二月廿四日,我第一次到粉嶺的佛教馬錦燦中學講課。
2009年2月25日
2009年2月20日
期中reading week
時至本學期中的reading week,意思是這學期已經走到半途,更重要的是各科作業都要陸續交出了,以我這學期的loading,每週拼一篇都很趕,有點驚嚇過度,希望這星期不用上課,可以拼出兩篇短文。
Karma — in Early Brahmanic, Buddhist and Jainist Traditions
The idea of karma is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant streams in Indian culture, even in the world civilization. In fact, karma is one of the few Sanskrit terminologies which were absorbed into English vocabulary.
The word karma is derived from √kri and its meaning is ‘act, action, performance’.[1] In the broad sense, karma means action. According to Vedic belief, the four classes (varna) have their own corresponding acts respectively. To a Kshatriya, the appropriate act is battle; to a Brāhman, that is ritual ceremonies and the study of the Veda.[2] No matter whether it is religious or secular, action can be distinguished into ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Good actions produce positive results and bad actions produce negative results. This effect is known as karma-vipāka; the ripening of karma.[3] The law of karma which connects causal deeds with its fruits was usually seen as the most distinctive feature of Hinduism.[4]
Karma is the action that a man does; fate is the power that is done to him in another way.[5] The mainstream Hinduism considers these notions as an impersonal force or mechanism.[6] What a man does causes an effect in the temporal life or after death. Similarly, what a man receives is the results of the past actions. It is inevitable, irreversible, and inexorable. However, in the Purānas, it proposed contradictorily many ways to overcome or even reverse fate and the law of karma, which are contrary to the core meaning of karma shown above. These texts advised adherents to take remedial actions ‘in order to swim like a salmon upstream against the current of karma’.[7] In the deeper level, it showed the tendency to reify the notion of karma.[8] Then the texts described the immortal bearer, the subtle body, jīva, which carries the karma from this life to the next.[9]
The theory of karma and transmigration (samsāra) are always bound together. For the explanation of inequalities of birth and inconsistencies of causation in this very life, Hinduism believes that human transmigrates from one body to another with his karma.[10] This process is without beginning and end, unless the karma-bearer liberates from the cycle. In order to escape from saṃsāra, people can choose either way from alternative courses in Hinduism. One is to perform sacrifices and then go to heaven although the heaven is not permanent to stay. The other one is to understand the inner meaning of the sacrifices and to meditate or practice ascetics. After death, he will go back to Brahman and free from rebirths. [11] However, even the second one, the path of knowledge, never deprives the ritual action.[12]
Karma plays such significant role in Indian philosophy that influences Jainism and Buddhism vastly as well as samsāra. In Buddhism, the Buddha took over the term karma from Brahmanism and endowed it with a new meaning. In Brahmanical literature, karma indicates mostly ritual actions. However, the Buddha interpreted karma as more intention than action. He said: ‘It is will (cetanā), O bhikkhus, that I call karma; having willed, one acts through body, speech or mind’ (A.III.415). Thus the Buddha declared that the essence of karma is ethical and has nothing to do with ritual. He fundamentally switched the notion of karma from ritual to ethics. Although the ethicization of karma begun in the early Upanisads, it was never stepped much further within Hinduism.[13] As K. R. Norman suggested: ‘The change of meaning is almost always a result of the fact that the Brahmanical terms were used in a framework of ritualism, while the Buddha invested them with a moral and ethical sense.’[14]
In a similar manner, Jainism tried to reinterpret Vedic ritual action. They also emphasized that karma has ethical aspect. Every karma must generate its own result. However, karma was more or less all bad for them.[15] Because Jainism regarded karma as a physical substance, which was compared to dust. The dust sticks on the soul (jīva) and prevents the soul from liberating.[16] In order to release from karma, they have to burn away karma by the heat of austerity (tapas).[17] Beyond the ethicization of karma, Jainism did not separate intention from action like Buddhism did. Thus, they believed that every action including accidental and fully willed will generate karmic fruits.[18]
Buddhism inherited the theory of karmic causation from Hinduism, by which good actions will be rewarded and bad actions punished. These criteria are in accordance with actor’s intention. Buddhists denied that the results are imposed by an impersonal power.[19] The law of karma is the law of nature. It is a kind of maturation process.[20] Besides, Buddhists also accepted the concept that merits can be transferred from one to another. This is also part of reification of karma. This concept can be traced to the Brahmanical śrāddha ritual.[21] Even though Buddhists rejected the śrāddha ritual, they actually developed the idea of transferable merit to a lofty level.[22] By contrast, Jainism abandoned the idea of transferable merit, which was illogical for them and for the śrāddha as well. Probably, this viewpoint makes them difficult to explain the process of rebirth, because samsāra theory is based on the śrāddha and the merit transferred idea behind it in Indian philosophy.[23]
Karma itself should be seen as a widespread concept in India. To more or less extent, it affects every Indian religions and thoughts. The theory of karma was mainly rooted in and developed from Hinduism. Both Buddhism and Jainism take over this idea but reshape it from different perspectives. Karma originally means action in Hinduism, especially ritual. Sacrifice serves to purify one’s soul to attain liberation. Jainism denies the ritual aspect and emphasized the action side. And they resorted to the ascetic practices. By contrast, Buddhism highlights the intention side. Thus, even the ethical action alone cannot necessarily lead to liberation, which must depend on wisdom (paññā).[24]
[1] Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary, pp. 258.
[2] Robert Charles Zaehner, Hinduism, Oxford, 1966, pp. 59.
[3] Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, “Karma and Rebirth in the Vedas and Purānas”, Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, New Delhi, 1983, pp. 14.
[4] Zaehner, 1966, pp. 59.
[5] O’Flaherty, 1983, pp. 26.
[6] Johannes Bronkhorst, Karma and Teleology, International Institute for Buddhist Studies, Tokyo, 2000, pp. 1.
[7] O’Flaherty, 1983, pp. 13-14.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., pp. 16.
[10] Zaehner, 1966, pp. 60.
[11] Richard F. Gombrich, ‘Notes on the Brahminical Background to Buddhist Ethics’, Buddhist Studies in Honour of Hammalava Saddhatissa, ed. Gatare Dhammapala, Sri Lanka, 1984, pp.95.
[12] Ibid., pp. 96.
[13] Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism, Routledge, 1988, pp. 46.
[14] K.R. Norman, “Theravāda Buddhism and Brahmanical Hinduism: Brahmanical Terms in a Buddhist Guise”, T. Skorupski, The Buddhist Forum, vol. II, 1991, pp. 193.
[15] Gombrich, How Buddhism begun, Athlone, 1996, pp. 50.
[16] Paul Dundas, The Jains, Routledge, 2002, pp. 97.
[17] Ibid., pp. 15-16.
[18] Dundas, 2002, pp. 98.
[19] Gombrich, 1984, pp. 37.
[20] Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 39-40.
[21] Ibid., pp. 43.
[22] O’Flaherty, 1983, pp. 10.
[23] Ibid., pp. 9-10.
[24] Gombrich, 1984, pp. 98.
Karma — in Early Brahmanic, Buddhist and Jainist Traditions
The idea of karma is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant streams in Indian culture, even in the world civilization. In fact, karma is one of the few Sanskrit terminologies which were absorbed into English vocabulary.
The word karma is derived from √kri and its meaning is ‘act, action, performance’.[1] In the broad sense, karma means action. According to Vedic belief, the four classes (varna) have their own corresponding acts respectively. To a Kshatriya, the appropriate act is battle; to a Brāhman, that is ritual ceremonies and the study of the Veda.[2] No matter whether it is religious or secular, action can be distinguished into ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Good actions produce positive results and bad actions produce negative results. This effect is known as karma-vipāka; the ripening of karma.[3] The law of karma which connects causal deeds with its fruits was usually seen as the most distinctive feature of Hinduism.[4]
Karma is the action that a man does; fate is the power that is done to him in another way.[5] The mainstream Hinduism considers these notions as an impersonal force or mechanism.[6] What a man does causes an effect in the temporal life or after death. Similarly, what a man receives is the results of the past actions. It is inevitable, irreversible, and inexorable. However, in the Purānas, it proposed contradictorily many ways to overcome or even reverse fate and the law of karma, which are contrary to the core meaning of karma shown above. These texts advised adherents to take remedial actions ‘in order to swim like a salmon upstream against the current of karma’.[7] In the deeper level, it showed the tendency to reify the notion of karma.[8] Then the texts described the immortal bearer, the subtle body, jīva, which carries the karma from this life to the next.[9]
The theory of karma and transmigration (samsāra) are always bound together. For the explanation of inequalities of birth and inconsistencies of causation in this very life, Hinduism believes that human transmigrates from one body to another with his karma.[10] This process is without beginning and end, unless the karma-bearer liberates from the cycle. In order to escape from saṃsāra, people can choose either way from alternative courses in Hinduism. One is to perform sacrifices and then go to heaven although the heaven is not permanent to stay. The other one is to understand the inner meaning of the sacrifices and to meditate or practice ascetics. After death, he will go back to Brahman and free from rebirths. [11] However, even the second one, the path of knowledge, never deprives the ritual action.[12]
Karma plays such significant role in Indian philosophy that influences Jainism and Buddhism vastly as well as samsāra. In Buddhism, the Buddha took over the term karma from Brahmanism and endowed it with a new meaning. In Brahmanical literature, karma indicates mostly ritual actions. However, the Buddha interpreted karma as more intention than action. He said: ‘It is will (cetanā), O bhikkhus, that I call karma; having willed, one acts through body, speech or mind’ (A.III.415). Thus the Buddha declared that the essence of karma is ethical and has nothing to do with ritual. He fundamentally switched the notion of karma from ritual to ethics. Although the ethicization of karma begun in the early Upanisads, it was never stepped much further within Hinduism.[13] As K. R. Norman suggested: ‘The change of meaning is almost always a result of the fact that the Brahmanical terms were used in a framework of ritualism, while the Buddha invested them with a moral and ethical sense.’[14]
In a similar manner, Jainism tried to reinterpret Vedic ritual action. They also emphasized that karma has ethical aspect. Every karma must generate its own result. However, karma was more or less all bad for them.[15] Because Jainism regarded karma as a physical substance, which was compared to dust. The dust sticks on the soul (jīva) and prevents the soul from liberating.[16] In order to release from karma, they have to burn away karma by the heat of austerity (tapas).[17] Beyond the ethicization of karma, Jainism did not separate intention from action like Buddhism did. Thus, they believed that every action including accidental and fully willed will generate karmic fruits.[18]
Buddhism inherited the theory of karmic causation from Hinduism, by which good actions will be rewarded and bad actions punished. These criteria are in accordance with actor’s intention. Buddhists denied that the results are imposed by an impersonal power.[19] The law of karma is the law of nature. It is a kind of maturation process.[20] Besides, Buddhists also accepted the concept that merits can be transferred from one to another. This is also part of reification of karma. This concept can be traced to the Brahmanical śrāddha ritual.[21] Even though Buddhists rejected the śrāddha ritual, they actually developed the idea of transferable merit to a lofty level.[22] By contrast, Jainism abandoned the idea of transferable merit, which was illogical for them and for the śrāddha as well. Probably, this viewpoint makes them difficult to explain the process of rebirth, because samsāra theory is based on the śrāddha and the merit transferred idea behind it in Indian philosophy.[23]
Karma itself should be seen as a widespread concept in India. To more or less extent, it affects every Indian religions and thoughts. The theory of karma was mainly rooted in and developed from Hinduism. Both Buddhism and Jainism take over this idea but reshape it from different perspectives. Karma originally means action in Hinduism, especially ritual. Sacrifice serves to purify one’s soul to attain liberation. Jainism denies the ritual aspect and emphasized the action side. And they resorted to the ascetic practices. By contrast, Buddhism highlights the intention side. Thus, even the ethical action alone cannot necessarily lead to liberation, which must depend on wisdom (paññā).[24]
[1] Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary, pp. 258.
[2] Robert Charles Zaehner, Hinduism, Oxford, 1966, pp. 59.
[3] Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, “Karma and Rebirth in the Vedas and Purānas”, Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, New Delhi, 1983, pp. 14.
[4] Zaehner, 1966, pp. 59.
[5] O’Flaherty, 1983, pp. 26.
[6] Johannes Bronkhorst, Karma and Teleology, International Institute for Buddhist Studies, Tokyo, 2000, pp. 1.
[7] O’Flaherty, 1983, pp. 13-14.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., pp. 16.
[10] Zaehner, 1966, pp. 60.
[11] Richard F. Gombrich, ‘Notes on the Brahminical Background to Buddhist Ethics’, Buddhist Studies in Honour of Hammalava Saddhatissa, ed. Gatare Dhammapala, Sri Lanka, 1984, pp.95.
[12] Ibid., pp. 96.
[13] Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism, Routledge, 1988, pp. 46.
[14] K.R. Norman, “Theravāda Buddhism and Brahmanical Hinduism: Brahmanical Terms in a Buddhist Guise”, T. Skorupski, The Buddhist Forum, vol. II, 1991, pp. 193.
[15] Gombrich, How Buddhism begun, Athlone, 1996, pp. 50.
[16] Paul Dundas, The Jains, Routledge, 2002, pp. 97.
[17] Ibid., pp. 15-16.
[18] Dundas, 2002, pp. 98.
[19] Gombrich, 1984, pp. 37.
[20] Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 39-40.
[21] Ibid., pp. 43.
[22] O’Flaherty, 1983, pp. 10.
[23] Ibid., pp. 9-10.
[24] Gombrich, 1984, pp. 98.
2009年2月3日
虛空有盡,生命有限,唯有精進不懈,感恩聖嚴師父…
世間的因緣總是甚深難解,生命的轉折總要等到回頭望去,才似乎有些明瞭,或許不能武斷的說,沒有聖嚴師父,就不會有出家的我,但是,聖嚴師父絕對是我在學佛道路上的最大助緣。
第一次見到聖嚴師父是在中視的攝影棚,那時我還在劇團工作,陪著團長上節目錄影,「不一樣的聲音」主要是師父與不同領域來賓的對談,說實在話,我已經忘了大部分的內容,依稀記得師父說他還是小沙彌的時候,每天都要打鼓,他謙虛的說他打的不好,只管一棒一棒的打,其他部分我就記不得了,當時師父的身體已經不是很好,隨身掛著一台小小的空氣濾淨器,因為會干擾收音,所以,沒錄多久就拿掉了。
節目錄影的過程中,我都在一旁觀看,看著師父徐徐地講述一些事情一些道理,一切都很和緩平淡,卻不知怎麼的讓我感動到眼眶盈淚,真正的修行其實不需要言語就能夠直接觸動人心,這是師父帶給我的最大感動,直到現在我仍然忘不了。
下了節目,師父跟在場的人員一一告別,當他知道我在劇團工作之後,便問我是不是打鼓的團員,我告訴師父我是行政,師父有點遺憾的說你這種體格,應該去打鼓,應該去打鼓。沒想到後來我沒有去打鼓,倒是跑到中華佛學研究所打法鼓,更沒想到爾後唸書三年之中,我與師父的機緣卻僅止於問訊。(因為身為師父的學生,見到師父都會覺得不好意思。)
中華佛研所在台灣的佛教研究界佔有非常重要的地位,前廿年的上課地點都在北投的中華佛教文化館,近年才遷到金山的世界佛教教育園區,由於佛研所是法鼓山第一個搬到總本山的單位,因此, 2005年夏天我剛到學校上課時,除了教室、圖書館和宿舍以外,其他的建築都還沒完工,也因此,沒有大批的信徒和遊客到訪,就唸書而言,非常的清幽寧靜。除了夏天的陽光炙熱異常,加上宿舍的房間很不通風,往往過了午夜溫度才會降下來,清早又被陽光給曬醒。
就在那一年的暑假先修班,我開始學習梵文和比較宗教學,梵文先是莊國彬老師代課,後來由宗玉媺老師接手,比較宗教學的老師是聖嚴師父和黃繹勳老師,開課沒多久,聖嚴師父就來上了一堂課,但也只有那一堂,說是上課,倒像是談話兼認識同學,大家自我介紹之後,師父便提示佛研所的所訓「道心第一,健康第二,學問第三。」不過實際上歷年的學生似乎都是功課擺第一,道心有強調,健康是不重要,沒辦法,對我們這些佛學新手而言,論文寫作是動筆得咎,梵文就像是連在一起的符號,每天都被作業追著跑。
這種情況在學期正式開始之後,變得更加嚴重,因為,法鼓山要開山啦,剛入秋,大殿和祈願觀音殿便相繼落成,因此,法鼓山開始籌辦開山落成大典,除此之外,中華佛研所同時間舉辦了世界宗教論壇與佛教論壇,邀請世界各宗教代表發表論文及對談,我們學生很榮幸的參與其中的接待工作,只不過,就在那時聽聞師父住進台大醫院調養身體,至於是否動手術就不得而知,直到論壇及典禮時,師父才現身說法。
此後,在我就讀佛研所的三年中,聖嚴師父便週週進醫院洗腎,身體時好時壞,不過每學期對全校師生的精神講話卻從未缺席,雖然師父最後總會鼓勵大家,但是大部分時間卻是在批評佛研所,主要是指佛研所太重視印度佛教,忽略漢傳佛教,或者是佛研所學生與僧團關係太疏遠,雖然師父也承認這是他自己訂下的方針。我個人認為師父致力於弘揚漢傳佛教,本是無可厚非,但是學校的課程設計就是漢傳、南傳、藏傳三系並重,學生當然會根據個人的興趣選擇研究方向,而且三個傳承的研究人數也經常變動,除非教學目標只限於漢傳佛教;此外,師父當初創立佛研所,便希望學生能專心讀書,不要受到寺院事務影響,這的確造成學生不熱中參與僧團活動,但在中華佛研所轉型為法鼓佛教學院之後,應該有很大程度的轉變。
總之,聖嚴師父只要身體健康,就會出來精神講話,不管是對學生,或者是對僧團,而且三不五時就傳出師父對佛研所的批評,雖然聽到後,心裡都有些許困惑,但是換個角度想,師父有力氣批評,便代表師父的健康狀況良好,同學們倒也心安不少。
三年級的下學期,我離校前最後一次聽師父開示,那一陣子師父的身體非常虛弱,都是坐著輪椅與大家見面,我的內心為之一震,不只是頭一次見到師父坐輪椅,更因為師父儘管氣力微弱,卻還是堅持見見我們這些學生,到了學期末,師父的身體似乎又好了起來,有次師父正從會議廳裡出來,我剛好在茶點桌旁邊,師父便很慈祥的要我多吃點,這也成為我與師父最後一次碰面。雖說生死無常,但是每每見到師父出院後,神采奕奕的精神講話,心裡不免以為師父只要住院休息一陣子,一定會再出來勉勵大家,一定會再出來的......
回顧這段我與聖嚴師父的因緣,其實並不特殊,但是對我的影響卻十分深遠,由於師父創辦並且一直支持中華佛研所,在我離開劇團之後,才能抓住這個再次進修的機會,又由於順利進入佛研所,我才能接受到眾多師長的指導,深入佛學研究的領域,堅定我對佛法的理解與信心,最終決定剃度出家。雖然,此刻,師父已經捨報往生,這個生命的終點我們遲早都將抵達,但是,我們可以努力的是精勤實踐佛法,與所有人結善緣,將此人天善法永遠傳佈弘揚,「虛空有盡,眾願無窮」。
第一次見到聖嚴師父是在中視的攝影棚,那時我還在劇團工作,陪著團長上節目錄影,「不一樣的聲音」主要是師父與不同領域來賓的對談,說實在話,我已經忘了大部分的內容,依稀記得師父說他還是小沙彌的時候,每天都要打鼓,他謙虛的說他打的不好,只管一棒一棒的打,其他部分我就記不得了,當時師父的身體已經不是很好,隨身掛著一台小小的空氣濾淨器,因為會干擾收音,所以,沒錄多久就拿掉了。
節目錄影的過程中,我都在一旁觀看,看著師父徐徐地講述一些事情一些道理,一切都很和緩平淡,卻不知怎麼的讓我感動到眼眶盈淚,真正的修行其實不需要言語就能夠直接觸動人心,這是師父帶給我的最大感動,直到現在我仍然忘不了。
下了節目,師父跟在場的人員一一告別,當他知道我在劇團工作之後,便問我是不是打鼓的團員,我告訴師父我是行政,師父有點遺憾的說你這種體格,應該去打鼓,應該去打鼓。沒想到後來我沒有去打鼓,倒是跑到中華佛學研究所打法鼓,更沒想到爾後唸書三年之中,我與師父的機緣卻僅止於問訊。(因為身為師父的學生,見到師父都會覺得不好意思。)
中華佛研所在台灣的佛教研究界佔有非常重要的地位,前廿年的上課地點都在北投的中華佛教文化館,近年才遷到金山的世界佛教教育園區,由於佛研所是法鼓山第一個搬到總本山的單位,因此, 2005年夏天我剛到學校上課時,除了教室、圖書館和宿舍以外,其他的建築都還沒完工,也因此,沒有大批的信徒和遊客到訪,就唸書而言,非常的清幽寧靜。除了夏天的陽光炙熱異常,加上宿舍的房間很不通風,往往過了午夜溫度才會降下來,清早又被陽光給曬醒。
就在那一年的暑假先修班,我開始學習梵文和比較宗教學,梵文先是莊國彬老師代課,後來由宗玉媺老師接手,比較宗教學的老師是聖嚴師父和黃繹勳老師,開課沒多久,聖嚴師父就來上了一堂課,但也只有那一堂,說是上課,倒像是談話兼認識同學,大家自我介紹之後,師父便提示佛研所的所訓「道心第一,健康第二,學問第三。」不過實際上歷年的學生似乎都是功課擺第一,道心有強調,健康是不重要,沒辦法,對我們這些佛學新手而言,論文寫作是動筆得咎,梵文就像是連在一起的符號,每天都被作業追著跑。
這種情況在學期正式開始之後,變得更加嚴重,因為,法鼓山要開山啦,剛入秋,大殿和祈願觀音殿便相繼落成,因此,法鼓山開始籌辦開山落成大典,除此之外,中華佛研所同時間舉辦了世界宗教論壇與佛教論壇,邀請世界各宗教代表發表論文及對談,我們學生很榮幸的參與其中的接待工作,只不過,就在那時聽聞師父住進台大醫院調養身體,至於是否動手術就不得而知,直到論壇及典禮時,師父才現身說法。
此後,在我就讀佛研所的三年中,聖嚴師父便週週進醫院洗腎,身體時好時壞,不過每學期對全校師生的精神講話卻從未缺席,雖然師父最後總會鼓勵大家,但是大部分時間卻是在批評佛研所,主要是指佛研所太重視印度佛教,忽略漢傳佛教,或者是佛研所學生與僧團關係太疏遠,雖然師父也承認這是他自己訂下的方針。我個人認為師父致力於弘揚漢傳佛教,本是無可厚非,但是學校的課程設計就是漢傳、南傳、藏傳三系並重,學生當然會根據個人的興趣選擇研究方向,而且三個傳承的研究人數也經常變動,除非教學目標只限於漢傳佛教;此外,師父當初創立佛研所,便希望學生能專心讀書,不要受到寺院事務影響,這的確造成學生不熱中參與僧團活動,但在中華佛研所轉型為法鼓佛教學院之後,應該有很大程度的轉變。
總之,聖嚴師父只要身體健康,就會出來精神講話,不管是對學生,或者是對僧團,而且三不五時就傳出師父對佛研所的批評,雖然聽到後,心裡都有些許困惑,但是換個角度想,師父有力氣批評,便代表師父的健康狀況良好,同學們倒也心安不少。
三年級的下學期,我離校前最後一次聽師父開示,那一陣子師父的身體非常虛弱,都是坐著輪椅與大家見面,我的內心為之一震,不只是頭一次見到師父坐輪椅,更因為師父儘管氣力微弱,卻還是堅持見見我們這些學生,到了學期末,師父的身體似乎又好了起來,有次師父正從會議廳裡出來,我剛好在茶點桌旁邊,師父便很慈祥的要我多吃點,這也成為我與師父最後一次碰面。雖說生死無常,但是每每見到師父出院後,神采奕奕的精神講話,心裡不免以為師父只要住院休息一陣子,一定會再出來勉勵大家,一定會再出來的......
回顧這段我與聖嚴師父的因緣,其實並不特殊,但是對我的影響卻十分深遠,由於師父創辦並且一直支持中華佛研所,在我離開劇團之後,才能抓住這個再次進修的機會,又由於順利進入佛研所,我才能接受到眾多師長的指導,深入佛學研究的領域,堅定我對佛法的理解與信心,最終決定剃度出家。雖然,此刻,師父已經捨報往生,這個生命的終點我們遲早都將抵達,但是,我們可以努力的是精勤實踐佛法,與所有人結善緣,將此人天善法永遠傳佈弘揚,「虛空有盡,眾願無窮」。
訂閱:
文章 (Atom)






