正見 2 The Right View 2

I constantly run into the same type of differences in view with anicca and anattā when reading other Buddhist materials.

在讀其他佛教作品時，我也常常碰到對「無常」和「無我」有不同見解的情形。

I know we have not really discuss anicca and anattā in detail so far, only hinted at them. This is because unless you really understand Śūnyatā, it is hard to discuss anicca and anattā in such a way that you can accept them.

我知道，到目前為止，我們還沒有真正討論過 「無常」和「無我」。這是因為，除非您真的了解「空」，否則您不會接受我對「無常」和「無我」的說法。

If I tell you anicca (impermanence) simply means that every phenomenons changes constantly and continuously. Anattā (not-self) means that "I" changes constantly and continuously. And that's it! Can you accept these answers?

如果我說，「無常」，是每一個現象不斷的在變。 「無我」是「我」不斷的在變。 就是這樣而已，您能接受嗎？

You might not, because this is so obviously, that everyone is intuitively aware of these "facts". You might think that whatever Buddha realize must be more profound than these.

您也許不能，因為這太明顯了。 每個人都直覺的去了解這些「事實」。 您可能會認為佛的覺悟應該比這些更深奧、更難懂。

But remember that Buddha was educating people two thousands years ago. They have a drastic different living environment and knowledge than we do today. Just like today, you don't need to teach your 3 years old child how to use a computer, but need to buy a lot of book and constant tutoring to teach your grandparent how to use a computer. It's the same with Buddha's teachings. If Buddha is alive today, he would probably use different words and phrases to tell you what he knows.

但佛陀是在教兩千年前的人。 兩千年前的人跟我們有很大不同的生活環境和知識。 就像今天，您不需要教3歲孩子如何使用電腦，但需要買大量的書籍和不斷指導來教您的祖父母電腦。 佛陀的教誨也是一樣。 如果佛陀活在今天，他也許會使用不同的詞和字來告訴您，他覺悟了什麼。

But I digress. A lot of teachers and writers cannot accept such a simple definition of anicca and anattā either. They might agree on what it means, but they differs on implications. They all seems to think that anicca and anattā must imply something that transcend humanity as we know it.

言歸正傳，回到主題。 很多教師和作家也不能接受這麼簡單的定義，他們也許會同意，但觀點會不一樣。 因為他們覺得佛陀說的「無常」和「無我」應該有一些超越人類的東西。

Because of this, they come up with, to me, seemingly strange ways to Practice.

所以，他們會有一些（對我來說）很難理解的修行。

One method seems to think that anattā is a tool, a strategy that will help a practitioner achieve enlightenment. I do not disagree with this approach. However, in this method, a practitioner is suppose to create some good qualities, such as self-reliant, responsibility, and heedful, and use these qualities as crutches to help the practitioners to get to anattā, at which point, the practitioners is suppose to throw all these good qualities away, because he would no longer need them.

例如，有一種修行是用「無我」作為一個工具或一種策略來幫修行者覺悟。 我可以同意這種想法。 但是這種修行是要修行者去創造一些好的素質，如：自力更生、責任感、細心，來幫修行者達到「無我」，然後，把這些好的素質全部丟掉，因為一個「無我」的人不需要這些東西。

But my real question is why? Why throw away good qualities that we so carefully cultivate? Of course this method wants you to throw away your bad qualities too. So if you do end up at anattā, you would have no qualities? I suppose they would say the quality that remain is anattā, which is unconditional happiness. Happiness itself is an emotion, whether conditional or unconditional, right? So there is still something that is attached to this unconditional happiness, and the five Skandhas are still needed feel this happiness, right? So what has changed? And how do you really go about throwing away all qualities about you any way?

為什麼？ 為什麼要丟掉精心培育的素質？ 當然，這種修行也要您扔掉壞的素質。 所以，「無我」的人都沒有素質？ 他們也許會說「無我」，就是無行的快樂。 但是，快樂本身是一種情感，不論有行或無行。 所以仍然有東西存在來接受，仍然有五蘊來感覺這種無行的快樂，不是嗎？ 這個境界是「無我」嗎？您要如何去丟掉所有的素質？

Is it possible that the fact that they are able to create good qualities themselves is anattā in and of itself? That is, they are Practing anattā without knowing it? Because of anattā, they are able to change themselves.

是否有可能：他們能夠創造好的素質就是因為「無我」？ 也就是說，他們在不知覺的情況下修行「無我」，因為「無我」，他們才能改變。

What do you think which one is the right view?

您覺得哪個才是「正見」呢？

It is correct that Right View is very important. But it is more than just knowledge, but how you handle the knowledge. It is useful to ponder a knowledge from different angles in order to figure out the right way to look and treat a knowledge.

「正見」很重要沒錯。 但「正見」不是「正知識」，是如何看待知識。用不同的角度去思考，才能找出正確的觀點，這才是「正見」。


上一篇 Previous Part