Saturday, March 2, 2024

Pramana (量)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana

Pramana (Sanskrit: प्रमाण, Pramāṇa) literally means "proof" and "means of knowledge".[1][2] In Indian philosophies, pramana are the means which can lead to knowledge, and serve as one of the core concepts in Indian epistemology. It has been one of the key, much debated fields of study in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism since ancient times. It is a theory of knowledge, and encompasses one or more reliable and valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge.[2] The focus of pramana is how correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows, how one does not know, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.[3][4]

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E9%87%8F_(%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99)

量(梵語:प्रमाण,pramāṇas),古印度知識論術語,意指正確的認知,或正確的知識來源。在印度教與佛教中都有使用,用於哲學辯論場合;佛教中為因明學的一部份;印度教中有《量經》(Pramāṇa Sūtra)。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramanavarttika

The Pramāṇavārttika (Brahmi: 𑀧𑁆𑀭𑀫𑀸𑀡𑀯𑀸𑀭𑁆𑀢𑁆𑀢𑀺𑀓, Commentary on Valid Cognition; Tib. tshad ma rnam 'grel) is an influential Buddhist text on pramana (valid instruments of knowledge, epistemic criteria), a form of Indian epistemology. The Pramāṇavārttika is the magnum opus of the Indian Buddhist Dharmakirti (floruit 6-7th centuries).[1][2

這件事說明,知識論是硬貨,本體論是玄學,前者唯識,後者中觀,兩者命格不同,

Five skandhas (五蘊)(五陰)

https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Five_skandhas

Five skandhas (S. pañca skandha; P. pañca khandha; T. phung po lnga, ཕུང་པོ་ལྔ་), or five heaps or five aggregates, are five psycho-physical aggregates, which according to Buddhist philosophy are the basis for self-grasping. They are:

  1. rupa-skandha - aggregate of form
  2. vedana-skandha - aggregate of sensations
  3. saṃjñā-skandha - aggregate of recognition, labels or ideas
  4. saṃskāra-skandha - aggregate of volitional formations (desires, wishes and tendencies)
  5. vijñāna-skandha - aggregate of consciousness

The five skandhas are essentially a method for understanding that every aspect of our lives is a collection of constantly changing experiences. There is no one aspect that is truly solid, permanent or unique. Everything is in flux. Everything is dependent upon multiple causes and conditions.

Śāntarakṣita (寂護)(725-788)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C4%81ntarak%E1%B9%A3ita

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E5%AF%82%E8%AD%B7

綜論中觀唯識,而成一說,這是了不得的成就,

Śāntarakṣita (Sanskrit: शान्तरक्षित; Tibetan: ཞི་བ་འཚོ, Wylie: zhi ba tsho,[3] 725–788),[4]whose name translates into English as "protected by the One who is at peace"[5] was an important and influential Indian Buddhist philosopher, particularly for the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.[6] Śāntarakṣita was a philosopher of the Madhyamaka school who studied at Nalanda monastery under Jñānagarbha, and became the founder of Samye, the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet.

Śāntarakṣita defended a synthetic philosophy which combined Madhyamaka, Yogācāraand the logico-epistemology of Dharmakirti (法稱)(fl. c. 6th or 7th century)into a novel Madhyamaka philosophical system.[6] This philosophical approach is known as Yogācāra-Mādhyamika or Yogācāra-Svatantrika-Mādhyamika in Tibetan Buddhism.[7][6] Unlike other Madhyamaka philosophers, Śāntarakṣita accepted Yogācāra doctrines like mind-only (cittamatra) and self-reflective awareness (svasamvedana), but only on the level of conventional truth.[8][9] According to James Blumenthal, this synthesis is the final major development in Indian Buddhist philosophy before the disappearance of Buddhism from India (c. 12-13th centuries).[9]


And in the 8th century the Indian master Śāntarakṣita and his disciple Kamalaśīla set out to create a synthesis of both systems known as Yogācāra-Madhyamaka (rnal ‘byor spyod pa’i dbu ma pa). 

… The soteriological structure set out in these verses is very clear. First the practitioner has to establish by Yogācāra arguments that external physical objects (that is, objects belonging to the first of the five physicopsychological components, the rūpa-skandha) do not exist. The resulting system reduces all existents to the merely mental, and, more particularly, to the foundational consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). As a second step one has then to apply Madhyamaka arguments to this foundation in order to demonstrate that it, too, fails to exist by intrinsic nature (svabhāvatas). The realization of the Mahāyāna is therefore not obtained by choosing between two contradictory philosophical systems, but by applying the arguments of each in its proper place. (Madhyamaka and Yogaˉcaˉra: Allies or Rivals? Edited by JAY L. GARFIELD AND JAN WESTERHOFF, 2016, pp. 6-7)


See also 

https://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MAG/mag542823.pdf

法稱的知識論研究 (吳汝鈞,2014)


James Blumenthal (d 2014)



The Ornament of the Middle Way (中觀莊嚴論):A Study of the Madhyamaka Thought of Shantaraksita (James Blumenthal, 2004)



Santaraksita's The Ornament of the Middle Way is among the most important Mahayana Buddhist philosophical treatises to emerge on the Indian subcontinent. In many respects, it represents the culmination of more than 1,300 years of philosophical dialogue and inquiry since the time of the history Buddha, Sakyamuni, Santaraksita set forth the foundation of a syncretic approach to contemporary ideas by synthesizing the three major trends in Indian Buddhist thought at the time (the Madhyamaka thought of Nagarjuna, the Yogacara thought of Asanga, and the logical and epistemological thought of Dharmakirti) into one consistent and coherent system.

Santaraksita's text is considered to be the quintessential exposition, or root text, of the school of Buddhist philosophical thought known in Tibet as Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka. In addition to examining his ideas in their Indian context, this study looks at the way in which Santaraksita's ideas have been understood by, and have been an influence on, Tibetan Buddhist traditions. Specifically, Blumenthal examines the way scholars from the Geluk School of Tibetan Buddhism have interpreted, represented, and incorporated Santaraksita's ideas into their own philosophical project.

This is the first book-length study of Santaraksita's Madhyamaka thought in any Western language. It includes a new translation of Santaraksita's treaties and extensive extracts from his autocommentary. Also included is the first complete English translation of the primary Geluk commentary on Santaraksita's treatise Gyel-tsab Je's Remembering "The Ornament of the Middle Way".

中觀莊嚴論釋 附 七十空性論略釋


中觀莊嚴論

【佛光大辭典】  

梵名 Madhyamakālajkārakārikā。寂護(梵 ?āntaraksita)著。本書綜合中觀思想與唯識思想,但較偏重中觀。全書共九十七頌,第一頌強調一切法無自性,猶如影像。第二至六十二頌闡明第一頌之宗旨。六十三頌以下則敘述一切法無自性,並以世俗諦及勝義諦,來論述如何以論理學之法說明其得以成立。[中觀莊嚴論の解讀序說(山口益)、中觀莊嚴論註の和譯研究(一鄉正道)] p1038


The Ornament of the Middle Way (Skt. Madhyamakālaṃkāra; Tib. དབུ་མ་རྒྱན་, Uma Gyen; Wyl. dbu ma rgyan) was written by Shantarakshita, the great Indian scholar who assisted Guru Padmasambhava in introducing Buddhism to Tibet and founding the famous monastery of Samyé. There is a famous commentary by Mipham Rinpoche, his most comprehensive work on Madhyamika, which brilliantly sets out the unique Nyingma view bringing together themes from the Middle Way and the Mind Only schools.


本論細緻、係統地剖析大乘要義,令力求通達大乘經論的後學者,可輕而易舉對整個大乘穫得定解。
尤為值得一提的是,在這部論典中,揭示了中觀與唯識互不相違的密意,並指明了在名言中唯識最勝、在勝義中中觀為尊的觀點,是慾具備正見智慧者必不可少的殊勝寶典。

佛學筆記

Q: 中觀學生於動盪之世,唯識學生於一統盛世,這件事說明了什麼,這件事說明,亂世之人善逃難簡約,盛世之人善室內設計,

Q:佛學與 Advaita Vedanta,的關係為何,

Q: 為何古印度哲學,性格偏空,

Q:古印度哲學,包括佛學,有無受希臘哲學影響,

Q:漢傳佛學歷代諸賢,何者如龍樹無著世親,果真有哲學天賦,

Q:山川氣候,自然地理,對在地佛學思維,會造成如何影響,比如說,喜瑪拉雅山麓,空氣稀薄的西藏,熱帶的錫蘭,雨林的東南亞,中亞的沙漠,意思是說,禪宗只能出自嶺南獦獠,

Q:如何破解,斷滅空,沉空,頑空,

Q:吉藏二諦章,與唯識三自性,有無相關,

Q:你要理解,世間法畢竟戲論,我畢竟空,法畢竟空,所以淨土,老實唸佛,是疲倦的必然,

Q:儀式,能否帶來,堅定信心,

Q:如何說明,不退轉,

Q:次第之說,繁瑣不堪,如何簡化之,

Q:如何說明,古印度人,其神經迴路,如同雀聖阿旺 (雷啟旺),記憶過人,

Q:如何說明,中國少林,得道高僧釋永信,一邊讀包子語錄,一邊讀般若經,得的是什麼道,

Friday, March 1, 2024

Marcel Iureș (b 1951)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Iure%C8%99

The Peacemaker (1997)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peacemaker_(1997_film)

Dušan Gavrić played the piano beautifully in this one. 

Trisvabhāva ( 三性 or 三自性) (negativity vs vitality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisvabh%C4%81va

Trisvabhāva (Sanskrit; Chinese: 三性 or 三自性) or the three natures, is one of the key doctrines of the Yogācāra school of Buddhism. The concept of the three natures describes the three qualities that all phenomena possess, and can be found in several Mahayana sutras, such as Samdhinirmocana Sūtra.[1] The three natures are: Parikalpitā-svabhāva (the imaginary nature of things), Paratantra-svabhāva (the dependent nature of things) and Pariṇiṣpanna-svabhāva (the consummate or perfected nature of things).

Meaning and interpretations

Parikalpitā (Sanskrit; Traditional Chinese: 遍計所執性): the "impure" or "imaginary" nature refers to the falsely perceived nature of objects as entities that exists separate from the consciousness that perceives them. Note that in the Yogācāra analysis, objects do not exist separately from the perceiving subject, they come into existence in dependence upon consciousness, which in turn are produced from seeds that reside in the eighth consciousness, or Alayavijnana. However, due to ignorance, subject and object are imagined to be separate from each other.[1]

Paratantra (Sanskrit; Traditional Chinese: 依他起性): the dependent nature of things refers to the conventional truth that all objects and subjects rely on causes and conditions for their existence (dependent origination). In other words, no impermanent phenomenon can produce itself.

Pariṇiṣpanna (Sanskrit; Traditional Chinese: 圓成實性): the consummate nature refers to the nonduality between the consciousnesses and their objects. Specifically, it refers to an absence of an object that is separate from the consciousness that perceives it. It can be understood as the perfected character of reality.[2]


… central to Yogacara thought is that of the ‘Three Natures’.17 The teaching of the Three Natures is for the Samdhinirmocana Sutra (解深密經)the final correct doctrine, requiring no interpretation or adaptation, the antidote to a nihilistic interpretation of emptiness. (Paul Williams, 2e, 2016, p. 89)

It seems that ontologically the most important of the Three Natures is the dependent nature in its various guises. Were there to be no dependent nature there could likewise be no liberation, for without a flow of perceptions there would be nothing at all.20 According to the MahAyAnasaTgraha, if there were no dependent nature then there would be no perfected nature (2: 25; Asaóga 1938). Elsewhere it is explained (not, perhaps, with total precision) that the dependent nature is conceptualized nature in one part, and perfected nature in another. The first part is satsara, the second nirvaua (2: 28; Asaóga 1938).


What is meant here is that the dependent nature, the flow of perceptions or experiences, as basis for erroneous construction (the conceptualized nature), is the basis for satsara. As basis for realizing the true nature of things it is the basis for nirvaua. In everyday life we deluded people do as a matter of fact hypostatize our experiences, which in reality are all there is, and construct them into enduring objects and enduring selves. This is satsara, the round of rebirth, frustration, and suffering. It is based on a fundamentally wrong under- standing of what is really there. Through realizing this in meditation, coming to understand that objects and the Self are just a flow of experiences with no enduring elements set in opposition to each other (no duality), we attain enlightenment. This very same flow of experiences can be a basis for suffering in the unenlightened person, but also a basis for liberation in the saint. 

It becomes possible, therefore, to talk of two types of dependent nature. The tainted dependent nature is those phenomena, those perceptions, which are then projected, as it were, into supposed ‘really existing’ subjects and objects. Pure depend- ent nature is the post-meditational experience of the saint who has seen in his meditation the way things really are. It is a flow of purified perceptions, perceptions without the ignorance of construction into enduring entities.21 (ibid, p. 92)

讓經驗穿過我們,再看我們能夠,剩下什麼殘骸,

讓純粹的經驗穿過我們,再看我們能夠,剩下什麼純粹的殘骸,

意思是說,惟其經驗純粹,所以殘骸純粹,



吉藏 二諦章 (549-623) (Negativity vs Vitality)

True nonduality is to say nothing. 

既然無話可說,禪宗遂誕生於此刻,

Second, there is Jizang’s doctrine of the two levels of truth. For Jizang the two levels of truth are not, as they are for Candrakcrti, two natures possessed by all things. Rather, they are levels of teaching which are, as such, not fixed but provisional, taking the student through a step-by-step dialectical ascent to a state of nonconceptuality. This ascent is composed of three phases. At the first level people have conceptions of existence, and these are opposed with emptiness (= nonexistence here?). At this level existence is conventional truth, empti- ness ultimate truth. It is now important to negate emptiness as well, in order that the mind does not become fixed, attached to emptiness and thereby duality. At the second level, therefore, existence and emptiness are conventional truth, nonduality is the ultimate truth. By ‘nonduality’ here, Jizang explains, neither existence nor emptiness is meant. Third, both duality and nonduality are conventional truth, while neither-duality-nor-nonduality is the ultimate truth (Erdizhang (Erh-ti-chang), trans. in Chan 1963: 360). This is the denial of all views, all extremes, and with the denial of all views and concepts the mind is able to shine forth in a nonconceptual state of prajña. (Paul Williams, 2e, 2016, pp. 82-83)





這是吉藏兄,極其聰明的,對於空的破解,意思是說,所有嗜講虛無者,皆被吉藏兄破邪顯正,

Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什) (344–413 CE)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kum%C4%81raj%C4%ABva

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E9%B8%A0%E6%91%A9%E7%BD%97%E4%BB%80

活躍於東晉十六國時期,是漢傳佛教著名譯師,譯著如《金剛經》、《法華經》、《中論》、《大智度論》等等。與真諦、玄奘稱為中國佛教三大翻譯家。

In East Asia the Madhyamika was frequently known as the ‘Three Treatise School’ (三論宗) (中論 十二門論 百論), after the three Indic texts which serve as the root texts for this tradition in East Asian Buddhism. These treatises were translated into Chinese by the great translator Kumarajcva (344–413 CE), who may be said to have established the Madhyamika tradition in China, (Paul Williams, 2e, 2016, p. 81)



許成鋼:“一帶一路”實際是政治權力借軟預算約束在全球擴張 (2023-9-14)

https://www.rfi.fr/tw/%E5%B0%88%E6%AC%84%E6%AA%A2%E7%B4%A2/%E5%85%AC%E6%B0%91%E8%AB%96%E5%A3%87/20230914-%E8%A8%B1%E6%88%90%E9%8B%BC-%E4%B8%80%E5%B8%B6%E4%B8%80%E8%B7%AF-%E5%AF%A6%E9%9A%9B%E6%98%AF%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB%E6%AC%8A%E5%8A%9B%E5%80%9F%E8%BB%9F%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E7%B4%84%E6%9D%9F%E5%9C%A8%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E6%93%B4%E5%BC%B5

「軟預算約束」,就是國家,海量補貼,大量傾銷,劣質山寨,企圖佔據壟斷,世界市場份額,再予取予求,比如說,華為5G,比亞迪電動車,寧德時代鋰電池,所謂新「三」 (「山」寨) 樣,這不是正常商業,這不是自由經濟,這是共匪專制獨裁政權,的對外侵略擴張模式,意思是說,不要貪便宜,拒絕用中國貨,

3/1/24 (星期五) (Negativity vs Vitality) (佛學筆記)

中觀的問題性是空,唯識的問題性是識,禪宗的問題性是行,行就是事件,整體而言,佛學的問題性是緣起 (非實體的不二論),所謂緣起甚深,深在非實體 (non substance),深在不二論 (non dualism),此二深,就是空,就是否定 (negativity),至於佛學是否有「有」,甚有疑問,即使有「有」,亦為 detached 的有,因其出世性格,遠大於入世,優點是清澈冷冽,缺點是沒有體溫,你要理解,大千世界,「生生不息」,佛學恰無法,用此四字,意思是說,出家人是空的信仰和實踐者,這種堅持,不得不讓人佩服,意思是說,在家人對於空,畢竟無法堅持,無法徹底,人生遂只能駁雜不純,所謂純度不夠,只是混口飯吃,回到佛學,注意南傳原始佛學,阿含經篤厚簡約,是關鍵文本,注意北傳大乘佛學,空有二宗,中觀 (龍樹提婆月稱) 唯識 (無著世親),前者是形上學,後者是知識論 (有趣的是,熊十力由唯識入,完成的卻是形上學,此點殊為奇怪),至此,你可以知道,王陽明所說,草木瓦石,皆有良知,皆有良知,就是,皆有佛性,至此,烏蠅蜜蜂,巖中花樹,遂皆與你,前世今生,相對而「笑」,你要理解,喜劇比悲劇深刻,「笑」就是 Vitality,

Thursday, February 29, 2024

許成鋼

https://youtu.be/0Vo6pDWBPtw?si=WmCLMQN-H6LxASfJ

自性空

https://chrischao421953.pixnet.net/blog/post/465721721-%E9%A0%91%E7%A9%BA%E3%80%81%E6%96%B7%E6%BB%85%E7%A9%BA%E3%80%81%E9%80%A0%E4%BD%9C%E7%A9%BA%E8%88%87%E6%9C%AC%E4%BE%86%E7%A9%BA-%E2%80%94-%E8%B6%85%E7%84%B6%E6%B3%95

https://ppfocus.com/0/fod1e2ba1.html

https://yinshun-edu.org.tw/zh-hant/node/26698

意思是說,negativity 只能趨近,無法抵達,弔詭的是,在絕望的盡頭,才可能見到 vitality ,意思是說,大空方至大有,意思是說,你要俯首,見證眼前,這個詐(乍)現,有中見其空,才能空中見其有,拉岡桑說,你要享受眼前,這個詐(乍)現的有,因為這個詐(乍)現的有,就是你的症狀,就是你存在的理由,正常的精神分析師會說,你要在死之欲中,找到生之欲的殘餘 (remains),才能「中和」那些黝暗的勢力,意思是說,正常的治療者,會急著提供希望,殊不知,治療是,一起見證絕望,一起承受絕望,一起找到希望,而治療者的定義是,知道絕望是什麼,卻畢竟沒有失去希望的那個人,意思是說,治療就是,讓病人見證你的畢竟沒有失去希望,以致他終於相信,希望是可能的,以上說明,治療者自己,須出入雲水幾度身,雲水就是 negativity vs vitality ,

Svabhava (Sanskrit: स्वभाव, svabhāva; Pali: सभाव, sabhāva; Chinese: 自性)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhava

literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of beings.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E8%87%AA%E6%80%A7_(%E4%BD%9B%E6%95%99)

在印度諸宗教中,自性(梵語:स्वभाव,svabhāva,巴利語:sabhāva,藏語:རང་བཞིན,威利轉寫:rang-bzhin),又稱「自體」、法體、體、實性,是個哲學術語,指所有事物(法)自身擁有、自體形成、自身決定存在形態的性質,是常住的、不變的、獨立,不依緣起而變化的;其外在特徵,則為自相。這個概念在不二論、毘濕奴派中是個重要的課題。佛教也接受了這個概念,在部派佛教時期發展出自己的論述。在大乘佛教和大圓滿等中,也是很重要的理論之一。

在佛教文獻中,它與本性(prakṛti)或我(ātman)經常被視為同義詞[1],但自性的起源較晚,直到部派佛教的論藏中才使用這個術語。

梵語:svabhāva,由स्व(sav-,自己的)與bhāva(有)所組成[2],這個術語源自古印度哲學,原指法(dhárma)存有自身的性質。與古希臘形上學中的本體、本質、實體,及康德哲學中的物自身(德語:das Ding an sich)的意義接近。在佛教採用之後,自性又被用來作為真如、法性與實際等的同義詞,唯有覺悟聖者才能了知[3]。這兩種觀點,形成世俗自性,與勝義自性的區別。佛教主張無常、無我,因此一般來說,不承認世俗自性存有,而改以空性來取代。但是在不同學派中,對於勝義自性是否存有,其見解不一,例如,如來藏學派認為如來藏擁有不變的本性,為勝義自性。

藏傳佛教五部大論

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%94%E9%83%A8%E5%A4%A7%E8%AB%96

藏傳佛教通常所謂的五部大論為:

多為二勝六莊嚴所著作。