請教: 何為"色不異空,空不異色. 色即是空,空即是色" ?

歡迎各抒己見! 謝謝!  

子竹青青如此看:
所謂「色不異空」，也即，有形的物體（色，在論壇里，是你的貼）是不斷變化（空，也即，我們隨時隨地都可能回你的貼）的。

而所謂的「空不異色」，是指變化本身（我們打字，按發表貼子鍵）亦體現在有形的物體上（也即，你的貼又高了一樓）。

因此呢，「色即是空,空即是色」因為大家的努力回貼及你的貼不斷長樓層都是一個整體的不同方面。

借屍還魂認為可以用如下公式來理解所謂「四大皆空」：E=M*Square(C)

我覺得必須把空和相的關係放在時間中理解.

在緣起成相的同時我們需要認識到其相的本質為空. 這時為了理解的方便,必須把緣起成相的點剎那(point-instant) 固定住,也就是時間的空間化.這種情況下,空和相的關係彷彿是個靜止的空盒子. 這是空的第一層含義. 要理解空的第二層含義,就需要讓時間重新流動起來. 緣起時成相,緣滅時為空.用明代人真可的話說是" 三千大千世界之堅初碎而為微塵，再合微塵而為世界."  空的第三層含義是時間的觀念也為空, 用康德的話說,時間是人腦的mental structure, 前兩種含義說的都是同一個事物.是人認識的對象, 后一種含義說的是認識的主體人認識世界的方式.

以上看法源自我對幾年前看過的佛教學權威著作Stcherbatsky 的Buddhist Logic 的理解. 如有欠缺,歡迎校正.

以下兩個類比有助於理解空:
* 愛因斯坦說：「物質是由場強很大的空間組成的……，在這種新的物理學中，並非既有場又有物質，因為場才是唯一的存在。物質和時間只是人們的錯覺。」而佛經上告訴我們：「凡所有相，皆是虛妄。緣起性空，諸法無我。」

* 原子彈的爆炸，證明了愛因斯坦質量－能量轉換定律(E=M*C*C 能量＝質量 x 光速的平方)的正確性。而佛經中說: "色即是空，空即是色"。(質量相當於色,能量相當於空.)

安德魯兄弟問了個問題: 根據色空的原理，俺怎樣知道要抓賊而不是幫賊呢？

自備個沙發來聽講.

明天但願chico他們都上來

也佔個座,恭候各路神仙.

My understanding -- all 色 - materials, thoughts, images to be "seen" or "observed" by us, the observer, it involves three inter-connected "components" for establishment.  First, the "basis" of 色 is a movement of energy - a flush of collective elements or molecules/combination of parts or components, and/or collections of thoughts and memories. In short, this "movement" of energy makes "things happening", making 色 having the "substance". Second, there must exist an "observer", through our senses - visual, auditory, smelling, tasting, touching, mind contacts, who "detects" this 色. Third, the event of connection -- which makes 色 to be "connected" with the "observer" -- the outcome of this connection is - "event", which simply means that the connection results in the observer knowing there is a movement outside in which appears in their conscious "mind".  Now, there are 3 pre-requisite "elements" for "色" to occur and to be known. Please note, although there are 3 elements here, all elements are depending on each other, without any of three the 色 will not exist. And if you look at these three "elements" deeply, all three are in fact are virtually similar "element" -- they are all "色"  -- movement of energy. Without this movement -- none of these 3 elements can come to "existence". So, three events that look "distinct", are in fact "inseparable" in nature for their existence. Because of the inter-dependency nature and the changing nature of "色" -- it is impossible for us to pinpoint any of these elements as something "static" or "permanence" - so nothing is possible for "us or the observer" to "hold on/grasp and to "assume" there is a "static substance" out there". Because by doing so, we will get into the "wishful imagination" or "illusion" that will become the "cause" of suffering. The suffering occurs when we establish an independency or distinction -- so now the sense of "I", "things", "you", and many more "irrelevant" concepts come in. In order to break this illusion -- 空 - this "emptiness concept" is introduced -- this concept is a "replacement" of 色 -- but the conceptual difference is -- 空 -- allows us to loosen up this "assumption" about things are "permanent" -- where the practitioner will be able to take or see things as they are -- the key thing here is "not assuming" there is something or nothing or "hold up firmly an idea there are distinct events or independent entity here.  So, the "outcome" is, the practitioner will learn not to "assume" things which they are not -- but Just simply see things as they are. With this "view" establishes, one will become more understanding about this phenomena - "色不異空,空不異色. 色即是空,空即是色"  -- this "concept" is a reflection of pratitioner's mind -- but in reality there is nothing there except the concepts. When come to "academic discussion" -- we will never be able to understand really as it is.

[ 本帖最後由 Pathless 於 2008-2-11 00:48 編輯 ]

原帖由 Pathless 於 2008-2-11 00:33 發表
My understanding -- all 色 - materials, thoughts, images to be "seen" or "observed" by us, the observer, it involves three inter-connected "components" for establish ...

I think your explanation is valid. Yet I have a few questions concerning your understanding of the buddhist principle involved.

Since there is no such thing as a self that is independent of any conditions, who establishes  the connection between the object and the individual? Is it consciousness without a subject? Or, let me put it this way, is this connection just the result of the interaction between the object and consciousness without a subject rather than a mere attempt on the part of the individual that overarches the object and him? Thanks!

Depending on the root consciousness,the five consciousness originate in accordance with various conditions,sometimes together,sometimes separately just as waves orginate on  water.

Water waves are a very good metaphor. What I am concerned with, however, is the relationship between consciousness and its object.

It is not easy to describe this subject in words - because this phrase "色不異空,空不異色. 色即是空,空即是色" can only be understood in the nature of nonduality or personal "experience", when it is described in words - an expression of mind that is of duality nature - sometimes it will end up creating more confusion. The connection is "used" is simply an attempt to explain when the object being observed (external materials and/or objects of thought) and the observer are "met"/"in contact" the "色" becomes existence to the "observer" -- it looks like these three elements -- subject and object and connection have to come together for the whole existence of  色 to happen..  In reality -- these three elements do not "exist" separately, they are always in contact -- because without any of these components, the "色" will not be "arising" to the "consciousness".   

"who establishes  the connection between the object and the individual?" -- connection "just" happens, no one is there.  

"Is it consciousness without a subject?  Or, let me put it this way, is this connection just the result of the interaction between the object and consciousness without a subject rather than a mere attempt on the part of the individual that overarches the object and him?"  -- the real "observer"/"consciousness" that is aware of the subject is unknowable -- so there is no answer for this question or the question will be "vanished" when the realization of the undifferentiated nature occurs. We tend to think that there is a "separate" consciousness" or "observer" who observes the subject or there is "no observer" at all or there is only the observing process who is the observer -- all of which are falling as a consequence to the "illusion" of "duality" view.  In nonduality, these descriptions cannot exist.

So you mean to say that there is no sharp distinction between consciousness and its object because they are, as a matter of fact, a whole that cannot be decomposed.  

consciousness manifest itself in two parts:the knower and the known

你們的研究好象進入了八識，上次問號學長開了個頭就跑了。
俺能用英文胡扯出來的，也就上面那兩句。

現在要搬個椅子看了

Conciousness and its "objects" are two aspects of one thing or one thing of two aspects .... they are distinctly different when "mind" is involved; but in "reality" they cannot be totally different things. So, either way, same or different -- are both wrong but are still "acceptable" when understood in our "minds".  It is very hard to understand this nature, as long as our mind has created an "observer" as a distinct nature -- so, as long as "I-ness", the subjective "Self" exists, the separateness will exist.

I've found that American pragmatists share the same notion of truth with buddhists. Both schools of thought situate truth or reality in the flux of time, and both, as a result, deny the transcendence of truth.

原帖由 子竹青青 於 2008-2-11 08:14 發表
consciousness manifest itself in two parts:the knower and the known

Conciousness embraces both the knower and the known? Do you want to introduce God into our discussion?   

Perhaps you mean that there is consciousness in the knower as well as in the known? In that case, your idea is rather similar to that of F.C.S Schiller whose philosophy bears a striking affinity to Buddhism.

Philosophical understanding of these concepts will only enable one at best to imagine thisundifferentiated nature. For one to "understand" it throughly, one will have to experience it. "Transcendence" is a tricky word... In Buddhism -- especially in the ancient Buddhist scripture -- this "Transcendence" is almost non-existent .. because if there is no "Self" within the 5 "kandas" - body-mind - who is actually "transcending" to see the truth?

God is a metaphor --- the traces of this "God-nature", " expansive Self that exists in all existence -- the "buddha-nature" -- all are just metaphors of the same thing.