Recently, a friend told me that when the first time she read one of my articles, she was so angry with me that she almost picked up the phone and yell at me. She thought I was heartless to be able to write articles that are so full of idealism, rationality and totally void of any emotions and very cruel. The only reason that she did not do so was because she was so tired from a day of work, that she decided to take a shower first. While in the shower, she wondered why she was so emotional about an article. She thought about why she was so angry and was able to realize that it was due to some past emotional trauma. My article simply touched a nerve. After she was able to resolve her emotion, she was able to read the same article without any emotional outburst.
最近，一個朋友告訴我，她第一次讀我的文章後，非常的生氣，幾乎想打電話罵我。 因為她覺得我的文章充滿理想和理性，但很無情殘酷。她並沒有馬上這樣做，因為當時她超累，決定先洗澡再說。 洗澡時，她很納悶為什麼會對一篇文章有如此大的情緒起伏。 想一想之後，明白是由於過去的一些情感傷害。 我的文章只是觸動了隱藏很深的舊傷，於是，在洗澡的過程，她處理掉這些舊傷，出來之後，再讀同一篇文章，就沒有類似的情緒爆發了。
This conversation made me think about Śūnyatā and detachment, and I thought of another way to think about the traditional interpretation of these two words.
這段故事讓我想到「空」和「放下」，讓我想用另一種角度來說明這兩個詞的傳統解釋。
Traditionally, Śūnyatā is interpreted as "emptiness." I mentioned that on some level, this is not totally incorrect. It is the attitude that one takes after realizing everything is "emptiness" [Note] that matters. Using this story as an example, my article is about as "empty" as "empty" can be. It is nothing more than words. Most people, when they disagree with an article, would simply disagree and move on. But, to be angry because of an article, and to point the anger at the person who wrote the article, it means there is something going on. Is there a need to be angry at "emptiness"? Of course not. The fact that not everyone become angry at the article, means that article itself is not the cause of anger. It is something else, and that is the reader.
Śūnyatā 這個概念被翻譯成「空」，不是完全不正確，問題是大家對待「空」的態度。 用上面這個故事作為一個例子，我的文章是「空」沒錯！ 只是字而已。 大多數人，如果不同意文章的內容，只會不同意，然後跳過。 會對文章生氣、而且對作者生氣，不應該是文章的問題吧！ 有必要對「空」生氣嗎？ 不是每個人都會對文章生氣，所以文章本身不是憤怒的原因，真正的原因是讀者自己。
Śūnyatā as "emptiness" is simply to force a practitioners to ask themselves why they have emotional fluctuations regarding "emptiness." It is not asking you to suppress emotions. It is not asking you to not have emotions. It is not telling you to believe that nothing exists. Everything exists, it just doesn't want you to use everything as the reason for your emotions. "Emptiness" cannot be an excuse. "Emptiness" wants you to know that all emotions emanate from you. It simply tells you to think about the reason that you reacted to "emptiness," and to deal with the reason.
Śūnyatā 被翻譯成「空」 是想要修行者問自己：為什麼要對「空」有情緒的起伏？ 「空」不是要您去抑制情緒、不要求您不要有情緒、不是告訴您一切都是虛空妄想。 一切都存在，它只是不希望您用一切做為情緒的原因。 「空」不能做為藉口，「空」想讓您知道：所有的情緒是從自己發出。 「空」是要簡單的告訴您：去思考您對「空」所有反應的原因，以及去處理這些原因。
How do you deal with the reason of your reactions? By letting it go. Letting what go? Letting the emotional baggage that you have been carrying. The way you do this is to face the experiences and emotions once again, and resolve them in your mind. The contents of emotional baggage cannot be avoided, and you cannot simply take them out and put them on the ground and walk away. You have to take them out, one at a time, look into them and to resolve them. Only then, will these past experiences vanish into think air. Only then, will you be able to improve and keep moving forward.
您要如何處理這些原因呢？ 放下。 放下什麼呢？ 放下情緒的包袱。 您需要面對跟處理這些舊傷和情緒，情緒包袱的內容是無法避免的，您不能簡單的只是把它們放在地上，然後離開。 您需要一個一個的把它們拿出來解決。 惟有這樣，這些過去的經驗才會從情緒包袱消失。 只有那時，您才能有所改變，繼續向前走。
This is what my friend did to resolve her old trauma, and she thinks she's happier for it. Right now, she said that when she felt unjustly hurt, she would read some articles to settle down. But I would like to challenge her to think about why she needs "emptiness" to calm her emotions.
我的朋友就這樣解決了一個舊傷，她覺得現在好多了。 她說，現在，若覺得受到一些不公平的傷害，她會上網讀一些文章來安慰自己。 但我想挑戰她去想一想：為什麼需要「空」來安慰？
As an epilogue, she said that my articles have improved a lot. They are no longer heartless and rational. But I wonder, is it because I changed, or is it because she changed?
後記：她說，現在，我的文章不再是無情和理性。但這是因為我改變了，還是她改變了？
This last sentence brings to mind a famous koan regarding sixth patriarch of Chinese Zen Buddhism Huineng.
這最後一句，讓我想起六祖慧能一個著名的公案。
In the koan , there was a flag moving in the wind. One monk said "Wind moved." Another one said "Flag moved." Huineng said "Not wind, not flag, your mind moved."
But I think "Everything changed."
公案寫，「時有風吹幡動，一僧曰『風動』，一僧曰『幡動』，議論不已。 慧能進曰：『不是風動，不是幡動，仁者心動。』」
但我認為「一切都變了。」
[Note] I am using emptiness here because I am talking about Śūnyatā as emptiness in this discussion.
沒有留言:
張貼留言