.

This dual attack shows that the Realists' idea of knowledge, which assumes real, independent existence, fails both the test of "Self/Other Proof" and the test of "Knowing/ the Known Reliance." Only the Madhyamaka's " śūnyatā " view of knowledge can properly explain how we know the world.

Conclusion: Two Levels of Truth

What if language and knowledge are śūnyatā? Does that mean nothing is true? Nāgārjuna provided the perfect answer through his doctrine of The Two Truths:

If you don't use the conventional truth, you cannot realize the ultimate truth. If you don't realize the ultimate truth, you cannot achieve Nirvāṇa (freedom).

• Conventional Truth (Saṃvṛti-satya): In our daily lives, language and Pramāṇa are necessary tools (like a raft) for communication and understanding.
• Ultimate Truth (Paramārtha-satya): This truth is beyond words. It is the reality that all things lack independent existence (śūnyatā). This is the Middle Way, which destroys all forms of attachment.