关于日本“禅”

　　梦中梦:
　　Hi, Ma-zi,We have been old friends already. Haven't we? Before I used an addtional machine with NT installed talking to you in Hua-Tong. You once said something a bit negtive to the Japanese scholar Ling-Mu-Da-Zhuo. I have read his book "the field of Zen" or "Chan-Tian-Chan-Di" in Chinese and would like to continue our talk regarding to Zen. Could you tell me first where Ling-Mu is wrong?
　　Thanks a lot.

　　二麻子:
　　梦兄又来了？好好。
　　铃木之文麻子是近十年前看的，现手上没有。
　　铃木虽说了很多禅的好话，根本问题有二。
　　一、他没破关，不是真懂禅。
　　二、他只知点日本禅宗的事。说实话，麻子虽不能讲日本禅宗里没能人(但麻子没见到)，但在日本称为“禅”的东西，多数流弊甚大。例如，以某种境界为开悟，就害了并误导了不知多少人。许多日本禅的手法，比如冬天去野外冲山泉，满山喊“无”....等，也让麻子笑到“牙痒痒”。这些个法子偶尔(对机时)也可以用用，但作为普遍方法加以推崇，只能说主事者无眼无料。
　　再聊。

　　梦中梦:
　　I have a different opinion. I also read that book 10 years ago. I re-read some part of it two years ago.
　　一、他没破关，
　　Actually we talked 破关 in Hua-Tong. The question is whehter you can know if he 破关， by his words only? A simliar case is, once you mentioned you don't know how Lao-zi Nei4-Zheng4 (or Zheng4-Liang4 in Buddhism term) is.
　　I remember Ling-Mu mentioned his personal experience only once in his book the field of Zen. Of course he didn't use the term 破关. Maybe you missed this story.
　　二、他只知点日本禅宗的事。
　　I don't think so. He implied that he is able to read Chinese Zen stories. If he didn't read Chinese Zen stories, he certainly read the Japanese translation of Chinese Zen stories. I remmebr clearly that he mentioned Zen is the special contribution to the Buddhism by Chinese.
　　I have a talk with a friend who learned a bit Zen in Taiwan. He also knows something about Japanese Zen. From his introduction about Japanese Zen I also know that Japanese do something ridiculous in Zen such as making the standard answers to some Zen sroies (Gong1-An4). However, whether Ling-Mu is so stupid is another question.

　　二麻子:
　　梦兄，您又来了：您好用思维心。思维虽好，用在禅上不够。
　　特别是，请别用“考据索隐”方法，那对自己没大帮助。
　　要判断一个人“已过关”，不太好说话，不是没办法，但判“没过关”容易些：如果看到错误就可。铃木书里错太多，麻子只是因年久不记得具体例子而已。说他没懂禅，不是说他没读过书。咱们中国人中读过禅，公案的人多着呢，几个真懂？扬眉竖目、棒喝交加就是禅？笑话了。
　　禅宗虽称“无法”，实际是“无有定法”，办法多得很呢(甚至连颇瓦法都有)。目的非它，只是要将当事学人当时错用心处指出并“拨回”，助学人契入实相(非相)。这当事人用错心的错法，人人时时不同，一瞬就逝，能不能当机看破抓住校正，大大有赖于师父手眼。靠读公案，除非您真知道如何读(不过那就已经差不多通了)。想加一转语伸一指头就能通？这不行的。金头说这是嚼死尸，话冲了点，但不离谱。
　　其实还有本书与日本禅有关。KAPULOR(SPELLING？)在日本学禅，得师认可开悟。回美后写了一书“禅门三柱”，后又过20(？)年，再写了“禅，西方世界的黎明”。在西方，K氏可是大大有名的禅师。梦兄如果能看出，他在写“三柱”时其实还没透，不干净得很，而写“黎明”时终于干净起来，知有行菩萨道了。也许对梦兄有点益？

　　梦中梦:
　　I think Gong-an is situation and person dependent, especially to the personwho hasn't 过关. The basic requirment is the teacher must 过关.
　　To the person who has 过关, he/she may learn more about the techniques by reading Gong-An to talk to the person who has not 过关.
　　Do you agree with me?
　　I am not going to talk some mistakes in the book by Ling-Mu. If you really want to pick bugs in his book in your mind, then you can certainly pick numerous ones. Xiang4-You2-Xin1-Sheng1. Whether they are bugs also depends on your mind.
　　Do you argree with me?

　　二麻子:
　　I agree with you at your first "do you agree with me".
　　这第二个可不成。洒脱对人来讲是好事，洒脱空对学佛人来讲是坏事。生老病死苦到的时候，您能“相由心不生”吗？若不能，洒脱就成骗己。

　　梦中梦:
　　OK. I am glad that we have finally reached the agreement on the first paragraph. It is so difficult for us to reach this point. My all previous posts including those in Hua-Tong actually express the same idea. By the way, could you tell whether Meng-Zhong-Meng guo4-guan1 by reading Meng-zhong-meng's posts only? Ordianry teacher can't pass this test proposed by the student Meng-zhong-meng:)

　　二麻子:
　　这不是个好的讨论方式，梦兄：得先说明，麻子个人极不喜欢您的这句话：“Ordianry teacher can't pass this test proposed by the student”。这不是个好的讨论方式。麻子不是老师，也没想做老师，更不想充老师，激人的方式在这没意义。有言在前，再见到这种方式，麻子就不再回您的贴子。
　　麻子能对梦兄过关否作出判断，甚至麻子知道梦兄近期的进展：相当好，进步不小，但...“即心即佛”是为将病投药，能吃得进这药是大好事，但说病愈还早了点。梦兄心中能所对立比以前弱了很多，这好。但没净，这点没净处自己又没看到，就产生净了的错觉。麻子的评论坦率但未必合您心意。

　　编按：个别网友在国外，只能看而不能输入汉字，故只能输入英文。特此说明。

>>下一页