(３５)另一問題是：

　　““殺人凶手”才能成爲阿羅漢，爲什麼？”

　　35) Now another question:

　　35) “How is it that a “man-killer” could be an arahant

　　”

　　這問題很容易回答。這是說在成爲阿羅漢之前，必須先死“人”(或“主體”)，如果我們沒有殺死“人”，就無法成爲阿羅漢。必須先殺死“人”、“自我”、“我”、“你”、“他”、“衆生”等概念，這意思是：一定得止息對“這是動物”、“這是人”、“這是自我”等的執著，去殺死“人”或殺死所謂“人”的東西，這樣作就會立刻成爲阿羅漢，因爲在成爲阿羅漢之前，必須先將“人”一一殺死。

　　佛陀有時在某些場合用比這還強烈的字眼，他說：“成爲阿羅漢之前，必得先殺死“父母”。”這裏的“父母”是指能夠造作的煩惱，特別是無明、愛、取，或任何具有“父母”繁殖功能的“法”——它可以生産出“人”的感覺。所以必須先把它們一一殺掉，也就是必得先殺掉那個“人”的“父母”，才可能成爲阿羅漢。

　　THIS CAN BE very easily answered. That which is called “the person” (or “the inpidual”) has to be killed before one can be an arahant. If what we call “the person” has not been killed, there is no way one can be an arahant. One has first to kill the idea of “the person”, of “self”, of “I” and “he” or “she”, of “animal” and “being”. That is, there must cease to be any attachment to the ideas that this is an animal, this is a person, this is an abiding entity, this is a self. To do this is to kill the person or to kill off the thing we refer to as “the person”. Doing this, one simultaneously becomes an arahant. Hence it is said that one has to kill off the person before one can be an arahant. The Buddha sometimes used stronger words than these. He said on several occasions that the parents must be killed before one can be an arahant. The parents are the mental defilements such as ignorance, craving, and clinging, or any karmic activities that function as parents or propagators coming together to give birth to the “I”, to the idea of “the person”. So one has to kill them off; one has to kill the parents of that person so that one can be an arahant.

　　這裏有個惡名昭彰的殺人魔——盎掘摩羅(Angulimala)的故事。當盎掘摩羅聽到佛陀口中發出“止”字時，他正確了解了這個字的意思，當下把“人”一一殺死而成爲阿羅漢。

　　有些人由于誤解，嘗試解釋佛陀所說“止”的意思是——停止殺人了，停止追求殺人了，而盎掘摩羅卻未停止，仍繼續殺人，這樣的解釋是不正確的。

　　當佛陀說“我停止了”，他的意思是“我已經停止做“人”，徹底止息做“人”了”。盎掘摩羅正確地領悟停止做“人”的意義，同時他也一樣地停止做“人”，這就是說他能殺掉“自我”，由于這麼“殺人”，盎掘摩羅于是像佛陀一樣成爲阿羅漢。

　　Then there is the story of Angulimala, a notorious killer. Angulimala became an arahant when he killed off the person. When he heard the word “stop” from the Buddha, he understood it in its right sense. Some people, through misunderstanding, try to explain that the Buddha, in saying that he had stopped, meant that he had stopped killing people as Angulimala was still doing when they met. That is, they explain that the Buddha had stopped, whereas Angulimala had not but was still going about killing people. This is not the right explanation. When the Buddha said “I have stopped,” he meant “I have stopped being “the person”, have completely ceased being “the person”.” Angulimala understood it rightly as completely ceasing to be the person, with the result that he too was able to kill off the person, to kill the idea of being this inpidual. Thus Angulimala became an arahant like the Buddha.

　　即如故事中這麼簡單的一個“止”字，也被大多數人完全誤解，它被錯誤地解釋、討論、教導，以至自相矛盾。假如說只要停止殺人就可以成爲阿羅漢，那真是太謊謬了！

　　Even the simple word “stop” in this story has been completely misunderstood by most people. It has been wrongly understood, wrongly explained, wrongly discussed, and wrongly taught, so that the account becomes self-contradictory. To say that one could become an arahant by merely ceasing to kill people is ridiculous.

　　所以，必須要停止做“人”，殺死對“人”、“自我”、“我”、“你”、“他”、“衆生”等的執著，才可以成爲阿羅漢。換句話說，殺“人”以成爲阿羅漢。

　　So one has to stop being the person and kill the firm belief in inpiduals, selves, “I”, and “they”, before one can be an arahant. In other words, to become an arahant, kill “the person”.