二谛

洛桑顿珠

<BLOCKQUOTE><STRONG>引用</STRONG>：<HR>原文由 <B>tin</B> 发表于 <I>2006-8-3 11:05:52</I> :<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><P></P></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size=4>二諦是同性異體</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>若以同性的角度去解釋二諦 那就是相同</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>若以異體的角度去解釋二諦 那就不同</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>我覺得看是從哪個角度去解釋吧</FONT></P><P><HR></P><P><FONT size=4>二諦是同体的，比如瓶和瓶的法性。</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

释观清

<BLOCKQUOTE><STRONG>引用</STRONG>：<HR>原文由 <B>tin</B> 发表于 <I>2006-8-2 4:34:10</I> :<BR><P><FONT size=4>對了 有關勝義諦 應成派的唯一不同處就是 應成派認為 滅諦也是勝義諦</FONT><HR></P></BLOCKQUOTE><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">不同意！</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">1</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">、“有關勝義諦，應成派的<SPAN style="COLOR: red">唯一</SPAN>不同處</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW"> </SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">滅諦也是勝義諦”</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">清案：</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">应成与余宗在“胜义谛”上的差别，可以参考您上面所说的。可能您想说“有一不同处”；否则，诸宗“胜义谛”的成立并不相同，不可能应成全都认可（如经部和有部适相对立），而唯独在“灭谛”的许可上有区别。</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">2</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">、“應成派的唯一<SPAN style="COLOR: red">不同處</SPAN>就是</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW"> </SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">應成派認為</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW"> </SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">滅諦也是勝義諦</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">”</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">清案：</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">至少，“灭谛也是胜义谛”这个说法，唯识宗也认可。二世嘉木样大师《宗派建立宝蔓论·唯识宗》说：“（许）<SPAN style="COLOR: red">空性</SPAN>、法界、圆成实、<SPAN style="COLOR: red">胜义谛</SPAN>、实际和真如等为一义。”及“许<SPAN style="COLOR: red">灭谛</SPAN>与涅槃二法皆为<SPAN style="COLOR: red">空性</SPAN>”。那么，这就不是应成派的“不共”之处。</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">3</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">、“應成派的唯一不同處就是</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW"> </SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">應成派認為</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW"> </SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">滅諦也是勝義諦”</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">清案：</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">看到您曾引过“福称”大师《现观》注疏里的说法，那么，若依“福称”大师的观点，则是认同“灭谛”属于“世俗谛”的。</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">《现观庄严论释——显明佛母义之灯·一切种智品·四谛》：</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 19.2pt 0pt 17.95pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71; mso-para-margin-top: 0cm; mso-para-margin-right: 1.83gd; mso-para-margin-bottom: .0001pt; mso-para-margin-left: 1.71gd"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 楷体_GB2312">“有人主张灭谛为胜义谛，也有认许灭谛为二谛的每一份皆有，等等；虽有如此，但认许灭谛为世俗谛，是《解心要庄严疏》的意趣。”<SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 19.2pt 0pt 17.95pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71; mso-para-margin-top: 0cm; mso-para-margin-right: 1.83gd; mso-para-margin-bottom: .0001pt; mso-para-margin-left: 1.71gd"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-FAMILY: 楷体_GB2312"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 19.2pt 0pt 17.95pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71; mso-para-margin-top: 0cm; mso-para-margin-right: 1.83gd; mso-para-margin-bottom: .0001pt; mso-para-margin-left: 1.71gd"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-FAMILY: 楷体_GB2312"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">余论</SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">我承认，宗大师在《入中论善显密义疏》依《入中论释》与《六十正理论释》明确表述“灭谛是胜义谛”，其余如嘉木样大师也是这样说的；但至少，福称大师在此是表述为“世俗谛”，而《解心要庄严疏》，好像也是贾曹杰大师的作品。如果我们认同贾曹杰大师和福称大师属于应成派，那么，应成派里对此就有不同的说法。当然，何者更正确，就不是此处所能讨论的了。</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>

tin

<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=4><STRONG>引用</STRONG>：<HR>原文由 <B>释观清</B> 发表于 <I>2006-8-4 20:33:43</I> :</FONT><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;"><FONT size=4>不同意！</FONT></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p><FONT size=4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><FONT size=4><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">2<FONT face=Simsun> </FONT></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">至少，“灭谛也是胜义谛”这个说法，唯识宗也认可。二世嘉木样大师《宗派建立宝蔓论·唯识宗》说：“（许）<SPAN style="COLOR: red">空性</SPAN>、法界、圆成实、<SPAN style="COLOR: red">胜义谛</SPAN>、实际和真如等为一义。”及“许<SPAN style="COLOR: red">灭谛</SPAN>与涅槃二法皆为<SPAN style="COLOR: red">空性</SPAN>”。那么，这就不是应成派的“不共”之处。</SPAN></FONT></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p><FONT size=4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><FONT size=4><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW">3</SPAN><SPAN lang=ZH-TW style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-fareast-language: ZH-TW; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">、</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;">看到您曾引过“福称”大师《现观》注疏里的说法，那么，若依“福称”大师的观点，则是认同“灭谛”属于“世俗谛”的。</SPAN></FONT></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p><FONT size=4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体; mso-hansi-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;; mso-ascii-font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;"><FONT size=4>《现观庄严论释——显明佛母义之灯·一切种智品·四谛》：</FONT></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71"><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p><FONT size=4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 19.2pt 0pt 17.95pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71; mso-para-margin-top: 0cm; mso-para-margin-right: 1.83gd; mso-para-margin-bottom: .0001pt; mso-para-margin-left: 1.71gd"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 楷体_GB2312"><FONT size=4>“有人主张灭谛为胜义谛，也有认许灭谛为二谛的每一份皆有，等等；虽有如此，但认许灭谛为世俗谛，是《解心要庄严疏》的意趣。”<SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 19.2pt 0pt 17.95pt; TEXT-INDENT: 17.95pt; mso-char-indent-count: 1.71; mso-para-margin-top: 0cm; mso-para-margin-right: 1.83gd; mso-para-margin-bottom: .0001pt; mso-para-margin-left: 1.71gd"><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-FAMILY: 楷体_GB2312"><o:p><FONT size=4>&nbsp;</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P><FONT size=4><HR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size=4>有關法師的第二題 確實有另一派的說法 但我是依據"哲邦寺明慧扎倉的福稱大師"以及 "色拉杰的文殊笑喜" 而提出此觀點 所以看個人怎麼解讀了</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>但法師的第三提 我能100%確定 福稱大師那時是站在自續派的角度去解釋 因為在應成派的觀點時</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>色拉杰的文殊笑喜 --- 認為滅諦不只是勝義諦 而且還屬空性</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>哲邦寺明慧扎倉的福稱大 --- 認為滅諦只是勝義諦 不屬於空性</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>所以色拉杰以及哲邦寺明慧扎倉兩者時常在辯論這個問題</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>我們校長---認為滅諦只是勝義諦 不屬於空性</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>但是嘉瓦法王---認為滅諦不只是勝義諦 而且還屬空性</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>其實也好 更多的理論讓我們也更多的參考 不是嗎?</FONT></P><P><FONT size=4>末學敬上</FONT></P>

龙吟

<P>个人意见：</P><P>灭谛如果理解为从本不生的空性，那么就是胜义谛。</P><P>灭谛如果理解为生灭辗转的相续，那么就是世俗谛。</P><P>小乘偏于后者，大乘偏于前者。</P>