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
2012年1月25日 星期三
2012年1月24日 星期二
正見 1 The Right View 1
When Buddha talked about the Right View in Noble Eightfold Path, is he only talking about the knowledge of Four Noble Truths, Karma and Three Marks of Existence (Anicca, Dukkha and anattā ). Is knowing and accepting that these are the truth of our existences the only requirement for having the Right View?
在八正道中佛陀提到「正見」，在一般的說法，「正見」好像只是知道和接受「四聖諦」、「因緣法」、「無常」、「苦」和「無我」。真是這樣嗎？
When I read Buddhist publications, either on the web or in books and articles, I cannot help but wonder at the conclusions of these publications. In some cases, the authors and I do not share the same definition of some words and phrases common in Buddhism. So my disagreement with them is understandable. But in other cases, we shared the same definitions. It seems like we only differ in the implication of these words and phrases. These differences will lead us down different paths.
在網絡、書籍或一些文章裡頭，可以發現：某些佛教刊物的作者所下的結論，常常讓我們走向不同的路。有時，一些作者跟我一樣不同意某些佛教常見的詞的定義，而有些地方，我跟其它作者對這些詞的定義，持相同看法，唯一不同是對這些詞的用法。這些差異讓我們走向不同的路。
For example, I see questions on whether some actions are allowable under Buddha's teaching. Often, the answers will be framed in the percepts and virtues or karma. Often, karma are used as a restraint to limit one's action and used to justify the percepts and virtues. This view of karma turn us into automatons. This view seems to be saying that there is a complete list of things that we can do and cannot do. If we believe in Buddhism and want to be enlightened, we just have to do the things that are allowed on this list, and don't do what's not allowed. Only if we can get our hands on this list!
例如， 我看到一些問題，是關於：某些行為，身為一個佛教徒是否能做。常常，答案是用「戒」跟「善」或「因緣果」來回答。這樣的「因緣果」好像變成是用來約束一個人的行為，且也是用來交待「戒」跟「善」。如此「因緣果」的觀點，把人變成機器人。那觀點是說：世上好像有一個列表，裡頭所有能做、不能做的事都寫在上面；如果相信佛教，也想要覺悟，我們只需做此列表中允許的事，不做不允許的事。只要我們能夠拿到、遵照這個列表所示，大家都可以成佛！
But why would an enlightened person need such a list? Wouldn't an enlightened person be able to think for themselves what they should and should not do under a circumstance? Even if we need some aids, such as a list like this, to help us to enlightenment, would we be able to go from following rules all our lives to a free thinker over night?
但是，一位覺者為什麼會需要這樣的列表？覺者，不是都能思考一件事該不該做嗎？即使我們需要這樣的列表來幫助我們覺悟，我們能夠一夜之間從「遵循規則」跳到「自由思想」的人嗎？
So let us look at this from another point of view. In this view, the purpose of teaching us about Karma is not to tell us what we should and should not do. Instead, the purpose is to tell us that there are unavoidable consequences to everything that we do. It is not to delineate "right" from "wrong". It is to tell us that there are "pleasant" and "unpleasant" consequences. It tells us that perform we perform an action, we need to think about its consequences. If we are clear on the consequences, then we will need to be handle it, because the consequences will never go away by itself.
因此，讓我們從另一個角度來看「因緣果」。這觀點認為，佛陀教我們「因緣果」不是要告訴我們什麼是應該，什麼是不應該。 佛陀的目的是告訴我們，所做的一切都有逃不了的後果。他不是要規劃「對」跟「錯」。他要我們知道所有的行為都有「愉快」或「不愉快」的後果。如果明確一件事的後果，做這件事就得準備去承擔結果，因為後果永遠不會自己消失。
Given the same definition of Karma, one view forces us to constantly think about what is allowed and what is not allowed. The other view wants us to think for ourselves and take responsibility for our own actions. Given that Buddha is someone who is enlightened, which is the correct view? Which will get us closer to enlightenment?
這兩個觀點都用同樣「因緣果」的定義。一個觀點逼迫我們不斷的去想什麼是允許的，什麼是不允許的；另一個觀點，要我們自己去想、且為自己的行為承擔責任。 佛陀是一位大覺者，所以，哪一個觀點是「正見」呢？哪一個會讓我們更接近覺悟的那一刻呢？
在八正道中佛陀提到「正見」，在一般的說法，「正見」好像只是知道和接受「四聖諦」、「因緣法」、「無常」、「苦」和「無我」。真是這樣嗎？
When I read Buddhist publications, either on the web or in books and articles, I cannot help but wonder at the conclusions of these publications. In some cases, the authors and I do not share the same definition of some words and phrases common in Buddhism. So my disagreement with them is understandable. But in other cases, we shared the same definitions. It seems like we only differ in the implication of these words and phrases. These differences will lead us down different paths.
在網絡、書籍或一些文章裡頭，可以發現：某些佛教刊物的作者所下的結論，常常讓我們走向不同的路。有時，一些作者跟我一樣不同意某些佛教常見的詞的定義，而有些地方，我跟其它作者對這些詞的定義，持相同看法，唯一不同是對這些詞的用法。這些差異讓我們走向不同的路。
For example, I see questions on whether some actions are allowable under Buddha's teaching. Often, the answers will be framed in the percepts and virtues or karma. Often, karma are used as a restraint to limit one's action and used to justify the percepts and virtues. This view of karma turn us into automatons. This view seems to be saying that there is a complete list of things that we can do and cannot do. If we believe in Buddhism and want to be enlightened, we just have to do the things that are allowed on this list, and don't do what's not allowed. Only if we can get our hands on this list!
例如， 我看到一些問題，是關於：某些行為，身為一個佛教徒是否能做。常常，答案是用「戒」跟「善」或「因緣果」來回答。這樣的「因緣果」好像變成是用來約束一個人的行為，且也是用來交待「戒」跟「善」。如此「因緣果」的觀點，把人變成機器人。那觀點是說：世上好像有一個列表，裡頭所有能做、不能做的事都寫在上面；如果相信佛教，也想要覺悟，我們只需做此列表中允許的事，不做不允許的事。只要我們能夠拿到、遵照這個列表所示，大家都可以成佛！
But why would an enlightened person need such a list? Wouldn't an enlightened person be able to think for themselves what they should and should not do under a circumstance? Even if we need some aids, such as a list like this, to help us to enlightenment, would we be able to go from following rules all our lives to a free thinker over night?
但是，一位覺者為什麼會需要這樣的列表？覺者，不是都能思考一件事該不該做嗎？即使我們需要這樣的列表來幫助我們覺悟，我們能夠一夜之間從「遵循規則」跳到「自由思想」的人嗎？
So let us look at this from another point of view. In this view, the purpose of teaching us about Karma is not to tell us what we should and should not do. Instead, the purpose is to tell us that there are unavoidable consequences to everything that we do. It is not to delineate "right" from "wrong". It is to tell us that there are "pleasant" and "unpleasant" consequences. It tells us that perform we perform an action, we need to think about its consequences. If we are clear on the consequences, then we will need to be handle it, because the consequences will never go away by itself.
因此，讓我們從另一個角度來看「因緣果」。這觀點認為，佛陀教我們「因緣果」不是要告訴我們什麼是應該，什麼是不應該。 佛陀的目的是告訴我們，所做的一切都有逃不了的後果。他不是要規劃「對」跟「錯」。他要我們知道所有的行為都有「愉快」或「不愉快」的後果。如果明確一件事的後果，做這件事就得準備去承擔結果，因為後果永遠不會自己消失。
Given the same definition of Karma, one view forces us to constantly think about what is allowed and what is not allowed. The other view wants us to think for ourselves and take responsibility for our own actions. Given that Buddha is someone who is enlightened, which is the correct view? Which will get us closer to enlightenment?
這兩個觀點都用同樣「因緣果」的定義。一個觀點逼迫我們不斷的去想什麼是允許的，什麼是不允許的；另一個觀點，要我們自己去想、且為自己的行為承擔責任。 佛陀是一位大覺者，所以，哪一個觀點是「正見」呢？哪一個會讓我們更接近覺悟的那一刻呢？
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)