|
前期提示：
佛的結論是：「世間一切諸修學人，現前雖成九次第定（還在三界內），不得漏盡成阿羅漢，皆由執此生死妄想誤為真實。是故汝今雖得多聞，不成聖果。」
|
阿難於是承認，自己歡喜學習的習性，反而障礙了修行。他現在明白光學不修是沒有用的，於是正式請佛，「發妙明心，開我道眼」。
佛的答覆是，從胸上卍字涌出寶光。這寶光圍繞、遍灌十方諸佛如來的頂上，然後再從十方，回旋至阿難及大眾頂上。佛要使阿難立刻能見到他性淨妙心的光明，頓時獲得清淨智慧眼。在他未得之時，佛知道時間因緣還沒有成熟，所以答應為阿難講法，滿他的願。
十番顯見
一、見是真心（自性）的作用
佛從胸前卍字流出光，希望阿難等直接明心見性，而不假文字，但阿難沒有馬上開他的道眼––他還不明白。所以佛用文字般若很耐心地解釋給阿難聽，讓阿難一步一步明白。
在這一段十番顯見的經文裡，佛要顯真心自性最容易發覺到的地方，是在我們的六根門頭上，也就是我們能分辨色、聲、香、味、觸、法的淨妙能力，所以佛要引導阿難的注意力放在根上。佛已經破了阿難對識心的執著，阿難現在疑惑識心不可靠。佛要趁機速然呈現真心自性，使阿難明白真心才是可靠的。
他先問阿難三個問題：
（一）以前我所現的光明拳是用什麼做的（為何有光明）？
（二）它怎麼樣能成拳相？
（三）誰看見它？
阿難答：
（一）拳是佛的紫金光身的一部分，所以放光。
（二）佛屈五輪指而成拳相。
（三）我的眼根看見。
佛以譬喻:
沒有我手，就沒有拳；
沒有眼根，就沒有見。
問對不對？阿難言「對」。佛否定他：「不對。沒有手的確就沒有拳；但沒有眼不表示沒有見。」
佛舉例子：「你去問一位瞎子，他看見什麼？他一定說：『我只看見黑暗，其它我都不見。』他明明說他見暗，你怎麼可以說他不能見呢？」
阿難喜歡辯論，所以他馬上說：「單單見黑暗，怎麼可以叫做『見』呢？」
佛數度以這個例子比較，好讓阿難明白：「一位有眼的人在暗處所見的黑暗，與一位無眼的人所見的黑暗不同嗎？」
為了顯示見性在眼根的功能，佛繼續說：「並且無眼的人突然恢復能見，你說是他的眼見；那麼有眼的人在暗處突然間開燈而能見，你應該說是燈見。」佛也不等阿難的反應：「如果燈有見的能力，我們怎麼還能叫它做『燈』呢？還有，如果燈開而燈見，那麼開燈，應該對那一位在暗處有眼的人一點影響都沒有，與他無關。那麼為什麼燈一開，那位有眼的人可以見到東西呢？」
→待續
|
|
|
Reminder from last issue:
The Buddha concludes: "The reason that cultivators can reach the nine successive stages of samadhi (all still within the Triple Realm), but can't go on and become Arhats is because they attach to this false thinking that is subject to production and extinction and mistake it for being true and actual. And that is the same reason why, although you are learned, you haven't attained sagehood."
|
Ananda then admits that his fondness for learning has hampered his cultivation. He now realizes that to study without practicing renders the study useless. He formally requests the Buddha to reveal the wonderful bright mind and help him open his Way-eyes.
In answer, the Buddha emits light from the character wan "卍" ("myriad") on his chest. The light travels out and annoints the crowns of the heads of the Buddhas of the ten directions and returns to Ananda and those in the great assembly. The Buddha is giving Ananda a chance to immediately see the brightness of his wonderful mind and to instantaneously open his spiritual eyes. When he doesn't, the Buddha knows the time is still not ripe and so he announces his promise to speak in order to fulfill Ananda's request.
Revealing Ten Aspects of the Nature through Seeing
1. Seeing is a Function of the True Mind
The Buddha emitted light from the character wan "卍" ("myriad") on his chest, hoping that Ananda and the others were ready to directly perceive the efficacy of their own inherent natures without having to resort to words. But having done so, the Buddha saw that Ananda's Way-eyes didn't immediately open--he still didn't "get" it, and so the Buddha patiently shifts to words and language to slowly bring Ananda to understanding.
In this ten-part discussion, the Buddha will try to show Ananda how our inherent Buddha-nature reveals itself at the gates of our sense organs. The nature as it appears through the sense organs is the pure efficacious ability to perceive sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and dharmas. Since its pure and efficacious aspect is more easily perceived at the portholes of those senses, the Buddha wishes to focus Ananda's attention there. Having underminded Ananda's faith in his conscious mind, the Buddha quickly replaces the false with the true. His message is, "You can't rely on the false-thinking mind, but you can rely on the nature."
The Buddha questions Ananda further about Ananda's perception of the Buddha's dazzling fist. He asks three questions:
(1) What is the fist made of? (Why was there light?)
(2) How did it become a fist?
(3) Who saw it?
Ananda answers:
(1) The fist is part of the Buddha's purple-golden body and so it emitted light.
(2) The Buddha clenched his five-wheeled fingers to make the fist.
(3) I saw it with my eyes.
The Buddha tries a logical analogy:
Without a hand, I couldn't make a fist.
Without eyes, you couldn't see.
He asks Ananda, "Is the analogy apt?" Ananda affirms that it is.
"I don't think so," replies the Buddha. "It's true that without a hand a person would never be able to make a fist. But I'm not convinced that without eyes, a person can't see."
The Buddha tries an example. "If you ask a blind person what he sees, he will answer, 'All I see is darkness.' Even though he doesn't have the use of his eyes, he still perceives darkness. How can you say he doesn't see?"
Ananda loves to argue and so he jumps in and says, "How can perceiving only darkness be called seeing?"
The Buddha extends his example into a comparison in order to convince Ananda. "What's the difference between the darkness a sighted person sees (if he's in a totally dark place) and the darkness a blind person sees?"
Then, in order to reveal the nature's efficacy as it functions at the porthole of the eyes, the Buddha continues, "If the blind person were to suddenly regain his sight, you would say that his eyes see. But if that were the case, then when the sighted person in a totally dark place suddenly turns on the lamp, you should say the lamp sees. If the lamp could see, it would be endowed with the ability to perceive. But we don't define a lamp as something that has its own perception. So if the lamp could perceive, how could we still call it a lamp? Besides that, if when the lamp is lit and it's the lamp that sees, that shouldn't have anything to do with the sighted man's ability to perceive or what he perceives. In that case why would turning on the lamp have any effect at all on what the sighted man saw?"
→To be continued
|
