..续本文上一页物，也包括了无为的“绝对性”与涅槃。世出世间、善恶、有为无为、相对绝对，没有一样事物不包括在这一个“法”字中。因此，根据此一申义，“诸法无我”很显然的是说不仅五蕴之中无我，在五蕴之外或离开五蕴依然无我。［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.

　　无论在人(补特伽罗)或法中，都没有我。大乘佛教的态度亦复如是。在这点上，与上座部一般无二。不仅强调法无我，也强调人无我。

　　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《中部经》中的《阿勒葛度帕玛经》Alagaddupama-sutta(译者注：约相当于汉译《中阿含》第二零零《阿梨吒经》里，佛向弟子们说：“比丘们啊！你们可以接受灵魂实有论，只要接受了这一理论，一切忧悲苦恼便不再生起。但是，比丘们啊！你们见到过这样的灵魂实有论吗？接受了它就可以使忧悲苦恼不再生起？”

　　”Certainly not, Sir.”

　　“当然没有啰，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]

　　“好极了，比丘们。比丘们啊！我也从未见过有这样的灵魂实有论，接受了它忧悲苦恼便不再生起。”［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.

　　如果曾经有过为佛所接受的灵魂实有论(有我论)，他一定会在上节经文里予以阐释，因为他曾要比丘们接受不会产生痛苦的灵魂实有论。但在佛的看法，这样的灵魂实有论是没有的。任何的灵魂实有论，无论它是如何高深微妙，都是虚妄幻想，徒然制造各种问题，随之产生一连串的忧悲、苦恼、灾难、困扰等等。

　　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]

　　在同一经中，佛接下去又说：“比丘们啊！我以及与我有关的任何事物(我所)既然确确实实是不可得的，所谓“宇宙就是神我(灵魂)；我死后就成为神我，常住不变，亘古长存，我将如是存在以迄永远”的臆见，岂不是十十足足的愚痴？”［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.

　　这里，佛清清楚楚的说出神我、灵魂、我实际上是不可得的。相信有这么一件东西，乃是再愚蠢不过的事。

　　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，也举出若干例子。这些例子，先是他们把它翻译错了，之后又加以曲解。一个有名的例子，就是《法句经》第十二章第四节，也就是第一六零偈。他将原文的Atta hi attano natho先译成““我”是我的主宰”，然后又将偈文解释为大“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]

　　先说，这翻译根本不正确。此地的Atta并不是含有灵魂意义的“我”。在巴利文中，atta一字除了在少数情形下，特指哲学里的灵魂实有论(有我论)如前文所见者外，通常均用为反身或不定代名词。在《法句经》第十二章这句偈文里以及其它许多地方，它就是用反身或不定代名词。其意义是我自己、你自己、他自己、某人、某人自己等。［注十七］

　　Next, the word nātho does …

《佛陀的启示 第六章 无我论 Chapter VI· The Doctrine of No Soul: Anatta》全文未完，请进入下页继续阅读…