..續本文上一頁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]

　　爲了避免混淆，于此必須申明，真理有兩種：世俗的真理(俗谛)與最高的真理(真理)。［注六］我們在日常生活中，用我、你、衆生、個人等名詞的時候，不能因爲實無我及衆生等而將上項名詞視爲妄語。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衆生。在《大乘莊嚴經論》裏就說：“當知“補特伽羅”只是假名安立(依世俗說，有所謂衆生)，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 inpidual 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，仰佛教如泰山北鬥。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爲錯誤，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，是不爲佛所接受的。

　　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，並不以這兩種觀念爲秘密。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爲重要的觀念，他一定會公開宣布，如同他談論其它事物一樣，而不會將它們秘藏起來，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！是否有人因爲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 permane…

《佛陀的啓示 第六章 無我論 Chapter VI· The Doctrine of No Soul: Anatta》全文未完，請進入下頁繼續閱讀…