佛陀的啟示 第六章 無我論 Chapter VI. The Doctrine of No Soul: Anatta

Chapter VI. The Doctrine of No Soul: Anatta

第六章 無我論

What in generally is suggested by Soul, Self, Ego, or to use the Sanskrit expression Ātman, is that in man there is a permanent, everlasting and absolute entity, which is the unchanging substance behind the changing phenomenal world. According to some religions, each individual has such a separate soul which is created by God, and which, finally after death, lives eternally either in hell or heaven, its destiny depending on the judgment of its creator. According to others, it goes through many lives till it is completely purified and becomes finally united with God or Brahman, Universal Soul or Ātman, from which it originally emanated. This soul or self in man is the thinker of thoughts, feeler of sensations, and receiver of rewards and punishments for all its actions good and bad. Such a conception is called the idea of self.

一般用到『靈魂』、『自我』、『個我』或梵文里的『神我』( Atman)(編者注： Atman其實只是『我』的意思，一般均譯為『神我』，沿用已久，但是否與奧義書及吠檀多之哲學相符，甚可置疑。)這些字眼的時候，它們所提示的意義是：在人身中有一恆常不變、亙古長存的絕對實體。這實體就是那千變萬化的現象世界背後不變的實質。照某些宗教說，每一個人都有一個個別的靈魂，這靈魂是上帝所創造的。人死後，它即永久地生活在地獄或天堂里，而它的命運則完全取決于它的創造主的裁判。依另一些宗教的說法，這靈魂可以歷經多生，直到完全淨化，最後乃與上帝或梵天或神我合一，因為當初它就是從這里面流出來的。這個人身中的靈魂或自我是思想者、感受者、一切善惡行為所得獎懲的領納者，這種的觀念叫做我見。

Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Ātman. According to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world.

在人類的思想史中，佛教是獨一無二不承認這靈魂、自我或神我的存在者。根據佛的教誡，我見是虛妄的邪信，與真實絕不相侔。它只能產生『我』、『我的』之類有害的思想、自私的欲望、貪求、執著、憎恨、嗔恚、貢高、我慢、自利主義，以及其它染污不淨法等種種問題。它是世間一切紛擾的泉源：從個人間的沖突，以至國與國間的戰爭，莫不以此為根由。簡言之，世間一切邪惡不善法，無一不可溯源到這一邪見。

Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man; self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Ātman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically.

人的心理上，有兩種根深蒂固的意念：自衛與自存。為了自衛，人類創造了上帝，靠上帝得到保護、安全與依怙，就像小孩依賴父母一樣。為了自存，人類想出了靈魂(神我)不滅的主意，俾得亙古長存。由于他的愚昧、懦弱、恐懼與貪婪，人類需要這兩件東西來安慰自己。因此，他緊緊地、狂熱地抓住它們。

The Buddha’s teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, but aims at making man enlightened by removing and destroying them, striking at their very root. According to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in an intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology. These ideas are so deep-rooted in man, and so near and dear to him, that he does not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any teaching against them.

佛的教誡不但不助長這愚昧、怯懦、恐懼與貪欲，反從釜底抽新將這些(劣根性)連根芟除，以使人類得到正覺為目的。根據佛教，上帝與靈魂的概念，是虛妄不實的。雖然神學是一項高度發展的理論，它們仍然只是極精微的前塵心影，不過穿上了深奧難懂的形上學以及哲學名詞的外衣而已。這些意念之根深蒂固而為人類所親所愛，使得人類不願聽聞、更不願了解任何與之相違反的教誡。

The Buddha knew this quite well. In fact, he said that his teaching was ‘against the current’ (patisotagāmi), against man’s selfish desire. Just four weeks after his Enlightenment, seated under a banyan tree, he thought to himself; ‘I have realized this Truth which is deep, difficult to understand… comprehensible only by the wise… Men who are overpowered by passions and surrounded by a mass of darkness cannot see this Truth, which is against the current, which is lofty, deep, subtle and hard to comprehend.’

佛對這點甚為熟知。事實上，他曾說過，他的教誡是反潮流的，是違反人類自私的欲念的。在他証正覺才四個星期的時候，他坐在一棵榕樹底下，如是自思：『我已證入真理。此理艱深，難見難解，……惟智者能知之……為強烈的欲望所征服而為黑暗所包圍的人，不能見此真理。這真理是反潮流的，崇高、深奧、微妙、難知。』

With these thoughts in his mind, the Buddha hesitated for a moment, whether it would not be in vain if he tried to explain to the world the Truth he had just realized. Then he compared the world to a lotus pond: In a lotus pond there are some lotuses still under water; there are others which have risen only up to the water level; there are still others which stand above water and are untouched by it. In the same way in this world, there are men at different levels of development. Some would understand the Truth. So the Buddha decided to teach it. [1]

他心里這樣想著，佛曾一度猶豫。如將他所證真理，解釋與世人知悉，是否將徒勞無功？然後他將世間比作一座蓮池：在蓮池中，有些蓮花還淹沒在水底，有些已長到水面，有些則已透出水面而不為水所沾濡。同樣的，在這世間也有各種根器不同的人。有些人會了解這真理的，佛這才決定說法。［注一］

The doctrine of Anatta or No-Soul is the natural result of, or the corollary to, the analysis of the Five Aggregates and the teaching of Conditioned Genesis (Paticca-samuppāda). [2]

無我論(或稱靈魂非有論)是緣起論的推論，也是分析五蘊所得到的自然結果。［注二］

We have seen earlier, in the discussion of the First Noble Truth (Dukkha), that what we call a being or an individual is composed of the Five Aggregates, and that when these are analysed and examined, there is nothing behind them which can be taken as ‘I’, Ātman, or Self, or any unchanging abiding substance. That is the analytical method. The same result is arrived at through the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis which is the synthetical method, an according to this nothing in the world is absolute. Everything is conditioned, relative, and interdependent. This is the Buddhist theory of relativity.

在前文討論第一聖諦(苦諦)的時候，已說明所謂眾生或個人是由五蘊綜合而成。將五蘊予以分析審察，找不到在它們幕後另有一個可以稱之為我、神我或自我的長住不變的實質。這是分析法，但用合成法的緣起論，也能得到同樣的結果。根據緣起論，世間沒有一件事物是絕對的。每一件事物都是因緣和合的(由條件構成的)、相對的、互為依存的。這就是佛教的相對論。

Before we go into the question of Anatta proper, it is useful to have a brief idea of the Conditioned Genesis. The principle of this doctrine is given in a short formula of four lines:

在正式討論無我的問題之前，對于緣起論應有一個簡明的概念。這一項教義可用四句簡短的公式來代表它：

When this is, that is (Imasmim sati idam hoti); This arising, that arises (Imassuppādā idam uppajjati); When this is not, that is not (Imasmim asati idam na hoti);

此有故彼有，此生故彼生； 此無故彼無，此滅故彼滅。［注三］

This ceasing, that ceases (Imassa nirodhā idam nirujjhati). [3] On this principle of conditionality, relativity and interdependence, the whole existence and continuity of life and its cessation are explained in a detailed formula which is called Paticca-samuppāda ‘Conditioned Genesis’, consisting of twelve factors:

在這緣起、相對、互存的原則下，整個生命的存在、持續，以迄寂滅，都在一條叫做緣起法則的公式里解釋得十分周詳。這法則共分十二部分：

Through ignorance are conditioned volitional actions or karma-formations (Avijjāpaccayā samkhārā). 一、因為無知，乃有種種意志的活動而成業(無明緣行)。 Through volitional actions is conditioned consciousness (Samkhārapaccayā viňňānam). 二、因為有種種意志的活動，乃有知覺的生起(行緣識)。 Through consciousness are conditioned mental and physical phenomena (Viňňānapaccayā nāmarūpam). 三、因為有知覺，乃有精神與肉體的現象產生(識緣名色)。 Through mental and physical phenomena are conditioned the six faculties (i.e., five physical sense-organs and mind) (Nāmarūpapaccayā salāyatanam). 四、因為有了精神與肉體的現象發生，乃有六根的形成(名色緣六入)。 Through the six faculties is conditioned (sensorial and mental) contact (Salāyatanapaccayā phasso). 五、因為有六根，乃有(感官與心靈)對外境的接觸(六入緣觸)。 Through (sensorial and mental) contact is conditioned sensation (Phassapaccayā vedanā). 六、因為有(感官與心靈)對外境的接觸，乃生起種種感受(觸緣受)。 Through sensation is conditioned desire, ‘thirst’ (Vedanāpaccayā tanhā). 七、因為有種種感受，乃生起種種貪欲『渴(愛)』(受緣愛)。 Through desire (‘thirst’) is conditioned clinging (Tanhāpaccayā upādānam). 八、因為有種種貪愛，乃產生執取不舍(愛緣取)。 Through clinging is conditioned the process of becoming (Upādānapaccayā bhavo). 九、因為有執取不舍，乃有存在(取緣有)。 Through the process of becoming is conditioned birth (Bhavapaccayā jāti). 十、因為有存在，乃有生命(有緣生)。 Through birth are conditioned (12) decay, death, lamentation, pain, etc. (Jātipaccayā jarāmaranam…). 十一、因為有生命，乃有十二、敗壞、死亡、哀傷、痛苦等(生緣老病死憂悲苦惱)。

This is how life arises, exists and continues. If we take this formula in reverse order, we come to the cessation of the process: Through the complete cessation of ignorance, volitional activities or karma-formations cease; through the cessation of volitional activities, consciousness ceases; … through the cessation of birth, decay, death, sorrow, etc., cease.

生命便像這樣生起、存在、持續。假使我們將這公式的順序倒過來，便得出如下的緣滅的逆定理：

(滅)，因為意志活動止息，知覺也同時止息(行滅則識滅)……乃至因為生命的止息而一切敗壞死亡哀傷等等一應俱滅。

It should be remembered that each of these factors is conditioned (paticcasamuppanna) as well as conditioning (paticcasamuppāda). [4] Therefore they are all relative, interdependent and interconnected, and nothing is absolute or independent; hence no first cause is accepted by Buddhism as we have seen earlier. [5] Conditioned Genesis should be considered as a circle, and not as a chain. [6]

于此應該明白熟知的是：這緣起法則的每一部分，一方面是由眾多條件(緣)和合而生( conditioned緣生的)，另一方面又同時構成其它部分生起的條件(condition-ing 緣起的)。［注四］因此，它們之間的關系，完全是相對的、互為依存的、互相聯結的。沒有一事一物是絕對獨立的。所以，佛教不接受最初因，這在前文已講過。緣起法則是一個首尾相接的環，而不是一條直線的鏈子。［注五］

The question of Free Will has occupied an important place in Western thought and philosophy. But according to Conditioned Genesis, this question does not and cannot arise in Buddhist philosophy. If the whole of existence is relative, conditioned and interdependent, how can will alone be free? Will which is included in the fourth Aggregate (samkhārakkhandha), like any other thought, is conditioned (paticca-samuppanna). So-called ‘freedom’ itself in this world is not absolutely free. That too is conditioned and relative. There is, of course, such a conditioned and relative ‘Free Will’, but not unconditioned and absolute. There can be nothing absolutely free in this world, physical or mental, as everything is conditioned and relative. If Free Will implies a will independent of conditions, independent of cause and effect, such a thing does not exist. How can a will, or anything for that matter, arise without conditions, away from cause and effect, when the whole of life, the whole of existence, is conditioned and relative? Here again, the idea of Free Will is basically connected with the ideas of God, Soul, justice, reward and punishment. Not only so-called free will is not free, but even the very idea of Free Will is not free from conditions.

自由意志的問題，在西方的思想界與哲學界中，占有很重要的地位。但是根據緣起法，這問題在佛教哲學中是不存在的，也是不能生起的。既然整個的存在是相對的、有條件的(因緣和合的)、互為依存的，我們何能單獨自由？意志與其他思想一樣是緣生的。所謂『自由』，其本身就是相對的、緣生的。無論是肉體或精神方面，沒有一件事物是絕對自由的，因為一切都是相對的、互為依存的。自由意志的含義，是一個與任何條件及因果效應無關的意志。但是整個生存界都是有條件的(緣成的)、相對的、受因果律支配的。在這里面，如何可能產生一個意志，或任何一樣事物，與條件及因果無關？此處所謂自由意志的觀念，基本上仍與上帝、靈魂、正義、獎懲等觀念相連結。不但所謂自由意志並不自由，甚至自由意志這一觀念都不是無條件的。

According to the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis, as well as according to the analysis of being into Five Aggregates, the idea of an abiding, immortal substance in man or outside, whether it is called Ātman, ‘I’, Soul, Self, or Ego, is considered only a false belief, a mental projection. This is the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, No-Soul or No-Self.

根據緣起法則，也根據眾生為五蘊和合而成的這一分析，在人身內或身外，有一常住不變的實質，名為神我、我、靈魂、自我、個我，這一觀念，只能被認為是一種邪信、一種心造的影像。這就是佛教的無我論或稱靈魂非有論。

In order to avoid a confusion it should be mentioned here that there are two kinds of truths: conventional truth (sammuti-sacca, Skt. Samvrti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca, Skt. Paramārtha-satya). [7] When we use such expressions in our daily life as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘being’, ‘individual’, etc., we do not lie because there is no self or being as such, but we speak a truth conforming to the convention of the world. But the ultimate truth is that there is no ‘I’ or ‘being’ in reality. As the Mahāyāna-sūtrālankāra says: ‘A person (pudgala) should be mentioned as existing only in designation (prajňapti) (i.e., conventionally there is a being), but not in reality (or substance dravya)’. [8]

為了避免混淆，于此必須申明，真理有兩種：世俗的真理(俗諦)與最高的真理(真理)。［注六］我們在日常生活中，用我、你、眾生、個人等名詞的時候，不能因為實無我及眾生等而將上項名詞視為妄語。這些名詞在世俗共認的意義來說，也是真實的。但是，最高的真理，卻是實際上並無我與眾生。在《大乘莊嚴經論》里就說：『當知「補特伽羅」只是假名安立(依世俗說，有所謂眾生)，並無實義。』［注七］

‘The negation of an imperishable Ātman is the common characteristic of all dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the Great Vehicle, and, there is, therefore, no reason to assume that Buddhist tradition which is in complete agreement on this point has deviated from the Buddha’s original teaching.’ [9]

大小乘各宗派的共同特色，就是否定有不滅的神我。因此，就沒有理由假定在這一點上完全一致的佛教傳統，已經與佛的原始教誡有了偏差。［注八］

It is therefore curious that recently there should have been a vain attempt by a few scholars[10] to smuggle the idea of self into the teaching of the Buddha, quite contrary to the spirit of Buddhism. These scholars respect, admire, and venerate the Buddha and his teaching. They look up to Buddhism. But they cannot imagine that the Buddha, whom they consider the most clear and profound thinker, could have denied the existence of an Ātman or Self which they need so much. They unconsciously seek the support of the Buddha for this need for eternal existence-of course not in a petty individual self with small s, but in the big Self with a capital S.

因此，最近有少數學者［注九］，竟然違反佛教精神，妄圖將『我』觀念，私自輸入到佛的教義之中，實在是奇怪之極。這些學者對于佛及其教義備極尊崇，仰佛教如泰山北斗。但是他們無法想像如佛這般頭腦清晰、思慮精深的思想家，竟能將他們所熱切需要的神我、自我予以否認。他們下意識地尋求佛陀的支應，以滿足他們對永生的需要——當然不是個人的小我，而是大『我』的永生。

It is better to say frankly that one believes in an Ātman or or Self. Or one may even say that the Buddha was totally wrong in denying the existence of an Ātman. But certainly it will not do for any one to try to introduce into Buddhism an idea which the Buddha never accepted, as far as we can see from the extant original texts.

索性坦白地相信有神我、自我，甚至明白指摘佛不承認有神我自我為錯誤，都無所謂。可是應要將佛從來不曾接受過的的一種觀念注入于佛教之中，那就不成了。這種觀念在現存的原始佛典中，就我們所見，是不為佛所接受的。

Religions which believe in God and Soul make no secret of these two ideas; on the contrary, they proclaim them, constantly and repeatedly, in the eloquent terms. If the Buddha had accepted these two ideas, so important in all religions, he certainly would have declared them publicly, as he had spoken about other things, and would not have left them hidden to be discovered only 25 centuries after his death.

相信有上帝與靈魂的宗教，並不以這兩種觀念為秘密。相反的，他們還經常不斷地反覆宣揚它們，極盡辯才吹擂之能事。如果佛曾經接受這兩種在一切宗教中極為重要的觀念，他一定會公開宣布，如同他談論其它事物一樣，而不會將它們祕藏起來，以留待他圓寂二千五百年後的人來發現。

People become nervous at the idea that through the Buddha’s teaching of Anatta, the self they imagine they have is going to be destroyed. The Buddha was not unaware of this.

可是人們一想到佛教的無我，會將他們幻想的『我』毀滅，神經就緊張了起來。佛對這一點並不是不知道。

A bhikkhu once asked him: ‘Sir, is there a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found?’

有一個比丘有一次問佛：『世尊！是否有人因為發現身內無有常住實性而遭受痛苦折磨呢？』

‘Yes, bhikkhu, there is,’ answered the Buddha. ‘A man has the following view: 「The universe is that Ātman, I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exists as such for eternity」. He hears the Tathāgata or a disciple of his, preaching the doctrine aiming at the complete destruction of all speculative views… aiming at the extinction of 「thirst」, aiming at detachment, cessation, Nirvāna. Then than man thinks: 「I will be annihilated, I will be destroyed, I will be no more.」 So he mourns, worries himself, laments, weeps, beating his breast, and becomes bewildered. Thus, O bhikkhu, there is a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found.’ [11]

『有的，比丘！』佛答道。『有人執持這種見解：「宇宙就是神我，我死後即將與之合一，常住不變，亙古永存。我將這樣地存在，以迄永遠。」當他聽到如來及其弟子所弘傳的教義，目的在摧毀一切臆見(戲論)……消滅『渴(愛)』，達到無著、寂滅、涅槃時，那人自忖：「我要被消滅了，我要被毀掉了，我將不再存在。」于是他就哀傷、憂慮、焦急不安、椎胸痛哭而精神恍惚，不知如何是好。所以，比丘，因為身內找不到常住實體而為痛苦所折磨的人是有的。』［注十］

Elsewhere the Buddha says: ‘O bhikkhus, this idea that I may not be, I may not have, is frightening to the uninstructed world-ling.’ [12]

在別的經里，佛也說過：『比丘們啊！這個沒有「我」也沒有「我所」的意念，對于無識的凡夫是駭人的。』［注十一］

Those who want to find a ‘Self’ in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, and says that none of these things it self. But he does not say that there is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregates.

想在佛教中找出一個『我』來的人，是這樣辯論的：『誠然，佛將眾生分析為色受想行識，並說這五者中沒有一樣是「我」。但是他並沒有說除了五蘊之外，人身內或其他地方，就完全沒有「我」了。』

This position is untenable for two reasons:

這種立論有兩種站不住的理由：

One is that, according to the Buddha’s teaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates, and nothing more. Nowhere has he said that there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being.

第一：根據佛說，眾生僅由五蘊和合而成。除此之外再無別物。沒有一部經中，佛曾說眾生身中除了五蘊尚有他物。

The second reasons is that the Buddha denied categorically, in unequivocal terms, in more than one place, the existence of Ātman, Soul, Self, or Ego within man or without, or anywhere else in the universe. Let us take some examples.

第二：佛曾在不只一部經中，毫不含糊地斷然否認人身中或身外或在宇宙中之任何一處有神我、靈魂、自我、個我的存在。今試舉例以明之：

In the Dhammapada there are three verses extremely important and essential in the Buddha’s teaching. They are nos. 5, 6 and 7 of chapter XX (or verses 277, 278, 279).

在巴利文《法句經》中，有三首偈極關重要而為佛教之精義。這三首偈就是第二十章的第五、六、七等三偈(或全經中的第二七七、二七八、二七九等三偈)

The first two verses say:

第一、第二兩偈中有道：

‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ (Sabbe SAMKHĀRĀ aniccā), and ‘All conditioned things are dukkha’ (Sabbe SAMKHĀRĀ dukkhā).

『一切有為的事物，都是無常的(諸行無常)。』以及『一切有為的事物，都是苦的(諸行皆苦)。』

The third verse says:

第三偈卻道：

‘All dhammas are without self’ (Sabbe SAMKHĀRĀ anattā). [13]

『一切法都是沒有「我」的(諸法無我)。』［注十二］

Here it should be carefully observed that in the first two verses the word samkhārā ‘conditioned things’ is used. But in its place in the third verse the word dhammā is used. Why didn’t the third verse use the word samkhārā ‘conditioned things’ as the previous two verses, and why did it use the term dhammā instead? Here lies the crux of the whole matter.

這里請特別注意，在第一、二偈中所使用的是『有為的事物(行)』一詞，但在第三偈中則改用『法』字了。為什麼第三偈不也和一、二偈一樣地用『行』(有為的事物)而要用『法』字呢？整個的關鍵就在這里。

The term samkhāra [14] denotes the Five Aggregates, all conditioned, interdependent, relative things and states, both physical and mental. If the third verse said: ‘All samkhārā (conditioned things) are without self’, then one might think that, although conditioned things are without self, yet there may be a Self outside conditioned things, outside the Five Aggregates. It is in order to avoid misunderstanding that the term dhammā is used in the third verse.

原來，行［注十三］的意思，就是五蘊與一切緣起、依存、相對的事物(精神的和肉體的都在內)。假如第三偈也說：『一切行(有為的事物)都是沒有我的』，那末有人也許會想：雖然有為的事物中無我，但在有為的事物之外，五蘊之外，也許仍有一個『我』吧！就是為了避免這種誤會，所以第三偈中才用了『法』字。

The term dhamma is much wider than samkhārā. There is no term in Buddhist terminology wider than dhamma. It includes not only the conditioned things and states, but also the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvāna. There is nothing in the universe or outside, good or bad, conditioned or non-conditioned, relative or absolute, which is not included in this term. Therefore, it is quite clear that, according to this statement: ‘All dhammas are without Self’, there is no Self, no Ātman, not only in the Five Aggregates, but nowhere else too outside them or apart from them. [15]

『法』字的意義比『行』字要廣大得多。在佛教中，沒有一個術語的涵義，比『法』字更廣的了。它不僅包括有為的事物，也包括了無為的『絕對性』與涅槃。世出世間、善惡、有為無為、相對絕對，沒有一樣事物不包括在這一個『法』字中。因此，根據此一申義，『諸法無我』很顯然的是說不僅五蘊之中無我，在五蘊之外或離開五蘊依然無我。［注十四］

This means, according to the Theravāda teaching, that there is no self either in the individual (puggala) or in dhammas. The Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy maintains exactly the same position, without the slightest difference, on this point, putting emphasis on dharma-nairātmya.

無論在人(補特伽羅)或法中，都沒有我。大乘佛教的態度亦復如是。在這點上，與上座部一般無二。不僅強調法無我，也強調人無我。

In the Alagaddūpama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya, addressing his disciples, the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory (Attavāda) in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation. But, do you see, O bhikkhus, such a soul-theory in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, , lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation?’

在《中部經》中的《阿勒葛度帕瑪經》Alagaddupama-sutta(譯者注：約相當于漢譯《中阿含》第二零零《阿梨吒經》里，佛向弟子們說：『比丘們啊！你們可以接受靈魂實有論，只要接受了這一理論，一切憂悲苦惱便不再生起。但是，比丘們啊！你們見到過這樣的靈魂實有論嗎？接受了它就可以使憂悲苦惱不再生起？』

‘Certainly not, Sir.’

『當然沒有囉，世尊！』

‘Good, O bhikkhus. I, too, O bhikkhus, do not see a soul-theory, in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation.’ [16]

『好極了，比丘們。比丘們啊！我也從未見過有這樣的靈魂實有論，接受了它憂悲苦惱便不再生起。』［注十五］

If there had been any soul-theory which the Buddha had accepted, he would certainly have explained it here, because he asked the bhikkhus to accept that soul-theory which did not produce suffering. But in the Buddha’s view, there is no such soul theory, and any soul-theory, whatever it may be, however subtle and sublime, is false and imaginary, creating all kinds of problems, producing in its train grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, tribulation and trouble.

如果曾經有過為佛所接受的靈魂實有論(有我論)，他一定會在上節經文里予以闡釋，因為他曾要比丘們接受不會產生痛苦的靈魂實有論。但在佛的看法，這樣的靈魂實有論是沒有的。任何的靈魂實有論，無論它是如何高深微妙，都是虛妄幻想，徒然制造各種問題，隨之產生一連串的憂悲、苦惱、災難、困擾等等。

Continuing the discourse the Buddha said in the same sutta:

‘O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this speculative view: 「The universe is that Ātman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity」- is it not wholly and completely foolish?’ [17]

在同一經中，佛接下去又說：『比丘們啊！我以及與我有關的任何事物(我所)既然確確實實是不可得的，所謂「宇宙就是神我(靈魂)；我死後就成為神我，常住不變，亙古長存，我將如是存在以迄永遠」的臆見，豈不是十十足足的愚痴？』［注十六］

Here the Buddha explicitly states that an Ātman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that there is such a thing.

這里，佛清清楚楚的說出神我、靈魂、我實際上是不可得的。相信有這麼一件東西，乃是再愚蠢不過的事。

Those who seek a self in the Buddha’s teaching quote a few examples which they first translate wrongly, and then misinterpret. One of them is the well-known line Āttā hi attano nātho from the Dhammapada (XII, 4, or verse 160), which is translated as ‘Self is the lord of self’, and then interpreted to mean that the big Self is the lord of the small self.

想在佛教中找『我』的人，也舉出若干例子。這些例子，先是他們把它翻譯錯了，之後又加以曲解。一個有名的例子，就是《法句經》第十二章第四節，也就是第一六零偈。他將原文的Atta hi attano natho先譯成『「我」是我的主宰』，然後又將偈文解釋為大『我』是小我的主宰。

First of all, this translation is incorrect. Āttā here does not mean self in the sense of soul. In Pali the word āttā is generally used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun, except in a few cases where it specifically and philosophically refers to the soul-theory, as we have seen above. But in general usage, as in the XII chapter in the Dhammapada where this line occurs, and in many other places, it is used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun meaning ‘myself’, ‘yourself’, ‘himself’, ‘one’, ‘oneself’, etc. [18]

先說，這翻譯根本不正確。此地的Atta並不是含有靈魂意義的『我』。在巴利文中，atta一字除了在少數情形下，特指哲學里的靈魂實有論(有我論)如前文所見者外，通常均用為反身或不定代名詞。在《法句經》第十二章這句偈文里以及其它許多地方，它就是用反身或不定代名詞。其意義是我自己、你自己、他自己、某人、某人自己等。［注十七］

Next, the word nātho does not mean ‘lord’, but ‘refuge’, ‘support’, ‘help’, ‘protection’. [19] Therefore, Attā hi attano nātho really mean ‘One is one’s own refuge’ or ‘One is one’s own help’ or ‘support’. It has nothing to do with any metaphysical soul or self. It simple means that you have to rely on yourself, and not on others.

其次， natho的意義，並不是『主宰』，而是依怙、支援、救助、保護。［注十八］因此，Atta hi attano natho的真正意義，是『人當自作依怙』或『人當自助(支援自己)』。這話與任何形而上的靈魂或『我』都不相干。它的意義很簡單，只是：人應當依靠自己，不可依賴他人。如此而已。

Another example of the attempt to introduce idea of self into the Buddha’s teaching is in the well-known words Attidipā viharatha, attasaranā anaňňasaranā, which are taken out of context in the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta. [20]This phrase literally means: ‘Dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves your refuge, and not anyone else as your refuge.’ [21]

另一個想將『我』的觀念注入到佛教中的例子，就是《大般涅槃經》中被斷章取義的名句Attadipa viharatha attasarana anannasarana。［注十九］這句子的字義是『以你自己作為你的島嶼(支應)而安住，以你自己作為你的依怙，而不以任何其它的人作為你的皈依處。』［注二十］那些想在佛教中見到『我』的人，卻將attadipa和att-asarana 兩字曲解為『以「我」為明燈』，『以「我」為皈依』。［注二十一］

We cannot understand the full meaning and significance of the advice of the Buddha to Ānanda, unless we take into consideration the background and the context in which these words were spoken.

我們將無法了解佛給阿難這項誥誡的全部意義及其重要性，除非我們將這些話的背景與上下文加以考慮。

The Buddha was at the time staying at a village called Beluva. It was just three months before his death, Parinivāna. At this time he was eighty years old, and was suffering from a very serious illness, almost dying (māranantika). But he thought it was not proper for him to die without breaking it to his disciples who were near and dear to him. So with courage and determination he bore all his pains, got the better of his illness, and recovered. But his health was still poor. After his recovery, he was seated one day in the shade outside his residence. Ānanda, the most devoted attendant of the Buddha, went to his beloved Master, sat near him, and said: ‘Sir, I have looked after the health of the Blessed One, I have looked after him in his illness. But at the sight of the illness of the Blessed One the horizon became dim to me, and my faculties were no longer clear. Yet there was one little consolation: I thought that the Blessed One would not pass away until he had left instructions touching the Order of the Sangha’.

佛那時正住在一處叫做竹芳邑的村子里，離他的圓寂(般涅槃)剛好三個月。當時他年已八十，正患重病，瀕臨死亡。但他認為如果不向那些他所深愛而親近的弟子們宣布這一噩耗，遽爾死去，是不當的。因此，他鼓起勇氣，決心忍受一切痛苦，克服他的疾病而復元了。但是他的健康仍然很差。他病愈之後，有一天坐在戶外一處濃蔭之下，他最忠勤的侍者阿難，來到他所愛的師尊身邊坐了下來，就說：『世尊，我曾照顧世尊的健康，我曾為世尊侍疾。但是一看到世尊生病，我就覺得天昏地黑、神志不清了。我只有一個小小的安慰。我自思世尊在沒有留下有關僧團的教誨之前，是不會逝世的。』

Then the Buddha, full of compassion and human feelings, gently spoke to his devoted and beloved attendant: ’Ānanda, what does the Order of the Sangha expect from me? I have taught the Dhamma (Truth) without making any distinction as exoteric and esoteric. With regard to the truth, the Tathāgata has nothing like the closed fist of the teacher (ācariya-mutthi). Surely, Ānanda, if there is anyone who thinks that he will lead the Sangha, and that the Sangha should depend on him, let him set down his instructions. But the Tathāgata has no such idea. Why should he then leave instructions concerning the Shangha? I am now old, Ānanda, eighty years old. As a worn-out cart has to be kept going by repairs, so, it seems to me, the body of the Tathāgata can only be kept going by repairs. Therefore, Ānanda, dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves, not anyone else, your refuge; making the Dhamma your island (support), the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else your refuge. [22]

于是，佛充滿了慈悲與人情，很溫和地對他的忠心而深愛的侍者說：『阿難啊！僧團對我還有什麼企求呢！我以將法(真理)不分顯密統統教給了你們。關于真理，如來掌中並無隱秘。當然囉，阿難，如果有人認為他應當領導僧團，僧團應當依靠他，他自應留下遺教。可是如來並沒有這種念頭。那末，他為什麼要為僧團留下遺命呢？我現在已經年老，阿難啊！都八十歲了！用舊了的車子，須靠修理方能繼續使用。同樣的，在我看來，如來的色身，也只有靠修理才能繼續活下去。因此，阿難啊！應當以你們自己為島嶼(支應)而安住，以你們自己而不以任何他人作為你們的皈依；以法為你們的島嶼(支應)，以法為你們的皈依，不以任何他物為你們的皈依處。』［注二十二］

What the Buddha wanted to convey to Ānanda is quite clear. The latter was sad and depressed. He thought that they would all be lonely, helpless, without a refuge, without a leader after their great Teacher’s death. So the Buddha gave him consolation, courage, and confidence, saying that they should depend on themselves, and on Dhamma he taught, and not on anyone else, or on anything else. Here the question of a metaphysical Ātman, or Self, is quite beside the point.

佛向阿難說這些話的意向，是十分明顯的。阿難本來非常憂郁。他認為他們大師死了，他們將全部變成孤單、無援、無所依怙。所以佛給他安慰、勇氣與自信。告訴他們應該依靠自己，依靠他所傳授的『法』，而不依靠任何他人或物。在這里提出一個形而上的神我、自我的問題，實在是太離譜了。

Further, The Buddha explained to Ānanda how one could be one’s own island or refuge, how one could make the Dhamma one’s own island or refuge: through the cultivation of mindfulness or awareness of the body, sensations, mind and mind-objects (the four Satipatthānas). [23] There is no talk at all here about an Ātman or Self.

接著，佛還向阿難解釋一個人應如何成為自己的島嶼或依怙，一個人應如何以『法』為自己的島嶼和依怙：要養成念念分明。對自己的色身、感覺、心王、心所的一切動態，時時刻刻無不了然洞照(四念處)。［注二十三］在此，佛也完全沒有談到神我或自我。

Another reference, oft-quoted, is used by those who try to find Ātman in the Buddha’s teaching. The Buddha was once seated under a tree in a forest on the way to Urevelā from Benares. On that day, thirty friends all of them young princes, went out on picnic with their young wives into the same forest. One of the princes who was unmarried brought a prostitute with him. While the others were amusing themselves, she purloined some objects of value and disappeared. In their search for her in the forest, they saw the Buddha seated under a tree and asked him whether he had seen a woman. He enquired what was the matter. When they explained, the Buddha asked them: 「What do you think, young men? Which is better for you? To search after a woman, or to search after yourselves?’ [24]

另外，還有一段想在佛教中覓神我的人所常常引用的資料。有一次，佛從波羅奈到優樓頻螺去，在途中一座樹林里的一棵樹下安坐。那天，有三十個朋友，都是年輕的王子們，帶著他們年輕的妻子，在這樹林里野餐。有一個未婚的王子，帶了一名妓女同來。當其他的人正在尋歡的時候，這妓女偷了些貴重的物品逃走了。王子們就在森林中找她，他們看見佛坐在樹下，就問佛有沒有見到一個女人。佛就問他們為了什麼事兒。他們說明原委之後，佛就問他們：『年輕人啊！你們意下如何？尋找一個女人呢？還是尋找你們自己？那一樣對你們更有利啊？』［注二十四］

Here again it is a simple and natural question, and there is no justification for introducing far-fetched ideas of a metaphysical Ātman or Self into the business. They answered that it was better for them to search after themselves. The Buddha then asked them to sit down and explained the Dhamma to them. In the available account, in the original text of what the preached to them, not a word is mentioned about an Ātman.

這又是一個簡單而自然的問題。硬要牽強附會的將形上的神我、自我等意念扯這門子官司里來，實在是說不通的。王子們答稱還是尋找自己為妙。佛于是叫他們坐下，並為他們說法。在有案可稽的原文經典里，佛對他們所說法中，沒有一個字涉及神我。

Much has been written on the subject of the Buddha’s silence when a certain Parivrājaka (Wanderer) named Vacchagotta asked him whether there was an Ātman or not. The story is as follows:

關于游方者婆嗟種問佛是否有神我，佛緘口不答一事，已有人寫了許多文章。故事是這樣的：

Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:

婆嗟種來到佛處，問道：

‘Venerable Gotama, is there an Ātman?’

『可敬的喬答摩啊！神我是有的嗎？』

The Buddha is silent.

佛緘口不答。

‘The Venerable Gotama, is there an Ātman?’

『那末，可敬的喬答摩，神我是沒有的嗎？』

Again the Buddha is silent.

佛還是緘口不答。

Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.

婆嗟種就站起來走了。

After the Parivrājaka had left, Ānanda asks the Buddha why he did not answer Vacchagotta’s question. The Buddha explains his position:

這游方者走後，阿難問佛為什麼不回答婆嗟種的問題。佛解釋自己的立場說：

’Ānanda, when asked by Vacchagotta the Wanderer: 「Is there a self?」, if I had answered: 「There is a self」, then, Ānanda, that would be siding with those recluses and brāhmanas who hold the eternalist theory (sassata-vāda).

『阿難，游方者婆嗟種問我：「有我嗎？」如果我答：「有的」，那末，阿難，我就與持常見的梵志出家人站在一邊了。

’And, Ānanda, when asked by the Wanderer: 「Is there no self?」 if I had answered: 「There is no self」, then that would be siding with those recluses and brāhmanas who hold the annihilationist theory (uccheda-vāda). [25]

『同時，阿難，游方者問我：「沒有我嗎？」如果我答：「沒有！」那我就跟持斷見的梵志出家人站在一邊了。［注二十五］

‘Again, Ānanda, when asked by Vacchagotta: 「Is there a self?」, if I had answered: 「There is a self」, would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all dhammas are without self?’ [26]

『再說，阿難，婆嗟種問我：「有我嗎？」如果我答「有的！」這答案與我所知「一切法無我」［注二十六］符合嗎？』

‘Surely not, Sir.’

『當然不符囉！世尊。』

‘And again, Ānanda, when asked by the Wanderer: 「Is there no self?」 if I had answered: 「There is no self」, then that would have been a greater confusion to the already confused Vacchagotta. [27] For he would have thought: Formerly indeed I had an Ātman (self), but now I haven’t got one.’ [28]

『還有，阿難，游方者問我：「沒有我嗎？」如果我答：「沒有！」那將使得本來已經糊里糊涂的婆嗟種［注二十七］越攪越糊涂了。他就會這樣想：以前我倒還有一個神我(我)［注二十八］，而今卻沒有了。』［注二十九］

It should now be quite clear why the Buddha was silent. But it will be still clearer if we take into consideration the whole background, and the way the Buddha treated questions and questioners – which is altogether ignored by those who have discussed this problem.

佛陀為什麼保持緘默，現在該很明白了。但如我們將全部背景，和佛對付問題及問話人的態度，也考慮在內，就會更加明白。可惜這種態度完全為討論這問題的人所忽略了。

The Buddha was not a computing machine giving answers to whatever questions were put to him by another at all, without any consideration. He was a practical teacher, full of compassion and wisdom. He did not answer questions to show his knowledge and intelligence, but to help the questioner on the way to realization. He always spoke to people bearing in mind their standard of development, their tendencies, their mental make-up, their character, their capacity to understand a particular question. [29]

佛並不是一座計算機，不管什麼人問什麼樣的問題，他都會不加思索的答覆。他是一位很踏實的導師，充滿了慈悲與智慧。他並不是為了炫耀自己的才智知識而答問，而是為了要幫助問話人走上正覺的道路，他和人講話時，時刻不忘對方的水準、傾向、根器、性格以及了解某一問題的能力。［注三十］

According to the Buddha, there are four ways of treating questions: (I) Some should be answered directly; (2) others should be answered by way of analyzing them; (3) yet others should be answered by counter-questions; (4) and lastly, there are questions which should be put aside. [30]

根據佛說，對付問題有四種方式：(一)某些問題必須直截了當的回答；(二)某些問題須以分析的方法解答；(三)另有一些問題須以反問為答覆；(四)最後，有一類問題須予以擱置。［注三十一］

There may be several ways putting aside a question. One is to day that a particular question is not answered or explained, as the Buddha had told this very same Vacchagotta on more than one occasion, when those famous questions whether the universe is eternal or not, etc., were put to him. [31] In the same way he had replied to Mālunkyaputta and others. But he could not say the same thing with regard to the question whether there is an Ātman (Self) or not, because he had always discussed and explained it. He could not say ‘there is self’, because it is contrary to his knowledge that ‘all dhammas are without self’. Then he did not want to say ‘there is no self’, because that would unnecessarily, without any purpose, have confused and disturbed poor Vacchagotta who was already confused on a similar question, as he had himself admitted earlier. [32] He was not yet in a position to understand the idea of Anatta. Therefore, to put aside this question by silence was the wisest thing in this particular case.

擱置一個問題有許多方法。其中有一個方法就是說出這問題是不可解答的。有好幾次同一的婆嗟種來問佛世界是否有常的時候，佛就是這樣告訴他的。［注三十二］他對羈舍子以及其他的人，也是這樣答覆的。但是對于有無神我的問題，他可不能同樣地答覆，因為他一直都在討論與解釋這問題。他不能說『有我』，因為它與他所知的一切法無我相違背。而他也不能說『沒有我』，因為這將毫無必要、毫無意義地增加婆嗟種的困擾。婆嗟種早就承認［注三十三］他本來已經為一則類似的問題所困惑。他尚未到能了解『無我』的地步。因此，在這種特殊情形之下，保持緘默，將問題置之不答，就是最明智之舉。

We must not forget too that the Buddha has known Vacchagotta quite well for a long time. This was not the first occasion on which this inquiring Wanderer had come to see him. The wise and compassionate Teacher gave much thought and showed great consideration for this confused seeker. There are many references in the Pali texts to this same Vacchagotta the Wanderer his going round quite often to see the Buddha and his disciples and putting the same kind of question again and again, evidently very much worried, almost obsessed by these problems. [33] The Buddha’s silence seems to have had much more effect on Vacchagotta than any eloquent answer or discussion. [34]

尤其不可忘懷的是：佛認識婆嗟種已有多時。這位好問的游方者來訪問佛陀，這也並不是第一次。智悲雙運的導師，曾為這困惑的求法人煞費心機，並對他表示深切的關懷。在巴利文原典中，多處都提到這位游方者婆嗟種。他常常去見佛陀以及佛弟子們，三番兩次向他們提出同樣的問題，顯然為了這些問題而十分煩悶，幾乎到了著魔的程度。［注三十四］佛的緘默，對婆嗟種的影響，似乎要比任何雄辯滔滔的答案為大。［注三十五］

Some people take ‘self’ to mean what is generally known as ‘mind’ or consciousness. But the Buddha says that it is better for a man to take his physical body as self rather than mind, thought, or consciousness, because the former seems to be more solid than the latter, because mind, thought or consciousness (citta, mano, viňňāna) changes constantly day and night even faster than the body (kāya). [35]

有些人以為『我』就是一般所謂的『心』或知覺(識)。但是佛說，與其認心、思想(意)或知覺(識)為我，毋寧認色身為我，反倒好一點。因為色身比心識似乎較為堅實。心、意、識日夜遷流，遠比色身的變化為速。［注三十六］

It is the vague feeling 「I AM’ that creates the idea of self which has no corresponding reality, and to see this truth is to realize Nirvāna, which is not very easy. In the Samyutta-nikāya [36] there is an enlightening conversation on this point between a bhikkhu named Khemaka and a group of bhikkhus.

造成『我』的觀念，是一種模模糊糊的『我存在』的感覺。這『我』的觀念，並沒有可以與之相應的實體。但能見到這一點，就是證入涅槃。這可不是一樁容易的事。在《雜部經》［注三十七］中，有一段差摩迦比丘與一群比丘談論這一問題的會話，深能發人猛省。

These bhikkhus ask Khemaka whether he sees in the Five Aggregates any self or anything pertaining to a self. Khemaka replies ’No」. Then the bhikkhus say that, if so, he should be an Arahant free from all impurities. But Khemaka confesses that through he does not find in the Five Aggregates a self, or anything pertaining to a self, ‘I am not an Arahant free from all impurities. O friends, with regard to the Five Aggregates of Attachment, I have a feeling 「I AM」, but I do not clearly see 「This is I AM」.’ Then Khemaka explains that what he calls ‘I AM’ is neither matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, nor consciousness, nor anything without them. But he has he feeling ‘I AM’ with regard to the Five Aggregates, through he could not see clearly ‘This is I AM’. [37]

這群比丘問差摩迦，他在五蘊中是否見到有『我』或任何與『我』有關的事物(我所)。差摩迦回說：『沒有。』于是，那群比丘們就說，假如這樣，他應當已經是一位離塵絕垢的阿羅漢了。可是，差摩迦自承雖然他在五蘊中求『我』與『我所』不可得，『但是我尚不是一位離塵絕垢的阿羅漢。同修們啊！關于五取蘊，我有一種「我存在」的感覺，但我並不能了了分明的見到「這就是我存在」。』接下去，差摩迦解釋他所稱為『我存在』的東西，是非色、非受、非想、非行、非識，亦非在五蘊之外的任何一物。但他對五蘊有一種『我存在』的感覺，卻無法了了分明的見到『這就是「我存在」。』［注三十八］

He says it is like the smell of a flower: it is neither the smell of the petals, nor of the colour, nor of the pollen, but the smell of the flower.

他說那就像是一朵花的香氣，既不是花瓣香，也不是顏色香，也不是花粉香，而是花的香。

Khemaka further explains that even a person who has attained the early stages of realization still retains this feeling ‘I AM’. But later on, when he progresses further, this feeling of ‘I AM’ altogether disappears, just as the chemical smell of a freshly washed cloth disappears after a time when it is kept in a box.

差摩迦進一步解釋說，甚至已證初階聖果的人，仍然保有『我存在』的感覺。但是後來他向前進步的時候，這種『我存在』的感覺就完全消失了。就像一件新洗的衣服上的化學藥品氣味，在箱子里放了一段時間之後，就會消失一樣。

This discussion was so useful and enlightening to them that at the end of it, the text says, all of them, including Khemaka himself, became Arahants free from all impurities, this finally getting rid of ‘I AM’.

這段議論對那群比丘們的作用之大、啟發力之強，根據原典記載，他們所有的人，包括差摩迦自己在內，在議論完結之時，都成了離塵絕垢的阿羅漢，終于將『我存在』剷除了。

According to the Buddha’s teaching, it is as wrong to hold the opinion ‘I have no self’ (which is the annihilationist theory) as to hold the opinion ‘I have self’ (which is the eternalist theory), because both are fetters, both arising out of the false idea ‘I AM’. The correct position with regard to the question of Anatta is not to take hold of any opinions or views, but to see things objectively as they are without mental projections, to see that what we call ‘I’, or ‘being’, is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole of existence.

根據佛的教誨，執持『無我』的見解(斷見)與執持『有我』的見解(常見)是同樣錯誤的。因為兩者都是桎梏，兩者都是從『我存在』的妄見生起的。對于無我問題的正確立場，是不要執著任何意見或見地，應客觀地、如實地去觀察一切事物，不加以心意的造作。觀察這所謂『我』和『眾生』，只是精神與肉體的綜合，在因果律的限制下，互為依存，剎那流變。在整個生存界內，絕無一物是恆常不變、亙古常新的。

Here naturally a question arises: If there is no Ātman or Self, who gets the results of karma (actions)? No one can answer this question better than the Buddha himself. When this question was raised by a bhikkhu the Buddha said: ‘I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things.’ [38]

當然，這就產生了一個問題：如果沒有神我、自我，受業報的又是誰呢？沒有一個人可以比佛本身更能解答這個問題了。有一個比丘提出這個問題的時候，佛說：『我已經教過你了，比丘們啊！要在一切處、一切事、一切物中見緣起。』［注三十九］

The Buddha’s teaching on Anatta, No-Soul, or No-Self, should not be considered as negative or annihilistic. Like Nirvāna, it is Truth, Reality; and Reality cannot be negative. It is the false belief in a non-existing imaginary self that is negative. The teaching on Anatta dispels the darkness of false beliefs, and produces the light of wisdom. It is not negative: as Asanga very aptly says: ‘There is the fact of No-selfness’ (nairātmyāstitā). [39]

佛所教的無我論、靈魂非有論或自我非有論，不應被視為消極的或斷滅的。和涅槃一樣，它是真理、實相；而實相絕不能是消極的。倒是妄信有一個根本不存在的、虛幻的我，才是消極的呢！無我的教誨，排除了妄信的黑暗，產生了智慧的光明。它不是消極的。無著說得好：『無我性乃是事實。』［注四十］

[1] Mhvg. (Alutgama, 1922), p. 4 f; M I (PTS), p. 167 f.

[2] Explained below.

[3] M III (PTS), p. 63; S II (PTS), pp. 28, 95, etc. To put it into a modern from:

When A is, B is; A arising, B arises; When A is not, B is not; A ceasing, B ceases. [4] Vism. (PTS), p. 517

[5] See above p. 29

[6] Limited space does not permit a discussion here of this most important doctrine. A critical and comparative study if this subject in detail will be found in a forthcoming work on Buddhist philosophy by the present writer.

[7] Sārattha II (PTS), p. 77

[8] Mh. Sūtrālankāra, XVIII 92.

[9] H. von Glasenapp, in an article ‘Vedanta and Buddhism’ on the question of Anatta, The Middle Way, February, 1957, p. 154.

[10] The late Mrs. Rhys Davids and others. See Mrs. Rhys Davids’ Gotama the Man, Sākya or Buddhist Origins, A Manual of Buddhism, What was the Original Buddhism, etc.

[11] M I (PTS), pp. 136-137

[12] Quoted in MA II (PTS), p. 112.

[13] F.L.Woodward’s translation of the word dhammā here by ’All states by ‘All states compounded’ is quite wrong. (The Buddha’s Path of Virtue, Adyar, Madras, India, 1929, p. 69.) ‘All states compounded’ means only samkhārā, but not dhammā.

[14] Samkhārā in the list of the Five Aggregates means ‘Mental Formations’ or ‘Mental Activities’ producing karmic effects. But here it means all conditioned or compounded things, including all the Five Aggregates. The term samkhārā has different connotations in different contexts.

[15] Cf. also Sabbesamkhārā aniccā ‘All conditioned things are impermanent’, Sabbe dhammā anattā ‘All dhammas are without self’. M I (PTS), p. 228; S III pp. 132, 133.

[16] M I (PTS), p. 137

[17] ibid., p. 138. Referring to this passage, S. Radhakrishnan (Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, London, 1940, p. 485), says: ‘It is the false view that clamours for the perpetual continuance of the small self that buddha refutes’. We cannot agree with this remark. On the contrary, the Buddha, in fact, refutes here the Universal Ātman or Soul. As we saw just now, in the earlier passage, the Buddha did not accept any self, great or small. In his view, all theories of Ātman were false, mental projections.

[18] In his article 「Vendanta and Buddhism’ (The Middle Way, February, 1957), H. von Glasenapp explains this point clearly.

[19] The commentary on the Dhp. Says: Nātho ti patitthā ‘Nātho means support, (refuge, help, protection),’ (Dph. A III (PTS), p. 148.) The old Sinhalese Sannaya of the Dph. Paraphrases the word nātho as pihita vanneya ‘is a support (refuge, help)’. (Dhammapada Purānasannaya, Colombo, 1926, p. 77). If we take the negative form of nātho, this meaning becomes further confirmed: Anātha does not mean ‘without a lord’ or ‘lordless’, but it means ‘helpless’, ‘supportless’, ’unprotected, ‘poor’. Even the PTS Pali Dictionary explains the word nātha as ‘protector’, ‘refuge’, ’help, but not as ‘lord’. The translation of the lord Lokanātha (s.v.) by ‘Saviour of the world’, just using a popular Christian expression, is not quite correct, because the Buddha is not a saviour. This epithet really means ‘Refuge of the World’

[20] D II (Colombo, 1929), p. 62

[21] Rhys Davids (Digha-nikāya Translation II, p. 108) ‘Be ye lamps unto yourselves. Be ye a refuge to yourselves. Betake yourselves to no external refuge.’

[22] D II (Colombo, 1929), pp. 61-62. Only the last sentence is literally translated. The rest of the story is given briefly according to the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta.

[23] Ibid., p.62. For Satipatthāna see Chapter VII on Meditation.

[24] Mhvg., (Alutgama, 1929), pp.21-22

[25] On another accasion the Buddha had told this same Vacchagotta that the Tathāgata had no theories, because he had seen the nature of things. (M I (PTS), p. 486.) Here too he does not want to associate himself with any theorists.

[26] Sabbe dhammā anattā. (Exactly the same words as in the first line of Dhp. XX, 7 which we discussed above.) Woodward’s translation of these words by ‘all things are impermanent’ (Kindred Sayings IV, p. 282) is completely wrong, probably due to an oversight. But this is a very serious mistake. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons for so much unnecessary talk on the Buddha’s silence. The most important word in this context, anatta ‘without a self’ had been translated as ‘impermanent’. The English translations of Pali texts contain major and minor errors of this kind-some due to carelessness or oversight, some to lack of proficiency in the original language. Whatever the cause may be, it is useful to mention here, with the deference due to those great pioneers in this field, that these errors have been responsible for a number of wrong ideas about Buddhism among people who have no access to the original texts. It is good to know therefore that Miss I. B. Horner, the Secretary of the Pali Text Society, plans to bring out revised and new translations.

[27] In fact on another occasion, evidently earlier, when the Buddha had explained a certain deep and subtle question-the question as to what happened to an Arahant after death-Vacchagotta said: ‘Venerable Gotama, here I fall into ignorance, I get into confusion. Whatever little faith I had at the beginning of this conversation with the Venerable Gotama, that too is gone now.’ (M I (PTS), p. 487). So the Buddha did not want to confuse him again.

[28] S IV (PTS), pp. 400-401

[29] This knowledge of the Buddha is called Indriyaparopariyattaňāna. M I (PTS), p. 70; Vibh. (PTS), p. 340.

[30] A (Colombo, 1929), p. 216.

[31] E.g., S IV (PTS), pp. 393, 395; M I (PTS), p. 484.

[32] See p. 63 n. 2.

[33] E.g., see S III (PTS), pp. 257-263; IV pp, 391f., 395 f., 398f., 400; MI, pp. 481f., 483f., 489f., A V p. 193

[34] For, we see that after sometime Vacchagotta came again to see the Buddham but this time did not ask any questions as usual, but said: 「It is long since I had a talk with the Venerable Gotama. It would be good if the Venerable Gotama would preach to me on good and bad (kusalākusalam) in brief.」 The Buddha said that he would explain to him good and bad, in brief as well as in detail; and so he did. Ultimately Vacchagotta became a disciple of the Buddha, and following his teaching attained Arahantship, realized Truth, Nirvāna, and the problems of Ātman and other questions obsessed him no more. (M I (PTS), pp. 489 ff.)

[35] S II (PTS), p. 94. Some people think that Ālayavijňāna ‘Store-Consciousness’ (Tathāgatagarbba) of Mahāyāna Buddhism is something like self. But the Lankāvatāra-sŭtra categorically says that it is not Ātman (Lanka. P. 78-79.)

[36] S III (PTS), pp. 126 ff.

[37] This is what most people say about self even today.

[38] M III (PTS), p. 19; S III, p. 103.

[39] Abhisamuc, p. 31.

注釋：

一：見一九二二年阿陸葛瑪版人品第四頁以次各頁以及巴利文學會版《中部經》第一集第一六七頁以次各頁。

二：見下文詳解。

三：見巴利文學會版《中部經》第三集第六十三頁，同版《雜部經》第二集第二十八、九十五等頁。該式如以現代形式表現，則成下式：

甲存在則乙存在，甲生起則乙生起； 甲不存在則乙不存在，甲消滅則乙消滅。

四：見巴利文學會版《清淨道論》第五一七頁。

五：因受篇幅限制，在本書內無法討論此一極為重要之教義。著者現正撰寫另一佛教哲學著作，其中對此一課題將有較詳盡之評議及比較研究。

六：見巴利文學會版《雜部經》覺音疏第二章第七十七頁。

七：見《大乘莊嚴經論》第十八章第九十二節。

八：見一九五二年二月份中道季刊第一五四頁葛拉生納普氏H. von Glasenapp所著『吠檀多與佛教』一文中有關無我問題之議論。

九：指現已逝世之瑞斯·戴維茲夫人Mrs. Rhys Davids及其他學者。見瑞斯·戴維茲夫人所著『喬答摩其人』、『釋迦、佛教之起源』、『佛教手冊』、『什麼是原始佛教』等著。

十：見巴利文學會版《中部經》第一集第一三六、一三七頁。

十一：巴利文學會版《中部經》覺音疏第二集第一一二頁曾引用此語。

十二：烏德瓦氏 F.L. Woodward在『佛的功德之路』(一九二九年瑪德拉斯出版)一書中(見第六十九頁)，將『法』字譯為『一切複合的事物』，是很錯誤的。『一切複合的事物』只是行，不是法。

十三：五蘊中的行蘊，是指『心的造作』或『心志的活動』，能產生業果。但此處的文字，乃指一切緣成的或複合的事物，包括所有五個蘊在內。所以，『行』字在不同的章句，有不同的釋義。

十四：參照比較『諸行無常』、『諸法無我』兩句。見巴利文學會版《中部經》第一集第二、八頁及《雜部經》第二集第一三二、一三三兩頁。

十五：見巴利文學會版《中部經》第一集第一三七頁。

十六：見巴利文學會版《中部經》第一集第一三八頁。談到這一段文字的時候，羅達吉須南氏S. Radhakrishnan說：『佛所破斥的，乃是鬧轟轟地要求小我永久續存的妄見。』(見該氏所著一九四零年倫敦出版之「印度之哲學」一書第四八五頁)我們對這話不能同意。相反的，佛實際上破斥的神我(亦稱靈魂)。前一段文中剛剛說明，佛並不接受任何我見，不分大小。他的見地是：所有神我的理論，都是虛妄的、心造的影像。

十七：葛拉生納普在他所著『吠檀多與佛教』一文中(一九五七年三月份中道季刊)， 對此點曾有詳晰之闡釋。

十八：巴利文《法句經》注稱中說：『Natho ti patittha一句中natho為支援義(依怙、救助、保護)』(見《法句經》覺音疏第二章第一四八頁。巴利文學會版)。古錫蘭文『法句經規矩』中，將natho一字代以pihita vaneya『, 乃一支柱(依怙、救助)』字樣。(見一九二六年哥崙坡出版之Dhammapada puranasannaya第七十七頁。)如果我們研究 natho的反義字anatha，這意義就更為確定。Anatha的意義不是『沒有一個主宰』或『無主』，而是『無助』、『無支應』、『無保護』、『貧乏』。甚至巴利文學會版之巴利文字典中，亦將 natho釋為『保護者』、『皈依處』、『救助』，不作『主宰』。但該字典中將 Lokanatho一字譯為『世間之救主』，以通俗之基督教名詞用在此處，實屬未盡恰當，因為佛並不是救主。這一稱號的實際意義，乃是『世間的皈依處』。

十九：見一九二九年哥崙坡版《長部經》第二集第六十二頁。

二十：見瑞斯·戴維茲英譯《長部經》第二集第一零八頁：『應自作明燈，應自作皈依，勿向身外覓皈依處。』

二十一：Dipa一字在此不作燈解，實作洲(島)解。《長部經》注解中(見《長部經》覺音疏第三八零頁)論dipa一字時說：『應將自己作為一個島嶼，一個休息處而安住，猶如大洋中的一個島一樣。』相續不斷的生死，通常都以大海作譬，所謂生死大海。而在海中求安全，要找的應該是島嶼、一片堅實的土地，而不是一盞燈。

二十二：見一九二九年哥崙坡版《長部經》第二集第六十一、六十二兩頁。只有最後一句是按字義翻譯的。故事的其余部份，是根據《大般涅槃經》所作的簡略敘述。

二十三：見一九二九年哥崙坡版《長部經》第二集第六十二頁。關于四念處，請參閱本書第七章『修習：心智的培育』。

二十四：見一九二九年阿陸葛瑪版大品第二十一、二十二兩頁。

二十五：另有一次，佛曾面告這同一個婆嗟種：如來沒有任何理由，因為他已親身證知一切事物的本性。(見巴利文學會版《中部經》第一集第四八六頁)。在這方面，他也不願意和任何理論家發生關系。

二十六： Sae dhamma anatta一語(與巴利文《法句經》第二十章第七偈第一句全同。該偈前文已論及)，烏德瓦氏將它譯成『一切事物皆是無常』(見英譯《雜部經》第四集第二八二頁)是完全錯了；但也許是由于疏忽。可是這錯誤甚為嚴重。關于佛的緘默，會有這麼多閒話，也許這也是原因之一。因為在這一句中，最重要的一個anatta『無我』被譯成『無常』了。英譯巴利文佛典中，頗有不少這類大大小小的錯誤——有些是由于粗心疏忽，有些是因為對原文中的文字不夠熟諳。對從事這項工作的那些偉大創業者，我十分敬仰。但是不論原因若何，都有必要申明：這些錯誤已使無法閱讀原文的人，對佛教產生了偏見。因此，據悉巴利文學會的秘書(譯者按：現已升任會長)荷納小姐Miss I.b. Horner現已計畫出版修正的新譯本，實在是一樁好消息。

二十七：事實上，在另一次機緣中(顯然在此次之前)，佛闡釋某一深奧的問題——關于阿羅漢死後如何的問題之後，婆嗟種道：『可敬的喬答摩啊！這一下我變傻了，我攪糊涂了。在剛同可敬的喬答摩討論這一問題時，我尚具有的一點點信心，現在也統統消失了。』(巴利文學會版《中部經》第一集第四八七頁)。因此，佛不願再把他攪糊涂。

二十八：此處作者雖用Atman，(大寫的A)但pali文根本無Capital，亦無Punctuation所以並不一定指的是神我或大我。此處是佛以幽默的口吻說的，此處之我，只是泛指的我而已。——張澄基識

二十九：見巴利文學會版《雜部經》第四集第四零零、四零一兩頁。

三十：佛的這一智力，叫做根上下智力。見巴利文學會版《中部經》第一集第七十頁及同版《清淨道論》第三四零頁。

三十一：見一九二九年哥崙坡《增支部經》第二一六頁。

三十二：例如，巴利文學會版《雜部經》第四集第三九三、三九五頁及同版《中部經》第一集第四八四頁。

三十三：見注廿七。

三十四：例如巴利文學會版《雜部經》第三集第二五七——二六三頁；第四集第三九一頁以次，三九五頁以次，三九八頁以次，以及第四零零頁；《中部經》第一集第四八一頁以次，四八三頁以次，四八九頁以次各頁；《增支部經》第五集第一九三頁。

三十五：因為，過了一段時間，婆嗟種又來見佛。但這次他來，並沒有和往常一樣的問問題。只是說：『我和可敬的喬答摩已多時未晤談了。如果可敬的喬答摩能為我簡單地說說善不善法，那就太好了。』佛說他將為婆嗟種亦詳亦略的解說善不善法，接著就照辦了。最後婆嗟種成了佛弟子，依教奉行，得羅漢果，證見真理、涅槃，而不再為神我以及其他問題所蠱惑。見《中部經》第一集第四八九頁起。

三十六：見巴利文學會版《雜部經》第二集第九十四頁。有人以為大乘佛教中的阿賴耶識(藏識、如來藏)與『我』相似。但是《入楞伽經》中曾斬釘截鐵地說明它不是神我。見東京一九二三年南條文雄訂正《入楞伽經》第七十八、七十九兩頁。

三十七：見巴利文學會版《雜部經》第三集第一二六頁以次各頁。

三十八：即使在今日，多數人對于『我』仍然作此說法。

三十九：見巴利文學會版《中部經》第三集第十九頁；《雜部經》第三集第一零三頁。

四十：見《阿毗達摩集論》第卅一頁。