..續本文上一頁物，也包括了無爲的“絕對性”與涅槃。世出世間、善惡、有爲無爲、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 inpidual (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。大乘佛教的態度亦複如是。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》裏，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.”

　　“當然沒有啰，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.

　　如果曾經有過爲佛所接受的靈魂實有論(有我論)，他一定會在上節經文裏予以闡釋，因爲他曾要比丘們接受不會産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，徒然製造各種問題，隨之産生一連串的憂悲、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)；我死後就成爲神我，常住不變，亘古長存，我將如是存在以迄永遠”的臆見，豈不是十十足足的愚癡？”［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.

　　這裏，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，也舉出若幹例子。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”，然後又將偈文解釋爲大“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，特指哲學裏的靈魂實有論(有我論)如前文所見者外，通常均用爲反身或不定代名詞。在《法句經》第十二章這句偈文裏以及其它許多地方，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 …

《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…