談法相

• JitKiat

  15 Sep 09, 15:21

  http://www.yinshun.org.tw/books/28/yinshun28-11.html

  我們�法相的�識，就是一般所說的「執著�，見個什麼，執著它就是個什 麼。�會覺察到它的變化，與其他的種種關係。雖能在推�下知�一切法的關係 �變化，但在直覺上，����在習慣性的�路。例如人說：「人是�能離群� 立的，必須��社會群眾�能生存；士�農�工�商，無一�供給我一切所需， 人都�能脫離社會群眾而得生存��這話說得�嗎？�極了��是到�起事來時 ，�忘得一乾二淨，以自我為中心而處�一切。這就是人都執著「人我�，「法 我�的原因。。。。

  在我們的直覺上， 的確境界是在心外的，我們看到，è�½åˆ°ï¼Œæƒ³åˆ°……都ä¸�期然地èª�為與心無關，自 然地以為心外有境。這是一種根本的錯誤，這就是凡夫的境界──一般的èª�識。

  真正證悟（見�）時，是沒有影�相的；體驗空性時（大乘中觀與唯識觀念上是相�的），一切相���， 沒有心境�立的�義。�能�所，已超出了能所�立的境界（�乘稱為證入寂滅 ）。悟了以後呢？這其中是有淺深��的。一分�乘，出了�智證悟的境界，雖 通�了世間，��著世間，知�世間一切無常�無我，但由於慧力淺，所以在他 眼��起的相，還是與世間一般差�多，���會如世間一般的去執著它。

  大乘�者的智慧高深，在體驗到真�後，就能�解到「法相�的「如幻如化 �。如幻如化，就是看起來是這樣，其實�是這樣；雖然�是這樣，�明明是這 樣。通�到一切是無常�無我，一切法空，�會如凡夫般的執著，�是相�還是 �起。�唯識家說（中觀也是一樣），真正證悟真�時，是沒有相�起的；等到 從真出俗，後得智生起時，一切相���了。��相雖�起，能�解到它的如幻 如化 。。

  但是，證真時法相��；法相顯�時，��能悟入空性，空有還�能�二。 �經上說，�到五地──極難�地�薩，�能把它打�一片。五地�薩�證悟到 這種境界，確是極難通�的。法相是有相，真�──空性是無相。所以證悟空性 ，相���，相��了，��能悟入空性。一是有相，一是無相，怎麼能契�� 二呢？登上五地的�薩，�證悟到這極難的一關，相與空性，平等�二。一切法 畢竟空，在一切法的空性中，一切法��。如幻如化的相與無相諸法真性打�一 片，所謂「二諦並觀，二智�一。�五地�薩雖通�了這極難的一關，但還是� 徹底的，還祇是暫時的。等到出了定，相與空性�分開了。��統一起來，�得 �下功夫。這樣，到了登上七地，無相相應，一直與空性相應，能在一切法相上，通�一切法空。但雖說無相，還有功用，還得用力注�，如�加功用，還�能 �證二諦無礙的中�。到了八地，這�能「無相無功用�，自然而然的�失中� 了。雖這麼說，這還�能自利時如此，利他時還��「無相無功用�。��到自 利利他的無相無功用境界，唯有究竟圓滿的佛果。

• Weychin

  16 Sep 09, 15:35

  Hi JitKiat!

  Thanks for posting! However, is it possible, you or someone else,at your convenience, to translate in English the approximate meaning the speech intends to convey. Sorry! I am unable to follow the train of thought by following google translate.

  All can gather from the first paragraph is" No man is an island, we/I depend on each other for our survival.

  2nd paragraph, implies that we intuitively(instinctively) know the true realm(world?) lies outside of us. This is a fundamental flaw, it is in the realm of general knowledge.    

   I am unable follow what comes next. The first 2  holds the general or mundane views and this the fundamental flaw. The 3rd and 4th is presumably the doctrine of Mahayana or Way as versus againt (sub?) Theravadan views. This is something about the Buddha, being Buddha can grasp the the reality of Void(emptyness). How do.es fuji and air france comes into play?Ha1 Ha! Although(As) is only assessable to the Buddha, it is an extremely difficult and is only temporary(impermanent?).

  I can't relate the last parts. 

• JitKiat

  16 Sep 09, 16:32

  Although I am not qualitifed, will try to summarize, pls correct me if my understanding is wrong.

  Our knowledge about the world through our senses gives rise to attachment about inherent existence in everything. We are not able to observe subtle changes and the relationship of all things directly although we may be educated about inter-dependencies of all things.

  We always feel that our mind is separated from the outside world. We see, hear, reflect ... but we always conclude that the outside world is separated from our mind. This is a fundamental mistake.

  When we are englightened, there is no observer nor the observed. However, there are different levels of enlightenment. For certain Theravadic sage, his experience about the world is quite similar to normal people like us although he will not attach to anything.

  It is similar for entry-level Mahayana sages, when they are in samadhi comtemplating on emptiness, they do not experience worldly view. But when they are out of samadhi, the experience is back to normal.

  Another breakthrough is achieved when it comes to 五地�薩 (the fifth ground level bodhisattvas). They are able to unify both emptiness and the arising phenomenons within samadhi. (form is emptiness, emptiness is form ?)

  For the eight ground level bodhisattvas and above, they are able to achieve it effortlessly.

• JitKiat

  16 Sep 09, 16:40

  Note I left out a lot from the original chinese text. It was mentioned in the text that it is extremely difficult to achieve non-dualism between emptiness and arising phenomenons. That's why the fifth ground level is also known as "extremely difficult to achieve level"  (極難å‹�地)

• JitKiat

  16 Sep 09, 16:41

  If you read this text and then read Heart Sutra again ... you will probably see the light.

• JitKiat

  16 Sep 09, 16:43

  色�是空 空�是色

   

• An Eternal Now

  16 Sep 09, 18:06

  I believe Ven Yin Shun is saying that Arhants realise No Self (no observer and observed) while Bodhisattvas realise not only No Self but also the emptiness of dharmas, i.e. 「法相�的「如幻如化 �.

  Based on a Buddhist glossary:
  
  Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the Ä�tman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood.

  Many people say that Arhats only realise emptiness of self but not the emptiness of dharma, but I have seen some highly experienced/enlightened Theravadin practitioners and teachers who appear to have quite a deep understanding and experience of the emptiness of dharmas, and also the view that Arhats only realise emptiness of self (which I once share until recently) is only the views of some Mahayanists/Vajrayanists -- some Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions and teachers hold the view that Arhats too realise the same emptiness as Bodhisattvas, except that the Arhat has not given rise to the great compassion and aspiration of a Bodhisattva to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings and deliver them from samsara.

  However, as Thusness said, there's a difference between realising the emptiness of self and emptiness of dharma with regards to our sensate reality, and applying this insight in daily engagement and contents of thoughts. This according to him is the difference between Arhant and Bodhisattva.

• JitKiat

  16 Sep 09, 18:50

  The original text did say it is uncertain whether Theravadic sages can realize the emptiness of dharma or not.

  In 大乘大义章, Kumarajiva answered Master Hui Yuan's question:

  罗什回答：大乘论说众生空�法空；�乘论则说众生空。佛陀为�根众生说无常�苦�空；为中根众生说一切无我，安稳寂�泥洹；为利根说一切法从本已��生��，毕竟空；佛陀�众生所解，于一义中，三�说�。

   

• Weychin

  17 Sep 09, 13:53

  Both can be right,when one views  the practitioner and the other; the fruits deriving from "apparent form"(written) of that tradition of practice.

  One is practitioner,dynamic, discerning and practising the path, the other, part of path in writing , static. "Thinking out of the box" comes to mind.