除已敘述的善根、大人相、因緣法的掌握也試著申論一些。 從動的條件說因緣，許多的學說都先在「動」之前先立「不動」說！ 亦既有個主體是不變的，但周遭可以變。
Other than the aforementioned virtuous root and great man, let's have a discussion about Nidānas from the perspective of change. Many doctrines said that we need to establish a "static" before "change." These doctrine says that all phenomenons have an essence, and that the essence cannot be changed, but the rest that surrounds the essence can change.
依據中觀論的說法，是沒有固定主體論，一切可為之變動、或不可為之變動的一切，皆由「緣起」決定一切，就因為誰都不知下一個緣起是什麼？ 所以不立一特定主體，如果知道下一個主體是什麼，則認為得有一固定體不變，有一固定體不變，則無法通盤前進。
But according to Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, there is no such thing as a static essence. Whether any phenomenon changes or not are determined by "dependent origination." Because no one knows what the next "dependent origination" is, we can't establish an essence in a phenomenon. If we know what the essence is, then we will have to accept that there is an essence that is static. If there is an essence in a phenomenon that does not change, then it became impossible to proceed.
另一角度說：論究無我，如認為中心點的我不變，外在的我才是無我，這個想法，矛盾的可以！然而大部份的教派學說都傾向這個論點，為什麼中心點的思想是有我，而不敢也設說是無我？ 就如同佛說：「眾生一聞空法，便如驚如怖。」 以為空、或無我便會喪失一切！
From another angle, let us use anattā as a discussion point. It is a contradiction to think that there is an "essence" in me that does not change, and that anattā refers to the "rest of me" that surrounds this "essence." However, most religious sects and schools tend to support this idea; the idea that there is an eternal essence in all of us. Why do we must have an "essence" that is "atman"? Why do they not dare to assume that the "essence" is anattā as well? Just as Buddha said: "When people heard of Śūnyatā, they are shocked and horrified." Because people think Śūnyatā means "emptiness" and "nothingness", and anattā means "no self" and that they will loss everything if they agree with these two terms. [Translator's Note 10]
其實，這是觀點的問題。 不從失去、喪失的觀點看，先從「三世說」下手，三世或三個時間點 〈過去、現在、未來〉，以人的成長看，孩童、成年、老年，以成年看孩童，誰會承認自己是小時候的樣子沒變；以老年看成年，誰又不喜歡壯年期的自己！ 但這裏邊祇有一個人，那就是「自己」！
However, this is all a matter of the point of view. Let's us not look at this from the view of gain and loss, but from the view of "three eras", three generations or three time periods (Past, now, future). If we look at the issue in term of a man, the "three eras" of a man are child, adult and old man. As the adult looking at the child, who can claim that he is still the same as when he was a child. As the old man looking at the adult version of himself, who does not like his younger version better. But there is only one person here, and that is "self".
以自己看自己，變化、落差如此之大！ 孩童不等於成年！ 但成年歷經孩童，更延伸到最不被喜歡的老年。 如果說：這三個階段都有「我」的存在，按理看自己便有三個我，有三個人一定不成立！ 如只承認只有一個我，那三個時期的我，又如何裝在同一個我身上？ 真裝了進去，那這個自我真是矛盾又糾纏！
As one look at oneself, we see a large differences and changes. The child is not the same as the adult. But to get to the adult, one must go through the childhood, and then the adult is extended to become the old-man that no one likes. If we say "I" exists in all these three stages, then there would be three "I"'s. This obviously cannot stand. But if we say that there is only one "I", then how do we account for these three versions of "I" on the same person. It will become very complicated and contradictory if we try to manage to fit all three versions of "I" into the same person.
[Translator's Note 10] Master Ban Ji's abstraction made it very hard to translate this. If you think of the "essence" in this paragraph as a "unchanging soul" or "unchanging human nature" then it might be easier to decode this paragraph. So Master's question is "Why do we must assume that we have a soul that is not changeable?"
沒有留言:
張貼留言