..续本文上一页ealms of existence. Even the gods trembled when the Buddha reminded them of impermanence. So because even those pleasant experiences which we crave and cling to are impermanent, so impermanence is an occasion for suffering and whatever is impermanent is also suffering.

　　Now we come to the third universal characteristic of existence, the characteristic of not-self, or impersonality, or insubstantiality. This is in a sense one of the really distinctive features of Buddhist thought and of the teachings of the Buddha. During the later development of religion and philosophy in India, some Hindu schools became increasingly similar to the teachings of the Buddha, in their techniques of meditation and in some of their philosophical ideas. So it became necessary for Buddhist masters to point out that there was still one distinctive feature that set Buddhism apart from the Hindu schools that so closely resembled it. That distinctive feature is the teaching of not-self.

　　Sometimes, this teaching of not-self is an occasion for confusion because often we wonder how one can deny the self. After all, we do say "I am speaking" or "I am walking," or "I am called so and so", or "I am the father or the son of such and such a person." So how can we deny the reality of that "I"

　　 In order to clarify this, I think it is important to remember that the Buddhist rejection of the "I" is not a rejection of this convenient designation, the name "I". Rather, it is a rejection of the idea that this name "I" stands for a substantial, permanent and changeless reality. When the Buddha said that the five factors of personal experience were not the self, and that the self was not to be found within them He meant that on analysis, this name "I" did not correspond to any essence or entity.

　　The Buddha has used the example of the chariot and the forest to explain the relation between the term “I” and the components of personal experience. The Buddha has explained that the term "chariot" is simply a convenient name for a collection of parts that is assembled in a particular way. The wheels are not the chariot. Neither is the axle, and neither is the carriage, and so forth. Similarly, an inpidual tree is not a forest. Neither is a number of inpidual trees a forest. There is no forest apart from the inpidual trees. The term forest is just a convenient name for an assembly of inpidual trees. This is the thrust of the Buddha”s rejection of the self. The Buddha”s rejection is a rejection of the belief in a real, independent, permanent entity that is represented by the term "I". Such a permanent entity would have to be independent, would have to be sovereign in the way that a king is master of those around him. It would have to be permanent, immutable and impervious to change, and such a permanent entity, such a self is nowhere to be found.

　　The Buddha has applied the following analysis to the body and mind to indicate that the self is nowhere to be found either in the body or the mind. The body is not the self. For if the body were the self, the self would be impermanent, would be subject to change, decay, destruction, and death. So the body cannot be the self. The self does not possess the body, in the sense that I possess a car or a television, because the self cannot control the body. The body falls ill, gets tired and old against our wishes. The body has a shape which often does not agree with our wishes. So in no way does the self possess the body. The self is not in the body. If we search our body from the top of our head to the tip of our toes, we can nowhere locate the self. The self is not in the bone, nor in the blood, nor in the marrow, nor in the hair, nor in the spittle. The self is nowhere to be found within the body. Similarly, the mind is not the self. The mi…

《Three Characteristics》全文未完，请进入下页继续阅读…