Chapter 4 The fourth topic "Langa Sutra"

Indian Buddhist scriptures are really long gone.I think that in a small library in Sarnath, India, I was hastily flipping through the dusty "Moraine Sand Collection" and "Pinga Collection" (gifted by Chinese Buddhists) piled up in the corner of the room for a full 50 years.Now that I think about it, it was because a young man came to talk to me about Buddhist scriptures, and then I found this "Tibetan Essentials" from the remnants of the kalpa. From this, I remembered the meeting with Mr. Lu in the late 1950s, and felt that there was still a debt to be paid. So I opened the book and read it. Unexpectedly, after reading it, I couldn't help but say in the scriptures: "For example, a huge ocean wave, From the fierce wind, the torrential waves drum up the dark valley, and there is no time to stop."

Fifty years ago, it was very different to read (not to mention read) twice.After all, these 50 years have not been lived in vain.It seems that if you don't say a few words, your heart will not be calmed down. The "Langa Sutra" has a high status and a great reputation (repeatedly mentioned in Jin Yong's novels), but far less people read it than the "Diamond Sutra" and "Lotus Sutra".The format is the same as other Buddhist scriptures, but there are no praise elements such as myths and the merits of chanting and writing scriptures (the "Unraveling the Deep Secret Sutra" and "Vimalakirti Sutra", which are both about philosophy, also have such propaganda elements).The full text is reasonable, which is a feature.

Not long after the beginning of the "Langa Sutra", it said: "Why don't you eat meat? What is the system (establishment) to cut off meat? There are various types of meat, why do you eat meat?" At the end of the sutra, there is another chapter in detail. Onions, leeks, garlic, etc. (the so-called "small five meat") are not allowed to eat.This is the highest basis for vegetarians who believe in Buddhism, and it is difficult for monks who rely on begging for alms to eat "three clean meats" raw.This is another feature. After the beginning of the scriptures, it is like an encyclopedia list, and it also explains many profound truths, but at the end of the long discourse, it suddenly says: "All the dharmas are said to make fools happy, not true. The wisdom lies in the words. Therefore, it should be based on Don’t talk about righteousness.” After talking for a long time, it is equivalent to not saying anything, and it turns out that you want to practice “experience” without words.Therefore, this scripture is the treasured book of Zen Buddhism in China.Legend has it that Bodhidharma, the first patriarch of Zen Buddhism, gave this sutra to Huike, the second patriarch, as a basic reading material, and even had some "Langa masters".

It is mentioned at the beginning of the Sutra, and it will be greatly developed later, "five dharmas, three natures, eight consciousnesses, and two non-selfs." This is the basic theory of "consciousness only" in the Chinese Dharma Xiangzong.In the following texts, the same words as those in "Thirty Verses on Consciousness Only" written by Shiqin are repeated again and again. "Langa" is a classic of Fa Xiangzong. The above is what anyone can see as soon as they open this scripture.But doubts inevitably arise.First, a childish question: what kind of book is this?Let's start with this.

All religions, regardless of name, are based on faith, but they must also talk about some truth (theory).Buddhists especially like to reason, and they talk more and more, almost overwhelming.There are a lot of reasoning in religious scriptures, and it is inevitable that some non-religious elements will be mixed in.Buddhists attach great importance to reasoning and passing on scriptures and writings, and there are as many non-religious or even anti-religious (contradictory with belief) elements in them as there are probably no other religions can match.This started from the very beginning when the Buddha preached. "Langa" almost does not promote belief and worship, but only speaks reason, which is a prominent one.

The original meaning of the word "Buddha" is an enlightened person. The literal meaning of "Bodhisattva" is an enlightened person. The literal meaning of "Arhat (Arhat)" is a person who should be respected.All sects of Buddhism recognize the basis of the "Three Jewels" (Three Refugees), namely "Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha".Buddha is the founder of teaching.Law is doctrine or theory, and its original meaning is law.Monks are religious mass organizations.The three characters are transliterated except for "Fa" (Dharma).Those who believe in "Buddhism" (the principles taught by the Buddha) must have "three learnings", namely "precepts, samadhi, and wisdom". "Jing" means consciously observing discipline. "Ding" means meditation, that is, practice, practice, and self-cultivation. "Hui" is wisdom, that is, knowing the truth.There are also three basic slogans called "Three Fayin".One is "all actions are impermanent", nothing is eternal.The second is "all dharmas have no self", everything has no unchanging nature.The third is "Nirvana and silence", which is the opposite of the first two, that is, extinction. "Nirvana" is a transliteration; the original meaning is to blow out.If it is destroyed, then what is eternity and what is its nature?There are also "Four Noble Truths" and "Twelve Causes (Fate Birth)"

Explain that everything is suffering and the general root cause of suffering and the way to end suffering.The so-called "Mahayana" theory has developed much more than these, talking about "emptiness", "existence", "consciousness" and so on, but it still starts from this central basic point. "Mahayana Theory" also lists 10 items to prove that "Mahayana is really the Buddha's language", which shows that it is a developed theory.The "Hinayana" in China, whose real name is "Sravakayana", refers to the conservatives who insist on the tradition of oral tradition.There is no god in the countless principles of "Buddhism" ranging from simple to complex, focusing on wisdom and awareness, and faith is born from this.One of the reasons for prohibiting alcoholic meat is to avoid being confused by stimulation, requiring sobriety, and not advocating execution with eyes closed and not understanding.As for terms such as "reincarnation" and "retribution", those are general thoughts in ancient India, not unique to Buddhism, and Buddhism only makes its own explanations.In this way, Buddhism is not much like a religion if it only talks about reason.Contradictions are unavoidable between reason and belief, and more reason is needed to resolve the contradiction, and the more you talk, the more you talk.

Buddhism is a religion after all.All religions require belief and worship.After the completion of the "Three Jewels" of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, one can become a god by asking for "conversion" to the Buddha.Start worshiping only symbolic towers.Later it became "Like Teaching" and sculpted idols.Arhats and Bodhisattvas have become gods.Buddha has past, future, and present "Three Buddhas".Sakyamuni, who taught Buddhism, is the present Buddha, one of countless Buddhas.The Buddha has a Buddha land, such as Amitabha Buddha has a "paradise of bliss" and a "pure land".Gods, large and small, that existed in India have entered Buddhism.The enemy of the great Hindu God Rama, the Raksha King Ravana, asked the Buddha to go to Sri Lanka (Lanka in Sri Lanka) to tell this "Nursanga Sutra".There are more and more "dharma doors" to practice, up to the "secret rituals" that exist in the north and south of the snow mountain.Of course, there are more and more classics.In the 3rd century B.C., Ashoka’s stone pillar edict only recommended seven scriptures, which did not match the existing ones. It can be seen that a large number of scriptures appeared after him.This proves that there are various ideas in the religion arguing with each other and at a stalemate, all of which are said to be based on Buddhist words.This is inconsistent with the "minions" that follow precepts, that is, organizational discipline.Theory belongs to theory, organization belongs to organization, there is internal opposition, and external penetration.China's Mencius said: "Is it easy to argue? I have no choice."

The ancient Indians, especially the Buddhists, loved to argue.Each speaks his own truth and criticizes each other, which is often very intense.This is a feature in ancient Indian texts, not limited to Buddhism.Books of grammar, rhetoric, logic, philosophy, and religion all contain dialogue, explicit or implicit accusations of dissent.Most books are not as organized as the ancient Greek classics that have been lost and compiled by later generations, such as Plato's dialogues and Aristotle's lecture notes.The scriptures and Zishu written by the people of the Han Dynasty in China are somewhat similar to those in India, but they are not so controversial.This debate tradition has long been preserved in India, especially among Buddhists.Xuanzang is said to have participated in debates when he was in India.It is said that there is still a "graduation defense" in the temples of Qinghai and Tibet.It's not as "gentle, courteous, courteous and frugal" as in ordinary universities, and it's not a criticism that only one party is allowed to speak.That's to argue with each other, at least formally.Buddhist scriptures are full of such words, either explicitly or implicitly, to refute dissent.

One of the reasons for the complexity and great development of Buddhist theories lies in the contradictions between internal non-religious principles and religious beliefs.Religion is based on belief and worship as the main body of thought.The worship of the supreme being, the belief in the prophecy of a wonderful future, the fear of the suffering consequences of not worshiping or believing, and the longing for blessings if one worships and believes again, these constitute the psychological basis of religious thoughts and behaviors.Focusing on reasoning is not necessary for belief and worship no matter how you say it, and it often leads to conflicts.Therefore, Buddhist scriptures that focus on faith and preaching are easier to understand. There are also reasonable lines and subtexts in them, but the past can be ignored.In a reasonable book, if you don't understand the lines and subtext, it will be difficult to understand, and the more you read, the more confused you will be.In addition, the customary thinking and style of the ancient Indians had their own characteristics, which were very different from those in China and Europe. Therefore, ancient Indian books are not easy to understand, and it is not easy to make "modern interpretations", not only Buddhist scriptures.In fact, the author and the readers at the time thought they understood.Having said that, we have to go further.

There was a period in ancient times (about the fifth and sixth centuries BC, the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period in China), and some people in three regions of the world began to ask questions about nature, society and people themselves.The discussion of the Mediterranean coast started from the European and Asian city-states of ancient Greece, and later (around AD) developed in Alexandria in North Africa, and then went to Constantinople (Istanbul) in West Asia, and then the Arab Ibn Lucy De (Averroy, 12th century, Dante's "Divine Comedy: Inferno" has him, known as the great commentator) and others re-entered Western Europe via Spain.Aristotle in Greece disguised himself as Arabic and brought it to Europe by the Muslims, and then disguised himself as Latin to "lecture" at the oldest Christian university in Paris.So it aroused the yearning for ancient Greece, which flourished indirectly through Arab thought, and was considered the "renaissance" of Greek civilization, that is, the "Renaissance".It took Hellenistic thought two millennia to circle the Mediterranean Sea and pass through three continents, and much of the early doctrinal debate was lost.The discussion of India and Central Asia started from the Indus and Ganges rivers south of the Snow Mountains (Himalayas). (Sakyamuni was born on the border of what is now Nepal.) China is explored from the Yellow River basin to the Yangtze and Huai River basins.During this period, habitual traditional thinking cannot yet become a serious obstacle to the exploration of this new problem.Although Socrates was executed, the mind could not be killed.All kinds of ideas are free to play, and no one can convince anyone, and no one can suppress anyone, and it cannot be fixed on one.It is a pity that oral transmission was the main method at that time, and written documents came later and were not handed down directly.Later, the thoughts were saturated, some decayed, some became rigid, and this kind of free discussion finally came to an end.The Mediterranean is cut off from Christianity.The last break in North India is Islam.China was broken by Qin Shihuang and Han Wudi.Almost all early documents were compiled and written during the "Yizun" period, not only in China. In my opinion, the difficulty in reading Chinese translations of Indian Buddhist scriptures is not mainly due to the large number of terms and foreign-style grammar and style. The systems are too different.In fact, if we go back to the source, we can get a general idea of ​​the research situation and the evolution of the literature in the three places in the world in the early days, and then start with the internal contradictions of thought, we can see the differences and similarities in the thinking methods of India, Europe, and China.It may not be too difficult if you start with common sense about Buddhism and Buddhism and don't want to jump straight to the top.On the other hand, it is worth noting that according to the literature (language and characters), there are three branches of Buddhism: Indian Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Chinese Buddhism.According to the scriptures, laws, and treatises themselves, taking into account the original translation, it is Indian Buddhism.There are differences in the terms used when speaking Tibetan or Chinese, and there are translations and translations.The explanation can be divided into ancient language explanation and modern language explanation.Modern-language Buddhism uses modern philosophical frameworks, terminology, and ideas. No matter what language is used, it comes from modern European languages. Now let’s talk about the Langa Sutra, only in terms of the text.I thought, the first thing to ask is what kind of book is this?The second question is what is the difference between the ideas in the book and what we are familiar with?In short, it is necessary to explore the text (including speakers, writers, listeners, readers, and teachers) to express thoughts that cannot be fully expressed in the local language symbols at that time, and to do some modern language interpretation. The Langa Sutra is an unfinished book.Xuanzang did not translate this scripture either.It is "jing" (series) rather than "lun" (monograph), which can be seen from different translations and original texts.It is also obvious that it is not a missionary book for foreign propaganda.So why did this book come out?Or ask: Why did the Buddha preach this sutra?In my opinion, it is to solve internal ideological problems and disputes, and to resolve the contradiction between philosophical and religious thoughts. It is an internal reading, a kind of "catechism", and it is of a high level.Therefore, it is difficult to enter the door without a certain degree of "outsider". Of course I don't want to, and I can't, write lecture notes on the Sri Lanka Sutra.There are no old and new school magazines in the original language, nor ancient commentaries and recent treatises by Chinese and foreign sages, but only one kind of text.But when it comes to this, we have to say a few words about the text, let's just talk about the beginning. The beginning of the scriptures (translated in the Liu Song Dynasty) follows the established format, "Thus I heard", the Buddha, monks and bodhisattvas arrived at Langa in the South China Sea.In the description of the Bodhisattva, "five dharmas, self-nature, consciousness, and two kinds of non-self" are mentioned.This seems to be the "keyword", the main category.The following verses are not an outline but an introduction, a premise, and they must be known first and will not be discussed later.For example: "There is no nirvana in everything, there is no nirvana Buddha, there is no Buddha nirvana, far away from enlightenment, what is awakened. If there is, if there is no existence, both are separated." empty" theory.Therefore, "Langa" not only talks about "existence", but also talks about "emptiness".If we do not know the fundamental problems of Buddhist philosophy and its development and changes, we will be in the fog and think it is sophistry.So to "put on hold," put in brackets, as phenomenologists say.The first Bodhisattva here is not the three celebrities Ci Shi (Maitreya), Guan Zizai (Avalokitesvara) and Manjusri (Manjushri) among the last three ranks of the "Unraveling the Secret Sutra", so he made an exception and "reported his family": "My name is Dahui, who is well-versed in the Mahayana, now, with the hundred and eight principles, I look up to the Supreme Being." From now on, the following is the dialogue between Dahui and the Buddha. In the first dialogue, Dahui asked a hundred and eight questions, and the Buddha answered with a hundred and eight sentences (not sentences, but words).It's like a catechism table of contents, but it's not.There are many obstacles here, first of all literal.For example, the Buddha said before speaking the hundred and eight sentences: "The above hundred and eight sentences are as the Buddhas said." The word "upper" refers to the following.Because what I read is a stack of "Bay-leaf Sutra", I turn it down after reading a page, and the unread ones appear, so what goes down is the above, and what comes up is the following.Another example is to say one hundred and eight, using a large number that is used to it, not necessarily like Liangshanbo hero, one is not more than one is not less.If I remember correctly, the "Shi Sanjiu" written by Wang Zhong of the Qing Dynasty pointed out that in ancient China, three refers to small numbers and nine refers to large numbers, which are not necessarily accurate numbers.It was the same in ancient times in India, and what was said was often not the exact number.Also, these questions and sentences are not one-to-one relative, one question and one answer.They are listed not for what will be said below, but for what will not be said below.We are not used to this kind of thinking, so it is easy to block it.If it is used as an internal advanced theoretical reading, it can be understood.Listed are common sense that should be known first, and are just examples.What will be discussed later will be higher, deeper and more difficult theoretical issues, so we must first talk about the preconditions.Just like learning mathematics, you must first know the number symbols and addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.Now we are going to talk about calculus, so I have to remind you that there is elementary mathematics.If you don't need to build foundations and houses, just build a big roof with glazed tiles, it will be a castle in the air.The question here is actually, do readers know this common sense?Some of them are superficial, such as: "What is the forest tree? What is the vine? How is the cloud like a red deer? Why do you catch it?" There are also deep ones, such as: "Where does liberation go? Who binds? Who releases ?” “Why do you say that there is no self, no self, and no self?” The Buddha’s answer in the poem is also the same.If there is nothing wrong with Jane (this is easy to appear in Bayeux), there is still something about what Buddha said.Because Indian ancient books have no modern punctuation like Chinese and other ancient books, so where the quotation marks should be placed depends on the content.In the oral biography of early books, some sentences indicate paragraphs, such as "If you should learn" to end a paragraph.After the long line of prose, it is repeated into verses for reciting, "If you want to reiterate this meaning, speak gatha."Again, the so-called "sentence" is not a sentence, and what is proposed here is a pair of categories.Such as: "No raw sentences, raw sentences, regular sentences, impermanent sentences, related sentences, no related sentences". "Disciple sentence, non-disciple sentence, teacher sentence, non-master sentence, caste sentence, non-caste sentence".Until "Bhikkhu sentences, non-bhikkhu sentences, local sentences, non-local sentences, literal sentences, non-literal sentences. Dahui! These are (these) hundred and eight sentences, as said by the previous Buddhas (past Buddhas), you and all Bodhisattvas Mahasattvas ) should study".Another question is, how are these questions and sentences arranged?It seems to be a mess with no logical order at all.This is another common way of thinking of ancient Indians.One is that there is no order at all, and what is said is what the other party should have known earlier, so I won’t talk about it in the future, it is just an example, and there is no need to arrange it.The second is to point out that problems should be seen everywhere, like Confucius "entering the Taimiao and asking everything".The third is to know that there are contradictions and opposites in everything, and there must be two in saying one.To talk about problems and reason, we must first understand the contradictions.This is also a prerequisite, because the reasoning that will be said later is all about resolving contradictions.What I want to talk about is the negation of negation that goes further than Nagarjuna's negation of "emptiness" ("neither arise nor perish").From the beginning of "being" ("everything" is a theory) to the negation of "emptiness" in the middle, now it is necessary to say that "being" (existence) is "consciousness" (all phenomena) beyond "emptiness" (non-existence) Origin) is the final realm, the core of theory.If you don't know emptiness, existence, severance, and permanence, and don't know the "two sides", how can you break away from the "two sides" and get the "middle way"?If you don't know the two sides of the road, how do you know where is the middle?It is impossible to make a great leap forward to "consciousness-only" without learning from the first "ground" one "ground".Because the prerequisites have been mentioned, the first question and answer in this article will point directly to the core of the system: "How many kinds of consciousnesses have birth, dwelling, and extinction?" From the internal problems of Buddhist belief to the questioning of heretics who do not believe in Buddhism.Finally, before "Break Meat", it is said: "The three vehicles are not vehicles, and the Tathagata is indelible." Philosophy comes down to religion, two in one.But without practice, it still does not become a religion, just as without calculation, it does not become mathematics.Take the precepts and become a vegetarian, and practice begins.Buddhism talks about reasoning, paradox, and analysis, and it also talks about all contradictions and opposites becoming a unity (not unity), which is attributed to religious belief, and then from faith to practice, from practice to enlightenment, that is, liberation.Nagarjuna, who talked about "emptiness" (Dharma-nature-the nature of all things), said in "The Theory of the Middle Kingdom: Ode to Respect": "I worship the Buddha first, and I am the first among all theories." His relatives said in "Yu She Lun · Gui Jing Ode": "Promises are like the teacher of the truth." The two Bodhisattvas praised the truth rather than the god.Going from reason to a person who speaks reason is different from going from god to oracle. What I talked about above is to read it in, and you will be laughed at as the saying in the scriptures, "If you point to the moon with a humble opinion, you can't watch the moon when you watch the fingers".But if you don't watch your fingers, how can you find the direction to see the moon?Maybe you found the shadow of the moon in the water?However, modern people have lived one or two thousand years longer than these documents, and they are not alive in vain, so they can get in and get out.Now that the Suez Canal has been dug through, the waters of the Mediterranean Sea, the water flowing into the Indian Ocean under the snow-capped mountains, and the waters of the Yellow River and Yangtze River have all directly merged, and the Panama Canal has also been dug through, and the waters of the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean have also joined at the other end.Taste a drop of water and you will know that sea water is salty, because you have tasted river water and you know it is salty, and you have tasted well water and you know it is salty or light, sweet or bitter.So the water splits and joins again.There are various flavors of water, but they are all water.After all, we are not the people we were a thousand or two thousand years ago.But have all the ancient thinking problems been solved?Is there nothing left?I'm afraid it's not so easy to "completely break"?There is a saying that firstly it is believed that there is no absolute truth, and later that absolute truth has been discovered, and that there is only the history of philosophy left in philosophy.Is that true?Solely, is this philosophy or religion?Is the dispute between "empty" and "yes" still going on after changing the language symbols? At this point, the poem written 50 years ago came to my mind again: the dead are gone, and the living must not stay.How to continue, loneliness through the ages.