SAE佛学：六个接口
这不是用 SAE 给佛教各宗重新判教，也不是把佛学术语换成 DD 术语。六篇分别选择一个最有分辨率的接口：唯识照“构”，禅照“凿”，中观照“律”，天台照“涵育”，华严照“无外整全”，净土则把问题推到“他力”。
每一次相遇都同时保留两件事：哪里可以互相照亮，哪里必须分手。真正重要的不是证明佛学早已说过 SAE，或 SAE 能够解释佛学，而是让两个完整体系在不可翻译处仍保持各自的形状。
真正可以和 SAE 对接的，不是一个神秘的第八识实体，而是阿赖耶识—种子系统在转依中发生的整段变化。
禅宗并不反对地图、次第和方法；它拒绝的是任何一张地图被主体误认成可以永久居住的终点。
中观与 SAE 都拒绝让任何构坐实为自性，却在“假名有没有真实牵制力”这一点上走向两条不同的路。
天台把教法理解成因机施设，也把圆满理解成性本具足；前者与涵育相接，后者则与 SAE 的无终态彻底分开。
华严以事事无碍完成关系，SAE 以不可单方穷尽守住他者；两种完整在“有没有外部”这一点上正面相遇。
净土以弥陀本愿完成横超，SAE 坚持一切构必须自凿；真正的缝不在有没有行动，而在越过的力量来自哪里。
SAE and Buddhist Thought: Six Interfaces
This is neither an SAE classification of Buddhist schools nor a replacement of Buddhist vocabulary with DD terminology. Each essay selects the interface where one tradition has its greatest resolution: Yogācāra on construct, Chan on the cut, Madhyamaka on the law against intrinsic closure, Tiantai on cultivation, Huayan on wholeness without outside, and Pure Land on other-power.
Every encounter preserves two results at once: where the frameworks illuminate one another and where they must part. The aim is not to prove that Buddhism anticipated SAE or that SAE can explain Buddhism, but to let two complete systems retain their shapes at the point of non-translation.
The useful interface is not a mysterious eighth-consciousness entity but the transformation of the ālayavijñāna–seed system across an entire path.
Chan is not opposed to maps, stages, or methods. It opposes the moment any map is mistaken for a final place to live.
Madhyamaka and SAE both deny intrinsic closure, then part over whether a conventional construct carries real constraining weight.
Tiantai's adaptive pedagogy meets SAE's cultivation, while its inherently complete highest teaching opens a clean and irreducible seam.
Huayan completes relation through unobstructed interpenetration; SAE completes it by preserving an other no single perspective can exhaust.
Pure Land entrusts crossing to Amitābha's Vow; SAE requires every construct to self-chisel. The seam concerns the source of accomplishment.