..續本文上一頁at there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn”t be drawn.

　　因此，與其對自我是否存在這個問題回答“不存在”——無論這個自我是指相關、獨立、是否永恒——佛陀認爲這個問題從一開始就有誤導性。爲什麼

　　 無論你怎樣劃定“我”與“他”的界線，自我這個概念包含了某種自我認同與執取因素，因此就帶著苦與緊張。這個分析適用于一個獨立的自我，也適用于一個與外界相通的自我，這樣的自我不承認“他”。假如一個人認同自然的一切，他便爲每一株落木而苦。這個分析也適用于對整個“其它”宇宙[的認同]，在那裏的隔絕感與徒勞感極其有害，使人對快樂的追求(無論爲己爲他)成爲不可能。出于這些原因，佛陀的忠告是，不要去注意“我存在嗎

　　 ”、或者“我不存在嗎

　　”這類問題，因爲無論你怎樣回答，都會導致苦與張力。

　　So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why

　　 No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one”s own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist

　　" or "Don”t I exist

　　" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

　　爲了避免有關“我”與“他”的問題內部隱含的苦，他提出另一種解析經驗的方式: 有關苦、苦因、滅苦、滅苦之道的四聖谛。 他說，不要把這些事看成與我、與他有關，而應該把它們看成存在現實本身、直接的經驗本身，接下來對它們各自施行相應的責任。 應當去理解張力、消除其因、實現其止息、培養止息之道。 這些責任，構成了理解anatta學說的最佳背景。如果你培養了戒德、定力、明辨，達到一個甯靜的狀態，在這個狀態下，以四聖谛的原則看待經驗，在心中升起的問題就不是“有沒有自我

　　 我是什麼

　　” 而是“我在受苦，是不是因爲我執著于這個特別現象

　　 它真的是我、我自己、我的嗎

　　 如果它是苦，但實際上卻不是我或者我的，又爲什麼要執著呢

　　 ” 後面那組問題，就值得一個直接了當的答複了，因爲這時的答案能幫助你理解苦，放下導致苦的追求與執著，即放下殘余的自我認同，直到最後，一切自我認同的痕迹消失，剩下的是無限的自由。

　　To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of piding up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self

　　 What is my self

　　" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I”m holding onto this particular phenomenon

　　 Is it really me, myself, or mine

　　 If it”s stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on

　　" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that”s left is limitless freedom.

　　在這個意義上，anatta 的教導並非是個無我(no-self)的學說，而是一個非我(not-self)的策略，藉著放下苦因、走向最高快樂，這樣來消解苦。在那時，我、無我、非我這些問題就落到了一邊。有了這樣徹底自由的經驗，又何必關心是誰、是不是我在經曆它呢

　　In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there”s the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what”s experiencing it, or whether or not it”s a self

《無我，還是非我

　　》全文閱讀結束。