Posts
请先看：
Please read this first (English):
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
請看：觉与缘起 - Awareness and Dependent Origination
English can be found below.
繁體中文翻譯：
你可以在文末找到約翰·譚（John Tan）對查理·辛格（Charlie Singer）文章的評論。
原文：
"You can find John Tan's comments on Charlie Singer's
article at the bottom."
繁體中文翻譯：
無我本性
Soh
更新（2014年1月6日）：我剛剛將此文本更新為他在著作《鏡中影：在佛教哲學中對顯現之本性的探究》（Reflection
in a Mirror: The Nature of Appearance in Buddhist Philosophy）中所用的新版本
作者：查理·辛格（Charlie Singer）
原文：
"The No-Self Nature
Soh
Update (1/6/2014): I've just updated this text with the newer edition as found
in his book "Reflection in a Mirror: The Nature of Appearance in Buddhist
Philosophy"
by Charlie Singer"
[在下一條消息中繼續]
繁體中文翻譯：
作者自跋：這本小冊子于西元1990年藏歷鐵馬年（3月16日）第一個月的新月日完成于賓夕法尼亞州的金斯頓。寫作此書的目的是為了作者自身的學習提高，同時希望將來可能有其他讀者閱讀它時能從中得到某種利益。
原文：
"Author's Colophon: This small book was completed in
Kingston, Pennsylvania on the new moon day of the first month of the Tibetan
Iron Horse year (March 16, 1990). It was written for purposes of the author's
own edification, with the wish that it might somehow be of benefit to other
people who might read it in the future."
繁體中文翻譯：
關于作者：查理·辛格（Charlie Singer）1952年出生于比利時的布魯塞爾。他于1973年獲得賓夕法尼亞州立大學通識藝術與科學（General Arts and
Sciences）學士學位，1976年至1978年在加利福尼亞伯克利的寧瑪學院（Nyingma Institute）修習藏學課程。自1980年起，他一直在紐約市的Yeshe Nyingpo中心研習藏傳佛教。該中心為已故的巴珠仁波切（即法王尊者敦珠仁波切，H.H.
Dudjom Rinpoche）的北美駐錫處，他是藏傳佛教寧瑪派的最高領袖。
原文：
"About The Author: Charlie Singer was born in Brussels,
Belgium, in 1952. he received a B.A. degree in General Arts and Sciences from
Penn State University in 1973, and from 1976-1978 was a student in the Tibetan
Studies Program at the Nyingma Institute in Berkeley, California. Since 1980,
he has been studying Tibetan Buddhism at the Yeshe Nyingpo Center in New York
City, the seat in North America of the late H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche, Supreme Hoead
of the Nyingmapa lineage of Tibetan Buddhism."
繁體中文翻譯：
謹以此獻給：
已故的法王尊者敦珠仁波切（H.H.
Dudjom Rinpoche）、尊貴的Shenpen
Dawa Rinpoche、尊貴的達塘圖庫仁波切（Tarthang
Tulku Rinpoche）、尊貴的Ngor
Thartse Khen Rinpoche、尊貴的Khenpo
Paiden Sherab Rinpoche、尊貴的Khenpo
Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche，以及我已故的父親Samuel
Singer、我的母親Paulette；以及Jeanine N.和Tina F.
原文：
"Dedicated to:
The Late H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche, H.E. Shenpen Dawa Rinpoche,
Ven. Tarthang Tulku Rinpoche, Ven. Ngor Thartse Khen Rinpoche, Ven. Khenpo
Paiden Sherab Rinpoche, Ven. Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche, to my late
Father, Samuel Singer, and to my Mother, Paulette; and Jeanine N. and Tina
F."
繁體中文翻譯：
前言
般若波羅蜜多（prajnaparamita）的智慧并非一蹴而就，而是漸次而生。薩迦班智達·貢嘎嘉稱·貝桑波（Sakya Pandita, Kunga Gyaltsen Pal
Zangpo）所提出的三大要素——學習、思惟和禪修——正是通向證悟這深邃智慧的途徑，這一點也體現在作者寫作《無我本性》時的初衷之中。究竟智慧需要個人去親證，而這部作品則是給尋求般若波羅蜜多究竟智慧之人提供的一條途徑。對于他對智慧作出的真誠詮釋，我深感歡喜，這正是“智者”所承襲的傳統。
只要如來所傳的正法之大海仍住于世間，愿這滴法的貢獻能同樣利益他者。
喇嘛·貝瑪旺達克
1994年7月30日
原文：
"Foreword
The wisdom of prajnaparamita is acquired not instantly, but
gradually. Sakya Pandita, Kunga Gyaltsen Pal Zangpo's trilogy of study,
reflection, and meditation as the approach toward the realization of this
profound wisdom is reflected in the author's intent in writing The No-Self
Nature. The absolute wisdom is subject to the individual's own realization, and
the text of this composition is one of the ways for those who seek the absolute
wisdom of the prajnapramita. I rejoice in his sincere effort in interpreting
the Wisdom. This certainly is in the tradition of the "wise ones."
As long as the ocean of the Tathagata's teachings remains on
this earth, may this drop of Dharma contribution benefit others as well.
Lama Pema Wangdak
July 30th, 1994"
繁體中文翻譯：
在思想史上，也許沒有比佛教中的“無我”（anatman）概念更加獨特的觀念了。這“無我”（anatman）的觀點是歷史上的釋迦牟尼佛所教授的，被列為“三法印”或“三種存在的標記”之一，與“苦”（duhkha）和“無常”（anitya）并列。這“三法印”被佛教思想視為遍及人類境況的三種根本特性。在如今已被翻譯成英文的佛教文獻中，關于苦、無常和“無我”這三者都有大量論述，然而，anatman或“無我”的觀念格外難以切入，是思想史上最獨特卻又至關重要的觀念之一。
所有佛教宗派或傳承的共同點之一，就是將個體或人（實則是所有具備意識的眾生）視為無我（anatman）或“無我性”。佛陀出生在印度教文化環境中，而印度教的基本教義之一向來認為，一切眾生都具備“我”（atman）的本性；此“我”或“靈魂”最終與梵（Brahman，印度教傳統中創造萬物的神性面向）相同，或者說“分享”梵的本質。佛陀從未明確肯定或否定上帝（God）的存在，而是鼓勵弟子先去修學和實踐他的教法，直到他們親證圓滿覺悟的境界，成為一位“佛陀”，那時自然會對這些形而上學的問題有直觀了知。然而，就眾生“具有一個恒常之我”的概念而言，佛陀在其初轉法輪的教導中就已相當明確地指出，此觀念從究竟上說是錯誤的，事實上，“無我”才是貫穿生命存在的一條根本法則。
原文：
"In the history of ideas, there is perhaps no idea more
unusual than the Buddhist concept of anatman, or "no-self". This idea
of anatman, or "no-self", was taught by the historical Buddha, Buddha
Shakyamuni, as being one of the "three marks of existence", along
with duhkha, or dissatisfaction, and anitya, or impermanence. These "three
marks of existence" are regarded in Buddhist thought as being the three
fundamental conditions, which pervade the human condition. The three
"marks of existence" of dissatisfcation, impermanence and
"no-self" have been much written about in the Buddhist literature now
available in the English language, but the notion of anatman, or
"no-self" can be especially difficult to penetrate and represents one
of the most unusual, and yet important, ideas to arise in the history of ideas.
Common to all schools, or forms of Buddhism, is the idea of
anatman or "no-self" nature of the individual or person (or actually
of all beings endowed with consciousness). The Buddha was born into the Hindu
religious culture and one of the fundamental tenets of the Hindu religion has
always been that all beings are endowed with the nature of (having an) atman,
or "soul" or actually a "self", which is ultimately
identical with, or actually partakes of, the nature of Brahman, or the creator
aspect of God, in Hindu tradition. The Buddha never explicitly affirmed or
denied the existence of God, encouraging his disciples to study and practice
his teachings until they themselves had attained the level of a perfectly
enlightened being, or a Buddha, at which point they would have a direct
understanding of this and other such metaphysical questions. However, the
Buddha made it quite clear in one of his first teachings, that in regard to the
notion that beings are endowed with an atman or permanent "self",
that this notion is ultimately erroneous, and that, in fact, the condition of
having "no-self" is an underlying "fact-of-life" or
principle of existence."
繁體中文翻譯：
對于“無我”這個概念，可以從不同角度加以剖析，但從某一角度來看，我們可以說，“無我”意味著：當我們去探究一個個體或一個人的本性，如果我們審慎深入地調查其中所涉及的內容，最終會發現并不存在一個實有的“我”——也就是那個我們稱之為“我”或“自我”的某個確實存在的個體，它似乎“居住”于我們的身心之中，并且連續不斷、永久地存在。在日常常識的思維中，乃至于傳統的哲學、宗教和科學思維中，人們通常都理所當然地認為，確有一個“我”棲居在我們的身心當中，就是我們口中所說的“我”或“自我”。
這種態度，或這種潛在的存在預設，很能被法國哲學家笛卡爾的名言“我思故我在”所概括。然而，從佛教哲學的觀點而言，這樣的論斷帶有某種迷妄的特質。我們或許以為，確有一個“自我”棲居于我們的身心，并且“掌管”我們的思維活動；但若我們實地探究這一狀態，佛教哲學告訴我們，事實并非如此。我們的念頭和思維過程似乎像是由某個真實存在的“我”來娛樂或思考，這個“我”說著、聽著在“我之心”中生起的念頭；但若真去探究發生了什么，就會發現，持續存在的“自我”或“我”的概念，不過是一種錯誤的假設。因為對許多人而言，“自我”之存在似乎是毫無疑問、不可動搖的，就像是一種“既定”的經驗與存在，但從佛教哲學的角度看來，把“我”視為真實存在，是一種錯誤見解。
我們可以說，念頭生起時，它們好像“屬于”某個持續存在的個體或“自我”或“我”而被思考；可從終極層面上看，也可能會是“其實那里并沒有任何人！”的狀況。此處所涉及的就像一種“我們腦中的對話”在假扮一個“有人正在思考”的“某個存在”。雖然我們很自然地認為“我”在制造或生起念頭，但其實，很可能正是這些念頭本身在不斷創造出“確有一個‘我’在思維”的信念。
原文：
"This idea of there being "no-self" can be
analyzed in different ways, but from one point of view, we might say that the
idea of "no-self" means that when we investigate the nature of the
individual or person, if we investigate what is involved carefully enough, we
would find that ultimately, there isn't actually a "self", or the one
we refer to as "I" or "me", as a truly-existing being who
"inhabits" our body and mind, in a concrete, ongoing, and permanent
way. In common sense thinking, and even in traditional philosophies and
religious and scientific thinking, there is a sense in which people have always
accepted the belief that there is, in fact, a "self" who inhabits our
body and mind, who is the one we refer to as "I" or "me".
This attitude, or underlying presupposition or existence,
can well be summed up by the statement of the French philosopher, Descartes,
that "I think, therefore I am". From the point of view of Buddhist
philosophy, however, this sort of statement partakes of the nature of delusion.
We might assume that there is a "self" who "inhabits" our
body and mind, and is "the one who does our thinking", but if we were
to investigate this state of affairs, we would find, according to Buddhist
philosophy, that this is, in fact, not the case. Our thoughts and thinking
processes might seem as if there is an actual "I" who is entertaining
or thinking our thoughts, saying and hearing the thoughts that arise in
"our minds", but if we were to investigate what is actually involved,
we might find that, in fact, this notion of an ongoing "self" or
"I" is only an erroneous assumption. This idea of there being a
"self" is so deep-seated, that it may seem completely unquestionable,
and a "given" factor of experience and existence, but ultimately,
according to Buddhist philosophy, the belief in a "self" as being
"truly-existing" is a false view.
We might say that thoughts arise as if they "belong
to" or are thought by an ongoing individual, or "self" or
"I", but ultimately, there is a sense in which "there may not be
anybody there!" What is involved might be said to be like a case of
"the talk in our heads" pretending to be a "somebody who is
having thoughts". Although the common sense belief may be that "I am
the one who creates the thoughts", it may be, in fact, that our thinking
our thoughts actually help to create the belief that there is a "self"
or an "I" who truly exists as "the one who does our
thinking!""
腳注/附注（如果有）： 無。
[在下一條消息中繼續]
繁體中文翻譯：
盡管通過修習各種佛教禪修法門（例如專注于觀察思維與念頭如何在我們心中生起，從而培養平靜與對實際所涉之事的直接洞見）可以“解開”有關“思維者”與“念頭”之間關系的奧秘，但本書并不打算討論正式禪修的主題。因為這一話題本身就頗為復雜，而且正規的禪修最好向合格的禪修導師學習。
相反，我們接下來將把焦點轉向“無我”在感官知覺層面、尤其是聽覺上的體現。依照佛教傳統所說，我們感官知覺中，最容易通過聽覺去領悟“無我”之理。據說，菩薩觀世音（Avalokiteshvara，代表一切諸佛大悲的化身；要注意，在佛教傳統中，凡證得圓滿正覺者皆可稱為“佛陀”，因此實際上一切時代皆有多位佛陀）正是遵照文殊菩薩（Manjushri，象征一切諸佛智慧的化身）的指引，專注于傾聽聲響的真實本質，從而悟得了無上正覺。如果我們反觀持續不斷的聲音，比如瀑布聲，或者音樂等各種聲音，我們可以問自己：在這段聲音或音頻的整體呈現中，哪一部分才是“真正的聲音”？又是哪一部分是“自我”或“我”——也就是進行聽覺的那位“聽者”？更進一步地說，我們如何將這一音頻知覺分割成“傾聽的一方”與“所被聽的一方”？有可能，我們其實錯誤地設想有一個堅實、永久不變的“自我”在扮演主體或能動者的角色，與我們在此處所感知到的感官對象交互（在這里是聲音）。換言之，我們把“自己”視為一個分離的主體，與我們認為實在且和“我”分離的感覺或所緣對象進行交互。
原文：
"Although it is possible to "unravel" what is
involved in regard to the nature of the "thinker" and the
"thoughts" through practicing different kinds of Buddhist meditation,
such as meditation in which we attend to the nature of our thoughts and how
they arise in our mind, developing calmness, and direct insight into what is
actually involved, it will not be the purpose of this book to discuss the
subject of formal meditation, as this is a complicated subject, and because
formal meditation is best learned from a qualified meditation teacher.
Instead, we will next focus on the notion of
"no-self" as it relates to our sense-perceptions. It is said in
Buddhist tradition that the sense of hearing is the easiest of our
sense-perceptions by which we can come to an understanding of the nature of
"no-self" and, in fact, it is said that the Bodhisattva
Avalokiteshvara, the personification of the compassion of all the Buddhas (the
reader is reminded that in Buddhist tradition, anyone who has attained the
level of a completely enlightened being, or Buddha, is designated as being a
Buddha, and so there have actually been many Buddhas) attained the
enlightenment by following the advice of Manjushri, the personification of the
wisdom of all the Buddhas, and attending to the true nature of the sensation of
hearing or sound. If we consider the nature of an ongoing sound, such as a
waterfall, or even any sounds, such as music, we can ask ourselves - which part
of this sound, or audio presentation, is 'the actual sound', and which part is
the 'self' or 'I' who is the one who is 'doing the hearing'? More specifically,
where do we "cut-up" this audio sensation into the separate
components of "the one who hears" and "that which is being
heard"? It may be, as with our act of thinking, that we have wrongly
assumed the idea of a solid, permanent "self" who acts as an agent or
subject, interacting with our sense-perceptions, here being our perception of
sound. That is, we regard our "selves" as being a separate subject,
which interacts with sensations we regard as being truly-existing and separate
from "us", in a way that the sensations is regarded as separate and
independent objects."
繁體中文翻譯：
讀者或許已注意到，當我們談到“并不存在一個‘自我’”時，就很難不提到“世界”以及我們各種感官（所接觸）的現象。盡管“無我”這一終極實相是所有佛教流派（包括小乘、大乘及金剛乘）都公認的核心要義，但對于后兩者（大乘與金剛乘）而言，除了“無我”之外，還有另一層次的理解：不僅個體或“我”是“無我”，我們所認知為“世間萬物”及所有感官體驗同樣也具有“無我”（anatman）的性質。
正如我們在對瀑布聲或音樂等聲音現象的分析中看到的，很難把感官體驗切分成某個獨立的主體（進行感知的主體）與某個獨立存在的客體（被感知的聲音）。在佛教阿毗達摩（Abhidharma）的相關文獻中，傳統上并不承認一個具備實體性且永久不變的“我”在完成諸如看見或聽見這樣的感官知覺；他們更傾向于將感官覺受拆解成彼此相關的要素。例如，不說“我看見某物”，而更會說視覺知覺的完成須有三要素：能見者、視覺識，以及所見之對象。
原文：
"As the reader may have noticed, it is very difficult
to speak of the non-existent nature of a "self" without discussing
the nature of our world of "things" and sensations. Although the idea
of the ultimate non-existence of the "self" is a central idea in all
forms of Buddhism, of the divisions of Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayâna
Buddhism, in the latter two forms of Buddhism, along with the idea of the
ultimate non-existence of the "self", there is also the idea that in
addition to the non-existence of the "self", that what we regard as
being the world of "things" and sensations, also partakes of the
nature of "anatman" or "no-self".
As we have seen in the analysis of sound, such as a
waterfall or of music, it is very difficult to separate the sensations into a
separate subject who is having or experiencing the sensation, and a separate
object, that is, the sound being heard. In the Buddhist literature of the
Abhidharma, rather than accepting the common sense notion that there is a
"self" who is a concrete, permanent, truly-existing agent which acts
as the subject of our sensations, such as seeing and hearing, sensations were
analyzed or "broken-down" into their apparent component parts. For
example, rather than saying that "I see a thing", in the Abhidharma
analysis, it would be stated that in the act of visual sensation, it is
necessary to have three separate components: an agent of seeing, visual
consciousness, and an object of sight."
腳注/附注（如果有）：
無。
[在下一條消息中繼續]
繁體中文翻譯：
無論我們是將“事物”和各種感官所知覺的現象視為由一個集中于“自我”的主體來感知（這個“自我”好像感知著所有不同感官的各種感受），還是依照阿毗達摩（Abhidharma）的觀點，或者依照二世紀哲學家龍樹菩薩（Nargarjuna）所創、基于佛陀的《般若經》（Prajñápáramitá Sutras）而建立的“大乘”中觀（Madhyamaka）學派的觀點來分析，這個世界上的“事物”及感官所感知到的各種現象，都同樣具備“無我”（anatman）或“無我性”。這與我們認定個人或個體本身具有“無我性”是同一個道理。
原文：
"Whether we analyze "things" and sensations
as being sensed or perceived by a central "self" who perceives all
the various sensations of the different senses, or analyze them according to
the Abhidharma view, according to the view of the philosophical school of
Madhyamaka, a Mahayana Buddhist school founded by the second-century
philosopher, Nargarjuna, which was based upon the Prajñápáramitá Sutras of the
Buddha, the "things" and sensations in our world also partake of the
nature of "anatman" or "no-self", in the same way that
persons or individuals partake of the "no-self" nature."
繁體中文翻譯：
正如我們所說，聽覺的本質或許是最容易用來理解“感知主體”與“感知對象”關系的途徑，或者更確切地說，最容易讓我們體認到，這兩者從究竟層面上看都同樣不存在一個真實獨立的實體。與其說是某個主體（或者用阿毗達摩的說法，即某種特定類型的感官識）與感官對象交互并加以感知（或者如佛教哲學文獻所言，“執取”那個對象），不如說感官所緣是以一種最終并無獨立“主體面向”與“客體面向”的方式而生起。
原文：
"As we have said, the nature of the hearing sensation
may be the easiest means by which to understand the relationship between a
perceiving subject and the object of perception, or actually, to recognize that
they are both equally non-existent, ultimately. Rather than being the case that
a subject (or a specific variety of sense consciousness, according to the
Abhidharma) interacts with and senses (or "grasps" as it is said in
the Buddhist philosophical literature) an object of perception, it may be that
sensations arise in a way that there is ultimately no subjective pole of
experience interacting with a separate objective pole."
繁體中文翻譯：
因為感官所緣生起于超越獨立或分離的主體面向、以及獨立或分離的客體面向之境界，因此并不存在一個主體與客體或維度之間交互的過程。按照中觀哲學的觀點，我們所有的感官所緣——無論是視覺、聽覺，還是其他感官——都具有“無我”之性。在中觀的論述中，使用的術語是“shunya”（空）或“shunyata”（空性），也就是說，這些感官所緣都被視為“空”的。為了公平地看待中觀體系，我們要指出，中觀哲學非常堅持不對“事物之真實狀況”采取任何實質性立場，以至于即使是“萬事萬物及感官現象皆具無我性”這一說法，本身也并非不受批判。然而，從佛教傳統對于“無我”或“無我性”的描述來看，將“事物”和感官所緣稱作“shunya”（空）或“空性”，其所指向的意義實則相同。它們所“空”的是本體論意義上的“真實存在”地位，亦即缺乏一個固有的、“真正實存”的性質。我們可以說，雖然在感知情境中，我們會面對某種“認識對象”或似乎可以被認知、被感知的表面對象，但就其作為一個“本體論上的客體”而言，或者說作為“真正實存之對象”而言，它是“空”的，也就是它并不具備固有且“真實存在”的本質地位。
原文：
"Because sensations arise beyond the realm of an
independent or separate subjective pole, and an independent or separate
objective pole, and thus, without any interaction between a subjective and an
objective pole or dimension, all our sensations, according to the view of
Madhyamaka philosophy, partakes of the anatman or "no-self" nature.
The technical term, used in the Madhyamika literature, is that all our
sensations, visual, audial, and all others, are "shunya" or
"empty", or that they partake of the nature of "shunyata"
or "emptiness". In the interest of being fair to the Madhyamaka
system, however, it must be pointed out that the philosophy of Madhyamaka is so
adamant in not taking any position in regard to "the way things really
are", that even the position that things and sensations partake of the
nature of anatman, or "no-self", is not beyond critique. Yet there is
a sense in which in the traditional parlance of the nature of anatman, or
"no-self", as referring to the same truth of "things" and
sensations as being "shunya" or "empty". What they are
"empty of" is the status of being inherently or
"truly-existing". We might say that although in perceptual situations
we are faced with some kind of an epistemological-object, or an apparent object
of knowledge or perception, "its" status as an ontological-object, or
as a "truly existing object" is that it is "empty" of an
ontological status, or of the status of having the nature of being an
inherently and "truly existing" object."
腳注/附注（如果有）：
（無）
[在下一條消息中繼續]
繁體中文翻譯：
這對我們所有感官的所緣都同樣適用，不過我們需要對視覺與“所見之對象”進行更深入的分析。因為雖然所有感官加上我們的思維共同強化或塑造了一個認知——似乎存在一個彼此分離的“我”，與一個由“真實存在的事物”所構成的世界相互作用——但視覺在其中或許最為重要，再加上思維（在佛教哲學中被視為另一類識），共同形成我們對世界的主要認知。
我們每天都會遇到各種形狀、大小、顏色的“對象”或“事物”：它們出現在自然環境中，也可能在各種房間或建筑物里，而建筑物本身又是另一種“對象”。我們還會遇到其他生物，如動物或人類，他們在某種意義上也成為了“對象”，與我們這個表面上被視為“主體”的存在進行交互。
或許，我們可以用某種邏輯來證明：并不存在一個固定且永久不變的“自我”在擔當我們視覺感官的“能見者”。舉例來說，我們可以設定“能見者”這個概念，然后說“能見者在看”。但如果進一步強調“能見者在看”，就好像給這個“能見者”附加了雙重作用，因為我們在第一次陳述“能見者”時，已包含了“看”的動作；既然一個主體不可能同時執行兩次相同動作，那么說“能見者在看”就不具邏輯一致性。然而，借助邏輯推理并不是最有效、最直接的方式來體驗或理解這里所說的“無我”。要想直接明白何謂“并無一個以主體身份進行視覺感知的自我”，還需要更具體驗性的了解與修持。
原文：
"This is true of the objects of all our sensations, but
it is the visual sensation and the 'object of sight' that we need to analyze in
more detail because although all the senses taken together and our thinking
work together to enforce or create the view of a separate 'self' interacting
with a world of 'truly-existing things', in a sense it is our sense of sight,
among all our senses, which is perhaps the most important sense used in
analyzing or understanding our world, along with, of course, our thinking,
which in Buddhist philosophy is regarded as being a separate type of
consciousness.
We are confronted with all kinds of different 'objects' or
'things' in our world everyday. There are 'objects' of all different sizes,
shapes, and colors, in natural settings and in rooms which are in buildings,
which are themselves a type of object, and also other beings such as animals
and other human beings, which in a sense are another type of object with which
we as an apparent subject or 'self' can interact.
It may be possible to establish, through some kind of logic,
the non-existence of a solid, permanent 'self' who acts as the agent of our
visual sensation. For example, we can try to posit the existence of such a
'self' by referring to 'the one who sees'. But by further stating that 'the one
who sees, sees', it would be like establishing an agent with a double action,
as we have already 'accounted for' the act of seeing in the statement of 'the
one who sees'. And as it is not possible to have an agent with a double action,
the statement of 'the one who sees, sees', would not be logically coherent. But
the use of some kind of logic may not be very useful in trying to understand
directly the non-existence of a 'self' who acts as an agent in regard to the
visual sensation (as well as the other sensations), as it is necessary to
develop a more experiential understanding of what may actually be
involved."
繁體中文翻譯：
如果我們回顧視覺感官中的所謂“主觀面向”，或者說視覺中那個所謂的“自我”層面，就會發現我們通常有個根深蒂固的傾向，認為“在我們體內有個人”正透過眼睛、從一個相對穩定的、好似位于腦內的視點“向外”看著外面的世界。我們相信有一個連續不變的個體或“自我”，就從那個穩定的視點出發，觀照著世間一切形形色色的“事物”或“對象”。可是在佛教哲學看來，這不過是一種錯誤或迷惑的前設，即執著于存在一個真實的、具有獨立性且恒常不變的“我”。
通過培養對實際情況的洞見，我們會發現，“在里面有個人向外看”這種想法其實是根基于“有一個真實存在的自我”之信念，而事實是，視覺感官并不需要也并不存在一個“自我”或“意識”去“向外攀緣”或“執取”什么外在對象。
至于那些出現在我們面前、被我們看作“事物”或“對象”的外在部分，表面上看，它們種類繁多，大小、形狀、顏色各不相同，既包括自然環境，也包括我們所處的屋室、建筑物及形形色色的生命體。然而，就其本質而言，任何出現在我們面前的“人”與“所見之顯現”都同時“伴生”而不可分割。
原文：
"In regard to the so-called subjective-pole, or the
"self" dimension in visual sensation, we might say that there is a
deep seated tendency to believe that there is "someone inside us"
looking out onto the world of "things" and appearances from a stable
vantage point "in our head" and "behind our eyeballs". We
believe that there is an ongoing-individual or "self" who "looks
out" from the stable vantage point, such that there is a concrete and
solid subject who looks out at all the various appearances or "things"
or "objects" in our world. But this is regarded in Buddhist
philosophy to be an erroneous presupposition, or a deluded view.
Through developing insight into what may actually be
involved, we may find that this notion of "someone on the inside looking
out" is in fact a mistaken belief, based upon the belief in a "truly
existing self", and that in fact the visual sensation has nothing to do
with a dimension of a "self" or even consciousness or mind
"going out" to interact with or "grasp" an object of
perception.
As for the objective pole of these "things" or
"objects", although there appear to be very many types of
"things" or "objects", there is a sense in which all of
these "objects" are alike in being a mere appearance before us.
Wherever we are, there is always some type of appearance before us, and people
and the appearances before them always "arise together" in an
inseparable manner."
繁體中文翻譯：
從日常經驗的角度來看，我們通常將眼前所見當作是“真實存在”的“事物”。換言之，我們認為它們是實實在在且“客觀地”存在于那里的；我們也經常覺得，就算此刻我們并不看它們，它們依然“保持原樣”。我們把世界想象成一個容納了許多“真實存在的東西”的容器，而我們可以在這里或那里與它們“互動”。而且我們相信，這些“東西”內部是實體性的，“真實無比”。然而，中觀（Madhyamaka）哲學是一種非常獨特的思想體系，因為它從來不對“世界的真實樣貌”作任何實體化的斷言，它只是一再駁斥那些企圖為“世界究竟是什么”建立固定理論的各種立場。
即便如此，或許我們還是可以“暗示”或“指向”某些可能更接近事物真相的理解方式。正如前面所說，眾生與其面前所顯現的景象是不可分離地同時出現的。理解這些顯現（所謂“外在世界”）之真實本質的關鍵，在于體認到“所顯之形色”與“覺知”實則完全不可分割，它們如同“在每一點上都相互交融”，從而“在所有點上完整融合”，共同營造出一種“似乎有外在景象”且“似乎有覺知”的幻象。雖然說，在終極意義上既不存在一個獨立的“主體”或“我”去感知，也不存在一個獨立的“客體”可供攀緣，但為了給人以方便比喻，我們也可以說“感知”與“形色”恰似完全交織在一起，“超越了二元對立”。換句話說，并不是由某種“心”或“意識”去“到外面”接觸某個“對象”；而是顯現本身就具備一種“覺知”的層面。
并不意味著“我們眼前的外在顯現”在進行“了知”，取代了原本“是我在知”；而是說，外在顯現自有一個無二無分、無法將主體與客體割裂的“覺知維度”。從究竟意義上來看，一切顯現都是“不二的”（advaya）。它們呈現得猶如幻相，卻并非真正從一個被稱作“主體”的意識面向去攀緣另一個分離的“客體”。
原文：
"In common-sense thinking, we regard the appearance
before us as being truly-existing "things". That is, that they are
things which really "exist" in a "really-out-there" kind of
way. We regard them as solid "things" that are so real that we think
that "they would look like that even if we were not looking at them".
We regard the world as being like some sort of container for a collection of
spread-out "things" that we can interact with "here and
there", and that these things are "solid things" "out
there" from which we are separated by space, and that there
"things" have insides which are also "solid" and
"real".
The Madhyamaka philosophy is a very unusual system of
philosophy, in that, rather than taking any position in regard to what is
actually the case with this world of "things", it takes the approach
of refuting other positions that might be taken in analyzing "the
world".
Still, it may be possible to "hint at" what may be
involved in an accurate analysis of the nature of appearances, the so-called
"world of things". As we have said, people (and other beings, of
course) and the appearances before them, always "arise together"
inseparably. The key to understanding the true nature of these appearances
seems to be aware of the dimension in which the so-called form or appearance
before us and the awareness of this form or appearance, are completely
inseparable. It is as if the awareness of consciousness and the form-aspect are
"completely intermingling at every point" and as if the consciousness
and form aspects are completely and totally integrated to create an
apparitional-like appearance. Although we might say that ultimately there is no
interaction between a subjective pole of consciousness, or mind, and an
objective pole of separately existing form, it may still be useful to point-to
the way that "things" might really be, using terms like
"awareness" and "form" being "completely
integrated" "beyond duality".
Also, we might say that the "mind" or
"consciousness" does not "go-out" to a so-called
"object", but that it is as if the appearance before us has a
"built in" dimension of awareness. It is not that the so-called
"appearance before us" is doing the "knowing" rather than
the person. But we might say that appearance bears a "knowing
dimension" beyond the realm of a subject sensing an object. All
appearances are, in fact, non-dual (advaya). That is, they are present in the
manner of an apparition, having nothing to do with any kind of truly-existing
(as a separate dimension) subjective pole, or "self" or
"consciousness" interacting with an "actually-out-there"
objective pole or "truly-existing-thing"."
腳注/附注（如果有）：
無。
[在下一條消息中繼續]
繁體中文翻譯：
當我們說事物具有“幻相（apparitional）”的本質時，我們的意思是：呈現在我們面前的這些顯現，從究竟層面而言，好似鏡中倒影一般地存在，而并非以某種具體、“實實在在在那里”的方式存在。我們所謂的“事物”更像是一種“幻相般的顯現”，它超越了“主體與真正獨立存在之客體交互”的范疇，更具體地說，實際上就像一個“只有表面”的幻相。我們所說的“只有表面”，意味著所有顯現都僅僅停留在表面；換句話說，顯現之中并無任何真實體“在內”可言。
原文：
"When we say that things are "apparitional"
in nature, we mean that it is as if these appearances before us are ultimately
present as if they were like a reflection in a mirror, rather than being
present in a concrete, "really-out-there" kind of way. What we call
"things" are really more like "apparitional-like
appearances" which are present beyond the realm of a subject interacting
with an independent, "truly-existing object", and which are, more specifically,
actually like a "surface-like apparition". By "surface-like
apparition", we mean that there is a sense in which all appearances are
always on the surface, as if there is a sense in which they "have nothing
inside them"."
繁體中文翻譯：
例如，讓我們考慮一個常見的物品，比如一盒麥片。我們所面對的，也許可以稱為“一塊色彩形狀”，僅僅是一個在我們覺知領域中生起的顯現。這種形狀與我們對“它”的覺知完全融合，從究竟層面來說，就好像鏡中倒影一樣地顯現。
原文：
"Consider, for example, a common object like a box of
cereal. We are presented with what we might call "a patch of color
form", a mere appearance arising within the realm of our awareness. This
form is completely integrated with our awareness of "it", and is
ultimately present as if it were like a reflection in a mirror."
繁體中文翻譯：
另一個層面則涉及這樣一種觀念：我們假設這個盒子是一個堅固的客體，且其內部具備真正的客觀存在。然而，我們需要培養這樣一種理解，即“你所見到的就是全部”，在一個完全整合、圓滿的情境中。當然，我們可以通過“打開盒子并倒出里面的內容”這樣的行為來“揭示”該顯現的更多層面，但必須記住，這實際上會帶來一個進一步的、或獨立的、以不二方式呈現的視覺顯現，它本身就是“完整”的，并超越了主體面與對象面互動的范疇。我們可以在心中將它與我們所稱之為“盒子外部”的顯現相聯系。然而，至關重要的是要認識到，這種在時間維度上“連接”視覺呈現（它從根本上也具有“空”或缺乏固有、真實存在的性質）的原理，只適用于約定俗成的常識層面。而以一種“完整”方式生起的不二視覺顯現之層面，才是顯現得以生起的究竟方式。
原文：
"Another dimension involves a sense in which we assume
that the box is a solid object with an inside that has true objective
existence. But we need to develop an understanding in which "all you see
is all there is" in a completely integrated situation of
"completeness". Of course, we can "reveal" further
dimensions of an appearance by the act called "opening the box and pouring
out the contents", but it is important to keep in mind that this will
actually be a further or separate non-dual visual presentation
"complete" in itself, and arising beyond a subjective pole and an
object interacting, which we can connect in our mind to the appearance we call
the "outside of the box". But it is very important to recognize that
this principle of "connecting" visual presentations over time (which
also partakes ultimately of the nature of being "empty" of inherent
or true existence) is only applicable at the level of conventional common
sense, and that the dimension of non-dual visual presentations arising in a
manner of "completeness" is the ultimate manner in which appearances
arise."
繁體中文翻譯：
同樣地，我們可能會假定，當我們看著“盒子的正面”時，盒子的“背面”或“底部”此刻并未被看到，但它“真實地存在”并且“看起來就是它本來的樣子”。然而，就像“盒子的內部”一樣，“背面”或“底部”也是同樣的道理。我們可以像對“內部”一樣，揭示那個“盒子的背面”或當前“隱藏”的部分，但所謂“盒子”的究竟本性，是如同鏡中倒影一般、僅有“表面”且帶有幻相性質的呈現——它是一種不二的顯現，超越了“真正存在的事物”之范疇。
原文：
"Likewise, we might assume that when looking at
"the front of the box" that there is a "behind" or
"underneath" part of the box that is presently not visible but which
actually "exists" and "looks the way it does". But, as it
is with "the inside of the box", so it is with the "behind"
or "underneath" part. We can, as with the "inside", reveal
the "behind" or presently "hidden" part of "the
box", but the ultimate nature of the so-called "box" is the
surface-like apparitional- like presentation which is present in the manner of
a reflection in a mirror - a non-dual appearance beyond the realm of being a
"truly-existing thing"."
繁體中文翻譯：
現在讓我們考慮一個情境：有人“走向停在街對面的那輛車”。從常識的角度來看，我們在“這邊”，看見了那輛在“那邊”的車。我們是主體，那輛車是我們所見的客體，兩者被空間分隔。在日常約定層面上，我們會認為我們可以通過“走向它”而“更接近”它，直到我們“到達那里”，然后“拉門把手”并“坐進車里”。
原文：
"Let us now consider an example of the situation we
might call "a person going over to their car parked across the
street". From the common sense point of view, we are "over
here", and we see the car which is "over there". We are the
subject and the car is the object that we see, and we are separated by space.
At a conventional level, we think that we can get closer to "it" by
"walking towards it", until we "get there" and then "pull
the door handle" and "get inside the car"."
繁體中文翻譯：
然而，從究竟層面來看，我們所稱為“我們的車”的那個顯現，實則以一種不二的方式與我們的覺知緊密相融，好似奇跡般顯現的幻相。“我們”與“出現在我們面前的顯現”在所謂“初次看見”時就已完全融合，因此就某種意義來說，我們從未與那個“出現在我們面前的顯現”被“空間”分隔。所以在所謂“走向車子”這個情境中，從究竟意義來說，我們其實從未真的“更加接近車子”，因為在所謂“第一次看見”與后續“似乎我們更加接近車子”的種種看見中，這個顯現都與我們的覺知完全融合。
原文：
"Ultimately, though, the appearance we call "our
car" is completely inseparable from our awareness in a non-dual way, like
a miraculously-appearing apparition. "We" are completely integrated
with "the appearance before us" at the so-called "first
sighting" and there is a sense in which we are never separated by
"space" from "the appearance before us". And so in the
situation called "walking over to the car", there is a sense in which
we never actually "get closer to the car", because the appearance is
completely integrated with our awareness at the so-called
"first-sighting" and at so-called "subsequent-sightings" as
"we get closer to the car"."
繁體中文翻譯：
類似地，“空曠空間”將“我們”和“我們面前的顯現”分隔開的概念，從究竟層面而言也是一種錯覺，源自我們沒有覺察到“我們面前的顯現”其實就像一個不二的幻相，完全融合在覺知的范疇中。如果在我們所謂的“意識”和所謂的“對象”之間并不存在距離，那么就根本不會有什么“看不見的空間”把“我們”和“那輛車”分開。此外，考慮到我們所稱的“我們停好的車”這一顯現完全與不二覺知融為一體（并記住我們先前所討論的所有不同維度），那輛車就不再是一個擁有“內部”和“外部”、可以說“真實存在”的堅實“事物”，也不再有一個真正屬于“它”本身的“內部”與“外部”。
原文：
"Similarly, the concept of "open-space" as
separating "us" from "the appearance before us" is
ultimately also an illusion arising from not being aware of the sense in which
"the appearance before us" is like a non-dual apparition, completely
integrated in the realm of awareness. If there is no distance between our
so-called "consciousness" and the so-called "object", there
is no such thing as "invisible space" separating "us" and
"the car". Also, in light of the appearance we call "our parked
car" being completely integrated with non-dual awareness (keeping in mind
all the different dimensions involved in the manner that has been discussed),
there is a sense in which the car is not a solidly existing "thing"
with an "inside" and "outside" belonging to an
"it" that can be said to "truly exist" as "a thing
with an inside and outside of its own"."
繁體中文翻譯：
還有一個角度是：若我們不認識梵文佛教術語中所稱的vidya（不二覺知）的維度——它覺知“我們自己”和“事物”皆具“空”與“無我”本性——就會以為“我們”和“我們的車”是彼此分離、真實存在的“事物”或“對象”（“object”一詞從詞源上說可拆分為“thrown-against”）。這樣，我們實際上就營造或強化了一種幻覺：認為我們是一個真正獨立存在的“東西”，被皮膚包裹著，在四處走動，并將世界視為由許多“東西”組成的集合，供我們去交互。當我們相信自己“正走向我們的車并進入這個東西”時，就仿佛將“我們是一個與面前顯現相分離的真正實存之物”這樣的信念固化下來或直接創造了它。
原文：
"There is also a sense in which, by not recognizing the
dimension of the non-dual awareness, known as vidya in Sanskrit Buddhist
terminology, which is aware of the "empty" "no-self" nature
of "ourselves" and "things", that by thinking that
"we" and "our car" are separately existing
"things" or "objects" (the word "object" can be
broken down etymologically to mean "thrown-against"), we actually
create or enforce the illusion that we are a separate, truly-existing
"thing", bound by skin, walking around and regarding the world as a
collection of "things" with which to interact. By believing that we
are "walking over to our car and getting inside this thing", it is as
if we solidify or actually create the belief that we are a truly existing
"thing" which exists as "just another thing" which is
separated from the appearance before us."
繁體中文翻譯：
從佛教哲學的角度來看，將人（以及其他具備意識的生命，如動物）視為與其環境相分離的有機體，并與之發生交互的“科學概念”，在究竟意義上被認為是錯誤的。誠然，從某種意義上說，身為人，我們是“心的體現（embodiment of mind）”。但這種心是一個開放無盡的“連續體”，開放到一種程度，仿佛心能夠“呈現為”任何“在它面前出現”的形態，即我們認為“真正存在之事物”的各種顯現。雖然從究竟層面看，這種“心”與“自我”或“事物”一樣，都是“空”的，不具備真實或固有的自性，但為了“指向”事物的究竟樣貌，我們仍可方便地說，我們是一個“心的體現”，它以不二的方式被顯現所“終止”，超越了一個主體與對象的交互層面。
原文：
"Ultimately, the scientific notion of people (and other
beings with consciousness, such as animals) as being organisms which interact
with an environment which is separated from them, is an erroneous view,
according to Buddhist philosophy. It is true that, in a sense, as people, we
are an "embodiment of mind". But this mind is a completely open-ended
continuum which is so open-ended, that in a sense, it is as if the mind has the
ability to "take on the form" of "whatever happens to appear
before it", that is, the appearances which we regard as being "truly
existing things". Although from the ultimate point of view, this
"mind" is as "empty" of true or inherent existence as is
the "self" or "things", it may still be useful to talk
about our being an "embodiment of a mind" which becomes
"terminated" by appearances in a non-dual way, beyond the realm of a
subject interacting with an object, in order to "point to" the way
things may be ultimately."
繁體中文翻譯：
此外，將“由諸多事物構成的世界”視為與“世界中的有情”分離的一個領域，好像“事物世界”是獨立“在那里”，只等我們去交互的想法，也需要更加謹慎地分析。
原文：
"Also, the idea of the environment of "the world
of things" as being a realm separate from the "beings in the
world", as if "the world of things" was "standing
around" separately, "waiting to be interacted with", needs to be
analyzed more carefully."
繁體中文翻譯：
舉例來說，想想那些著名地標，比如白宮或克里姆林宮。從通常的思維來看，我們會說它們“占據著某處的空間”，并且“確實在那里‘聳立’著，顯現出其本來的樣子”，擁有一個“真正存在之物”的地位。或許我們可以解構這種有關“事物”和“地點”“在那兒等著我們”的觀念，最終得到一種更高明的理解，即這些“人”“地點”和“事物”究竟如何。那樣的理解超越了“有機體與獨立環境中的堅實事物進行交互”這一層面。
原文：
"Consider, for example, the idea of famous landmarks
such as the White House and the Kremlin. We might say that these are, in
conventional thinking, regarded as actually "taking up space in a certain
place" and having the status of "really being there and
"standing around" looking like they look" and having the status
of a "truly-existing thing in a truly-existing place". It may be
possible to undermine this notion of "things" and "places"
"waiting for us" in a separate manner. We might be able to end up with
a more sophisticated understanding of how it is with these "people",
"places", and "things" in a manner that goes beyond the
realm of organisms interacting with a solid world of things that "stand
around" as a separate environment."
【由于字符限制，本條消息翻譯到此處。請見下一條消息
[在下一條消息中繼續]
】
繁體中文翻譯：
從被稱為“一個美國人看著克里姆林宮”或者“一個俄羅斯人看著白宮”的情境中，若我們能夠理解自己是一個“心的體現”（embodiment of mind），在超越主體與對象的層面上，以不二的方式被某種顯現所“終止”，那么我們或許就有必要徹底重新思考我們過去那種對世界的分析方式——即把世界分割成若干互不相同的“類別”或“人”“地點”“事物”等——此種思維方式在社會政治及其他領域中都會引發深遠的后果。而且，如果在這個角度下去看，比如在戰爭或侵略史這一主題中，我們所面對的是不同國家的士兵；他們作為“心的體現”，從更高層面來看，當他們以日常常識為基礎，將對方視作“敵軍”時，其實本質上是他們的心在不二的層面被此類顯現所“終止”，那么這里的含義就極具沖擊性，既超越卻也涵蓋了道德層面。在這個例子中，與其把我們心的這種顯現貼上“我們的敵人”的標簽，不如讓我們不二覺知的自然“表達”變為對這些幻相般有情的悲憫之心，并據此而行。
原文：
"From the point of view of what may actually be
involved in the situation called "an American looking at the Kremlin"
or "a Russian looking at the White House", if we understand this idea
of ourselves as an "embodiment of mind" which becomes
"terminated" by an appearance in a completely non-dual way, beyond
the realm of a subject and object, it may be necessary to completely rethink
our ideas of analyzing the world as being made up of separate "categories"
or "people", "places," and "things", which would
also have far-reaching ramifications in the socio-political and other realm.
And if, in this light of our being an "embodiment of a mind" which
becomes "terminated" by an appearance in a non-dual way beyond the
realm of subject and object, we consider that, for example, in a subject such
as the history of warfare or aggression, we are dealing with soldiers of
different nations who, as embodiments of mind, whose minds, from a higher point
of view, become "terminated" in a non-dual way by the appearances
referred to at a common-sense conventional level, as "other soldiers who
are the enemy," the implications are shocking, in a manner that goes
beyond, and yet encompasses, the realm of moral considerations. In this
example, rather than labeling this manifestation of our mind to be "our
enemy", the natural "expression" of our non-dual awareness would
be to have compassion for these illusory beings, and to act accordingly."
繁體中文翻譯：
至于這種不二覺知/智慧（vidya）超越主體和對象的能動面，則被稱為“jnana”（與“vijnana”相對應）。在“vijnana”或“普通的二元識”之中，主、客兩極被視為本質上真正存在；而擁有“jnana”的人，則覺知到眾生與顯現的非二性。舉個例子，“兩個人和他們停車的車”——對于以“vijnana”運作的人來說，他/她會把那輛車視為真實存在的，自己可以“走到那里并坐進去”的東西；而對于運用“jnana”的人來說，則洞見到一個不二的層面，在此層面中，“個體”與“那個東西”都“空”，都不是實打實地彼此交互的存在。就那位以“vijnana”為特征的人而言（“vijnana”從詞源上可理解為“分離地知”，knowing-apart），這例子里有三種分離的東西：兩個人，外加一輛車。
原文：
"As for the active aspects of this non-dual awareness
which is beyond the realm of subject and object, or vidya, this is termed
jnana, and as opposed to vijnana, or ordinary dualistic consciousness, in which
the subjective and objective poles are regarded as being actually inherently
existing, with jnana, one is aware of the non-dual nature of people and
appearances. If we use an example of "two people and their parked
car", we might say that the person using vijnana regards the car as a truly
existing thing that he or she can "walk over to and get inside of",
while the person using jnana is aware of the non-dual dimension in which the
"individual" and the "thing" are both "empty" of
being actually-existing things which are interacting with each other. From the
point of view of the person whose awareness is characterized by vijnana (which
can be broken down etymologically to mean "knowing-apart"), there are
three separate things involved in this example: that is, two people, plus one
car."
繁體中文翻譯：
但從那位以“jnana”為特征的人來看情況就不同了。而“實際是什么情況”或許已超出了我們運用普通語言——把“人”和“事物”視作可分開、可彼此“疊加”或“相互作用”的客體——所能表達的范圍。顯然，對于運用“jnana”的人而言，他/她仍然理解，像麥片盒子和汽車之類的東西在約定俗成的層面上看來似乎確實存在，也就是說，“對于其他使用vijnana之人”而言，它們似乎確實存在。但此人從未與不二覺知/智慧（vidya）分離，而這正是所謂佛陀覺知的特征。
原文：
"From the point of view of the person whose awareness
would be characterized by jnana, however, this is not the case. But what
"actually is the case" may be beyond the realm of being expressed in
the ordinary language of "people and things" as separate objects to
be "added up", and of "two people interacting with the one same
thing". Of course, the person using jnana is still aware of the sense in
which things like cereal boxes and cars appear to exist at a conventional
level, that is, the way that they seem to exist from the point of view of
"other people using vijnana", but he/she is never separated from the
non-dual awareness of vidya, and this is what is said to characterize the
awareness of the Buddhas."
繁體中文翻譯：
依據佛教思想，如果我們把面前的顯現誤認為是具有真實、固有自性的“真正在那里”的“事物”，那么我們就會深陷錯誤之中，把一個個體與一切顯現（即所謂“事物”）徹底分離開來。這就是所謂“輪回”（samsara）的境界，亦可說是“轉來轉去、不斷流轉”的世界：我們執著于那些我們認定為“真實存在”的“事物”，希望占有；同時又排斥那些我們不喜歡的“事物”。然而，這些執著或貪欲，以及厭惡或嗔恚等情緒，以及其他如自大或嫉妒等，都源于二元性的愚癡，不明白“人和事物實際上是怎么回事”。據說，輪回以及與之相對的涅槃都不在任何別處，而僅僅在我們的心中：當我們的心被情感及智能上的障蔽所籠罩時，我們就陷在輪回里；若是同一個心徹底擺脫了這些障蔽，就得證涅槃。因此，所謂涅槃并非某個與世隔絕的境界，在那里我們所見之物與他人所見截然不同；而是我們的這個同樣世界，在不二覺知/智慧（vidya）的照臨下被看到的方式不同。
原文：
"If we mistake the appearances before us as being
"truly-existing", "actually-out there" types of
"things" with true, inherent existence, we fall into deep error,
according to Buddhist thought, setting up a fictitious realm of an individual
separated from the world of appearances (so-called "things") in a
deep-seated way. This is known as the realm of samsara, the world of
"running around and around in circles", chasing after
"things" we regard as "really existing" that we would like
to have, while avoiding "the things that we don't like". But these
emotions or "emotional filters" of attachment, or desire, and
aversion or anger, as well as the other basic emotions of pride and jealousy,
all arise from dualistic-ignorance or "not knowing how it really is with
people and things". It is said that this realm of samsara and its
"flip-side" of nirvana, exist nowhere else than in our mind: when our
mind is pervaded by emotional and intellectual obscurations about "the way
things are", we are caught up in samsara; but when this same mind is
completely freed from these obscurations, we attain nirvana. So nirvana is not
some other-worldly realm in which we would see different things than other
people see, but our same world as seen differently; that is, pervaded by the
non-dual awareness of vidya."
繁體中文翻譯：
另外，當我們的心與顯現的究竟本性相結合時，實際上就是法身（Dharmakaya），也就是佛陀的“法身”，它是佛“三身”之一。并且，相對菩提心（即“覺悟之心”）可以被視為悲憫心，以及為利益眾生而發愿成就圓滿覺悟（并盡其所能去幫助他者），而究竟菩提心則是對“空”之覺知的智慧。因此，被視為至關重要的是，在成就圓滿覺悟、證得佛陀之境界的過程中，要將慈悲與智慧結合起來。
原文：
"Also, our mind in union with the ultimate nature of
appearances is actually the Dharmakaya, the so-called "Body of Truth"
of a Buddha, which is one of the "three bodies of a Buddha". In
addition, while the relative-Bodhicitta, the so-called "mind of
enlightenment" may be considered to be compassion, as well as the
aspiration to attain perfect enlightenment for the benefit of all beings (along
with doing whatever we can to help other beings), the ultimate-Bodhicitta consists
of the wisdom of the awareness of "emptiness". So it is considered
essential to conjoin compassion with wisdom in order to attain perfect
enlightenment, the level of a Buddha."
繁體中文翻譯：
雖然我們最初以“人”和“事物”是彼此獨立、交互作用的真實存在這一常識性觀點為起點，但當我們聆聽、思惟并禪修關于眾生與萬法的“空”或“無我”本性（同時也通過身、語、意的善行積累了大量的“福德”或“正面能量”）之后，我們就可能開始經歷一種“心轉”的過程，使我們漸漸“調諧”到“人”與“顯現”之究竟“空性”。一點一點地，我們可以加深對這一維度的覺知，直到它逐步成為我們本性更為深刻且更具整合性的部分。最終，我們或許能夠成為這種不二覺知/智慧（vidya）真正的體現。
原文：
"Although we begin with the common sense view of
"people" and things" as truly-existing separate entities
interacting with each other, after we hear about, reflect upon, and meditate on
the "empty" or no-self nature of people and things, (while also
having accumulated a vast store of "merit" or "positive
energy", through virtuous actions of our body, speech and mind), we may
begin to engage in the process of "the turning over in the mind" by
which we begin to "tune-into" the ultimate, "empty" nature
of "people" and "appearances". Little by little, we can
deepen our awareness of this dimension until it becomes more and more a part of
our nature, and eventually, it may be possible to become a true embodiment of
this non-dual awareness, or vidya."
繁體中文翻譯：
在佛教典籍最初被翻譯到西藏時，vidya（不二覺知）譯為藏語“rig-pa”。但否定這個不二覺知/智慧（vidya）的梵文詞“avidya”并未被譯作“rig-med”（那會暗示對“rig-pa”的徹底否定），而是被譯作“ma-rig-pa”，表示在“rig-pa”或不二覺知水平上的一種質的降低。因此，從某種角度而言，我們對“人”和“事物”本性的覺知并非完全混亂，而是需要轉化，讓它與“事物實際的樣子”相契合。
原文：
"When the Buddhist texts were first being translated in
Tibet, the term vidya, or non-dual awareness, was translated into Tibetan as
rig-pa. But rather than translating the negation of this non-dual awareness of
vidya (avidya) as rig-med, which could indicate a complete negation of rig-pa,
it was translated as ma-rig-pa, indicating a qualitative drop in the level of
rig-pa, or non-dual awareness. So we can see that from one point of view, our
awareness of the nature of "people" and "things" is not
completely confused, but that it needs to be transformed so that it will be
"in tune-with" "the way things really are"."
繁體中文翻譯：
雖然在印度教（Hinduism）中，各種瑜伽（yoga）是為了與神合一而修習，但在佛教中，我們或許可以說，所修習的乃是“空瑜伽”（emptiness-yoga），也就是努力與眾生和顯現的究竟“空”（幻相）本性相契合。關于眾生與顯現（所謂“事物”）的“空”（幻相）本性的教法，是大乘佛教的根本教法，也是其分支金剛乘（又稱密乘或坦陀羅佛教）的重要基礎。即便如此，雖然在大乘中，“眾生”和“事物”的“空”或“無我”之教法是核心，但在被稱為“大圓滿”（Dzogchen）的金剛乘最高層次中，主要修持的其實是持續安住于不二覺知/智慧（vidya 或 rig-pa）之中——這被稱作是大圓滿最高層次的奧秘法門的核心。
原文：
"Although in Hinduism, the different yogas are
practiced in order to attain union with God, in Buddhism, we might say that
"emptiness-yoga", that is, trying to attain union with the ultimate
"empty" (apparitional) nature of people and appearances, is
practiced. The teachings on the "empty" (apparitional) nature of
"people" and appearances (so-called "things") are
fundamental teachings of Mahayana Buddhism, which are also very important in
the offshoot of the Mahayana, known as Vajrayâna or Tantric Buddhism. But even
though the teachings on the "empty" or no-self nature of
"people" and "things" are fundamental teachings of the
Mahayana, at the highest level of Vajrayâna, known as Dzogchen, or the
"Great Perfection", it is in fact the continual contemplation of the
non-dual awareness of vidya (rig-pa) which is said to constitute the main
practice of this highest mystical system of Dzogchen."
繁體中文翻譯：
在大圓滿這一最高的佛教神秘體系中，修行者通過上師的直接引導，得以認識這種不二覺知/智慧（vidya 或 rig-pa），并將對心（及實相）之真正本性的持續觀照作為核心修行。體認到一切念頭實際上都是“空”的，皆不屬于某個“自我”，所有念頭都會不斷自行解脫（self-liberation），從法身（Dharmakaya）的相續流（continuum） 中生起，又回歸其中，猶如海浪在海洋中生起又消融。同時，修行者不斷觀照顯現與“空”不可分的統一。
原文：
"In this highest Buddhist mystical system of Dzogchen,
the practitioner is directly introduced to the non-dual awareness (vidya or
rig-gpa) by their teacher, and takes the continual contemplation of the true
Nature of Mind (and reality) as their central practice. Recognizing that all
thoughts are, in fact, "empty" of belonging to a "self",
all thoughts are continually "self-liberated", arising from and
dissolving back into the continuum of the Dharmakaya, like waves arising and
dissolving back into the ocean. At the same time, the practitioner continually
contemplates the inseparable union of appearance and
"emptiness.""
繁體中文翻譯：
普遍認為，要在各種顯現中都培養對眾生與“事物”不二本性的覺知至關重要，并且需要不斷加深我們對其涵義的理解，直到在極深層、全面整合的水平上成為我們自然而然的一部分。當我們初次嘗試去理解“空性”（shunyata）或顯現“空”（幻相）本性的意義時，也許會覺得在某些“事物”上更容易覺察到這種幻相性質，而在其他“事物”上則不那么容易。然而，我們最終應該努力去理解一切顯現都具備這種“空”而幻相的本性，雖然有時我們會發現，在那些更能明顯啟發不二覺知的對象上，“練習”會更得心應手。
原文：
"It is regarded as being very important to cultivate
the awareness of the non-dual nature of "people" and
"things" in regard all manner of appearances, deepening our
understanding of what this means until it becomes a part of our being at a very
deep and completely integrated level. When we begin trying to understand the
meaning of shunyata or the "empty" (apparitional) nature of
appearances, it may seem as if it is easier to recognize this dimension of
apparitionalness in regard to some "things" in a more readily
comprehensible way than with other "things". But we should eventually
try to understand this "empty" apparitional nature of things in
regard to all appearances, although we may find it useful to
"practice" using objects where we find this non-dual awareness more
apparent."
繁體中文翻譯：
隨著我們對顯現“shunya”（或具備“shunyata”（“空性”））乃至“缺乏固有存在”這一性質的探討，在金剛乘或密乘教法中還提到“光明性”層面；即我們擁有一種了知能力，或能以全然清晰的方式“如其本然”地看見“事物”的能力。而且，這些顯現還可被視為具有“無分割”的本性；也就是說，它們在主體和客體之間完全“不分”，或更準確地說，在所謂主客二分之外，它們本身是完全“不分裂”的。
原文：
"Along with the idea that appearances are
"shunya" (or partake of the nature of shunyata or
"emptiness") or "empty of inherent existence", in the
manner that has been discussed, in the Vajrayâna or Tantric teachings, it is
said that there exists a dimension of luminosity; that is, that we are endowed
with a knowing capacity, or an ability to see "things" with complete
clarity, "as they are". Also, these appearances may be characterized
as partaking of the nature of "non-dividedness"; that is, that they
are completely "nondivided" in regard to the subject and object, or
more precisely, "non-divided" beyond the realm of a supposed subject
and object."
繁體中文翻譯：
關于這三個層面，據說“空”顯現為佛陀的法身（Dharmakaya）；“光明性”顯現為報身（Sambhogakaya）；而“空”與“光明”不可分的統一則顯現為化身（Nirmanakaya）。
原文：
"In regard to these three dimensions, it is said that
"emptiness" manifests as the Dharmakaya body of a Buddha;
"luminosity" as the Sambhogakaya; and the inseparable union of
"emptiness" and "luminosity" manifests as the
Nirmanakaya."
繁體中文翻譯：
就關于顯現的這三重層面而言，我們或許可以思考猶太-基督教傳統中的路西法（Lucifer）神話。Lucifer的字面含義是“帶來光的人”。如果從適當角度來審視這個墮落（the fall）的故事，就會發現，這也許并非只是路西法的墮落，而是“人類之墮落”：從與究竟、空性、具光明的不二覺知的結合狀態，墮落到個體層面，并以為各種顯現都是真實、確鑿地“在那里”的境地中。
原文：
"As a footnote to these three dimensions of appearance,
we might consider the myth of Lucifer in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Lucifer
means the "light-bearer", and if we examine this myth from the proper
angle, we might find that this myth of the fall of Lucifer may actually refer
to the "fall of man" from being in union with the ultimate,
"empty", luminous dimension of non-dual awareness into the realm of
individuals regarding these appearances as being truly-existing in a
"real", "out-there" kind of way."
繁體中文翻譯：
在大乘與金剛乘佛教中，“如來藏”（tathagatagarbha）一詞通常可被視為普遍意義上所有眾生所具足的、尚需開啟與成就的佛性。但從另一個角度來說，它也可指“本有的存有（Being）被引領回到它真正狀態”的過程。既然此境界已超越“某個自我”去達到此覺悟之層次，所以從某種意義而言，此種覺悟或成就乃屬于“存有”本身，而非某個“自我”或“我”。
原文：
"In Mahayana and Vajrayâna Buddhism, although the term
tathagatagarbha can be taken in general usage to refer to the enlightened
Buddha-nature inherent in all beings, existing as a potentiality that needs to
be activated and actualized, in another sense it refers to the process by which
Being itself is led back to attaining its true state. Since this level of
attainment is beyond the level of a "self" who has attained this
level of realization, there is a sense in which the realization or attainment
belongs to Being itself, rather than to a "self" or
"I"."
繁體中文翻譯：
如此一來，我們就有可能理解那些關于“眾生”與“顯現”之本質，實際上不過是“存有”自身戲耍（lila）本性的說法。看起來，存有似乎能“創造”出各種仿佛幻相一般的顯現，但我們必須明白，這些顯現正如前所述，完全“空”無固有實性。這些顯現的本質，是存有以全然奇妙的方式顯現或展現自身，在其中“照映”或“凝視”自己；不過，就其“真實存在事物”的地位而言，它們究竟從未真的生起過。如同西藏著名的詩僧密勒日巴（Milarepa）所言：“萬物顯現，卻并不真實存在！”
原文：
"Then it may be possible to understand such notions as
that what is behind the nature of "people" and
"appearances" is nothing more than the playful nature (lila) of Being
itself. It seems that Being has the ability to "set- up"
apparitional-like appearances, but it must be understood that these appearances
are completely "empty" of true or inherent existence, in the manner
that has been discussed. The nature of these appearances is the completely
miraculous display or manifestation of Being, by which it "mirrors"
or "looks at" itself, but as regards their status of being truly-existing
"things", they are alike in never having come into actual existence,
ultimately. Or as the famous Tibetan poet-lama Milarepa expressed it:
"Things appear, but they don't really exist!""
繁體中文翻譯：
如果我們能達到這種境界，真正成為不二覺知的體現或“持有者”（vidyadhara），并讓這種覺知不斷增長，直到達到徹底圓滿的層次，同時還能以完全善巧、充滿悲憫的方式面對如幻般的“眾生”與“事物”，則據說我們再無任何更高的需要或目標，一切皆已圓滿。
原文：
"If we were to attain this level of being a true
embodiment or a "holder" of the non-dual awareness, or a vidyadhara,
developing this awareness to ever-increasing levels until we embody this
awareness to a level of total realization, while of course being able to act in
a completely skillful and compassionate manner with these apparitional-like
appearances of "beings" and "things", it is said that there
is nothing further to attain or realize; nothing higher that we would need to
aspire to."
繁體中文翻譯：
正如藏傳佛教大圓滿法系中著名的西藏大成就者龍欽饒絳（Longchen
Rabjam）所言：“既然一切不過是幻相，在其所是之境中已圓滿，無關乎好壞、接受或拒絕，一個人或許會不禁大笑而出！”
原文：
"As the famous Tibetan lama of the Dzogchen tradition
of Tibetan Buddhism, Longchen Rabjam, has said: "Since everything is but
an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having nothing to do with good or
bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter!""
繁體中文翻譯：
Nam kay tar tug ta yay sem chan nam
愿所有眾生，其數如天空般無限廣大，
Ma bed zhin du ku sum ngon gyur te
皆得證悟如來之三身，
Pa ma dro drug sem chan ma lu pa
愿我父母——亦即輪回六道中一切有情，無有遺漏——
Cham chig dod may sa la chin par shog
同歸于本初狀態（亦即自身即是覺悟）。
——摘自一則藏文祈愿文
原文：
"Nam kay tar tug ta yay sem chan nam
May all beings, whose number is as infinite as the sky,
Ma bed zhin du ku sum ngon gyur te
Realize the Three Bodies of the Buddha
Pa ma dro drug sem chan ma lu pa
May my parents who are all the sentient beings of the Six
realms of rebirth without exception
Cham chig dod may sa la chin par shog
Come together in the Primordial Original State (which is
enlightenment itself).
--a Tibetan prayer"
Labels: Charlie Singer, Emptiness, Non Dual 0 comments | |
繁體中文翻譯：
約翰·譚（Thusness）的評論
2008年：
（凌晨12:19）Thusness：說“沒有行動或活動”并不正確。
（凌晨12:20）AEN：嗯？
（凌晨12:20）AEN：明白
（凌晨12:20）AEN：為什么不正確？
（凌晨12:20）Thusness：這樣說不對。
（凌晨12:20）AEN：明白。
（凌晨12:20）Thusness：是有行動、有意圖的。
（凌晨12:21）AEN：明白。
（凌晨12:21）Thusness：但沒有一個施為者/主體（agent）去做這個行動。
（凌晨12:21）Thusness：別把一切都跟自發生起搞混了。
（凌晨12:21）AEN：明白……
（凌晨12:22）Thusness：去看看查理·辛格（Charlie Singer）的文章。
（凌晨12:22）Thusness：寫得不錯。
（凌晨12:23）Thusness：不過可以更深入。
（凌晨12:23）AEN：誰是查理·辛格？
（凌晨12:24）AEN：是這個嗎？http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/singer.htm
（凌晨12:24）Thusness：關于顯現和覺知以及緣起（DO）這方面的。
（凌晨12:24）AEN：你在哪里找到的？
（凌晨12:24）Thusness：他可以再更深入些。
（凌晨12:24）AEN：你是說他有很深的見解嗎？
（凌晨12:24）Thusness：從網絡上找到的。
（凌晨12:25）Thusness：是的。
（凌晨12:25）Thusness：不過還可以更好。
（凌晨12:25）AEN：明白……
（凌晨12:25）AEN：你是指這篇文章嗎？http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/singer.htm
（凌晨12:26）Thusness：對。
（凌晨12:26）AEN：好的……
（凌晨12:26）AEN：哇……這篇文章寫于我出生那一天。
（凌晨12:26）AEN：笑
（凌晨12:26）AEN：[此處省略日期]
（凌晨12:26）AEN：哈哈
（凌晨12:26）Thusness：呵呵。
（凌晨12:29）Thusness：我告訴你的東西，你自己記在心里并親自驗證。
（凌晨12:29）AEN：明白，好。
（凌晨12:29）Thusness：別把我寫得好像我已經成佛、不會犯錯一樣。
（凌晨12:29）AEN：明白……哈哈，好。
（凌晨12:30）Thusness：我只是告訴你確有那樣的體驗。
（凌晨12:30）AEN：明白……
（凌晨12:32）Thusness：也不必過分強調。只要明白覺知是什么就可以了。
（凌晨12:32）Thusness：我要睡了。
（凌晨12:32）Thusness：晚安。
（凌晨12:33）AEN：明白……好，晚安。
…
對話開始時間：2008年8月31日星期日
（下午2:08）Thusness：哇，你寫了好多關于“一味”（one taste）的東西。:P
（下午2:08）Thusness：敲你腦袋！
（下午2:10）AEN：啊？哪里……
（下午2:10）AEN：笑
（下午2:10）AEN：我只是更新了一下我的帖子
（下午2:10）AEN：刪了一些，又加了一些
（下午2:10）Thusness：到處都有。:P
（下午2:11）Thusness：下次得常常查看awakeningtoreality那個網址了。:P
（下午2:11）Thusness：“一味”到處都是……敲你腦袋
（下午2:11）AEN：哦，你是說谷歌嗎，哈哈
（下午2:11）AEN：我還以為你指的是sgforums
（下午2:11）Thusness：對。雖然Ken Wilber的體驗是非二元的，但還稱不上真正的“一味”。
（下午2:11）AEN：哦？為什么？
（下午2:11）AEN：一味包含空性嗎？
（下午2:12）Thusness：對，我不是已經跟你說了嗎？
（下午2:12）AEN：明白……
（下午2:13）Thusness：吠檀多（advaita）的那種非二元理解與佛教不同。
（下午2:13）Thusness：如果沒有理解空性的本質，怎么能到達“一味”階段？
（下午2:14）Thusness：“一味”的證悟包含兩方面：主體/客體不分，以及主體/客體皆無任何自性。
（下午2:15）AEN：明白……
（下午2:15）Thusness：洞見這兩方面后才會生起“一味”的洞見。
（下午2:15）Thusness：我什么時候跟你說過吠檀多的理解等同于佛教的非二元了？
（下午2:15）AEN：明白……
（下午2:16）Thusness：我多次跟你說過，佛陀教的是空性的法，而不只是光明性的層面。
（下午2:16）Thusness：非二元的光明性在吠陀經里到處都有描述。
（下午2:17）AEN：明白……
（下午2:17）Thusness：敲你腦袋！
（下午2:18）Thusness：任何不談三法印、不了解無我形態下的非二元，都不算真正的佛教。
（下午2:19）Thusness：任何引向“梵”（Brahman）理解的，在佛教看來都是一種錯謬。那個“一心”“一實相”應該被理解為非自性的。
（下午2:19）Thusness：不能從二元和實有的角度理解它。
（下午2:19）AEN：明白，但Ken Wilber有談到“梵”嗎？:P
（下午2:20）Thusness：是的。
（下午2:20）AEN：明白
（下午2:21）Thusness：所以他的體驗是非二元的，可洞見還不算。
（下午2:21）AEN：明白……
（下午2:23）AEN：那下次我就該給他們看查理·辛格的文章了
:P
（下午2:23）Thusness：查理還需要進一步完善，但已經很不錯了。
（下午2:24）Thusness：好的文章并不多。
（下午2:24）AEN：明白……
（下午2:24）Thusness：很多人并不清楚二者的差異。
（下午2:25）Thusness：他們無法正確區分經驗與洞見。
（下午2:25）AEN：明白……
（下午2:25）Thusness：你跟人說的時候要謹慎。
（下午2:25）Thusness：幸虧你常引用巴希亞經（Bahiya Sutta），哈哈哈
（下午2:26）AEN：明白……哈哈
（下午2:26）Thusness：那兩方面都有。:)
（下午2:26）AEN：你是說哪兩方面
（下午2:26）Thusness：同時在經驗和洞見層面上都是非二元的。
（下午2:26）AEN：明白……
（下午2:28）AEN：洞見是指對空性的見地？
（下午2:28）AEN：？
（下午2:28）Thusness：對。
（下午2:28）Thusness：到目前為止，我仍覺得Ajahn Amaro最好，實修經驗與洞見都很明確。
（下午2:29）Thusness：清晰而精準。
（下午2:29）AEN：明白
（下午2:29）AEN：但你曾說他那本電子書不好嗎？
（下午2:29）Thusness：不過那個“根源/source”必須被徹底換成“緣起”（DO）。
（下午2:29）AEN：明白
（下午2:29）Thusness：對。
（下午2:29）Thusness：那是唯一的問題。
（下午2:29）Thusness：不過他也沒錯。
（下午2:29）AEN：為什么沒錯？
（下午2:29）Thusness：“我”只是一種光明澄明。
（下午2:30）Thusness：在他心里，并沒有一種獨立感，但還不夠徹底。
（下午2:30）AEN：明白……
（下午2:31）Thusness：這意味著他知道覺知究竟是什么。所以當他說“I AM”時，你別把他當成“階段1”的那種意思。
（下午2:31）Thusness：對他而言是一樣的。
（下午2:32）Thusness：可他使用它，就好像一個修行者已經明白了空與非二元的完整洞見。
（下午2:32）Thusness：實際不盡相同。
（下午2:32）AEN：明白……
（下午2:32）Thusness：不過他自己沒注意到這個問題。
（下午2:32）Thusness：對他來說，并不明顯。
（下午2:32）Thusness：這是我的觀點。
（下午2:33）AEN：他沒注意到什么？
（下午2:33）Thusness：即“I AM”的體驗其實不一樣。
（下午2:33）AEN：可你說那本電子書還是有些二元嘛，是嗎？
（下午2:33）Thusness：對。
（下午2:33）AEN：他好像說過類似油與水是分離的？
（下午2:33）AEN：相分離？
（下午2:33）Thusness：對。
（下午2:33）Thusness：以后再說。
（下午2:34）Thusness：這意味著他無法安住在現象之中……
（下午2:34）Thusness：在生滅之中
（下午2:34）Thusness：為什么？
（下午2:34）Thusness：因為某些“障礙”尚存。
（下午2:34）Thusness：那個“障礙”必須徹底消失。
（下午2:34）AEN：明白……
（下午2:35）Thusness：查理·辛格也是如此。
（下午2:35）Thusness：看起來快到了，可還沒到。:P
（下午2:35）AEN：為什么不算到？
（下午2:35）Thusness：你可別到處跟人說是我說的哈……
（下午2:35）AEN：明白。
（下午2:35）Thusness：鏡子依然在那兒。:)
（下午2:36）AEN：明白……
（下午2:36）Thusness：對他而言，顯現是什么？
（下午2:36）Thusness：好像是覺知，又好像不是。
（下午2:36）Thusness：像只是個倒影
（下午2:36）Thusness：像鏡子里的影子
（下午2:37）AEN：明白……
（下午2:37）AEN：可我們也可以用鏡子來譬喻它的空性？
（下午2:37）Thusness：可以，但在經驗層面就不一樣了。
（下午2:38）Thusness：這意味著對生起之本性的體驗尚不透徹。
（下午2:38）Thusness：不過他是對的。
（下午2:38）Thusness：要真正徹底明白，需要經過全過程。
（下午2:38）AEN：明白……
（下午2:40）Thusness：關于無我的二諦指的是什么？
（下午2:40）AEN：自我的空、現象的空？
（下午2:40）Thusness：對
（下午2:40）Thusness：主體與客體
（下午2:40）Thusness：若沒有任何背景、沒有可視為“Self/self”的“ITness”，
（下午2:41）Thusness：客體或屬性中也無“ITness”可得，
（下午2:41）Thusness：那么所呈現的就只有顯現而已。
（下午2:42）Thusness：花中并沒有“紅色”的自性，或者說任何地方都找不到“ITness”。
（下午2:42）Thusness：無論是自我還是可被認同的客體都沒有。
（下午2:42）Thusness：那么留下的是什么？
（下午2:43）AEN：覺知即顯現？
（下午2:43）Thusness：是的。
（下午2:43）Thusness：只有顯現。
（下午2:43）Thusness：我們并不知道這個顯現當下就是我們的佛性。
（下午2:44）Thusness：因為有個“障礙”讓直接體驗并不夠強烈、透徹。
（下午2:44）Thusness：終有一天，當無上明晰到來，就再沒有疑惑。
（下午2:45）Thusness：因為這個“障礙”，還殘留某種獨立的“我”之痕跡。
（下午2:45）Thusness：因此也沒有“一味”。:)
（下午2:45）AEN：明白……
（下午2:47）Thusness：我想我會寫下我的看法。
（下午2:47）AEN：好
（下午2:48）Thusness：其實我不太想評論這些文章，因為容易引起爭論和分歧。:P
（下午2:48）AEN：不會啦
（下午2:48）AEN：我不覺得會。
（下午2:48）AEN：我們論壇很安靜的。
（下午2:48）AEN：哈哈
（下午2:48）Thusness：哈哈哈……
（下午2:49）Thusness：我只想從實修層面來談，
（下午2:49）Thusness：為了經驗上的緣故，
（下午2:49）Thusness：不是為了在你論壇上制造噪音。
（下午2:49）AEN：明白……
（下午2:51）Thusness：你讀完《我的心如同太陽》（The Sun, My Heart）了嗎？
（下午2:53）AEN：沒有……
（下午2:53）AEN：我看得很慢……
（下午2:53）AEN：一天也許就看一章或更少……
（下午2:53）AEN：哈哈
（下午2:53）AEN：所以我讀一本書很久才讀完。
（下午2:53）AEN：你想從我這拿走它嗎？
（下午2:55）Thusness：是啊。
（下午2:55）Thusness：你覺得怎么樣？
（下午2:55）Thusness：看了嗎？
（下午2:57）AEN：還沒看很多，
（下午2:57）AEN：我覺得應該不錯。
（下午3:03）AEN：Namdrol也推薦為了修習大手印（Mahamudra）去讀Clarifying the Natural State :P “
必須閱讀的是《Clarifying
the Natural State》和《Moonlight,
Quintessence of Mind and Meditation》。至于佛教雜志，我不太好說它們孰優孰劣——它們大多是傳承推廣的材料；如果說Tricycle，它面向書店里的那類‘讀者’，也就是說你在書店里看到的作者就是它里面的文章作者。” （下午3:04）Thusness：明白。
（下午3:04）AEN：不不，
（下午3:04）AEN：你有的那本橙色的書，
（下午3:05）AEN：我們上次討論過的那本，
（下午3:05）AEN：那不是大圓滿，是大手印。
（下午3:05）Thusness：哦……是的。
（下午3:05）Thusness：那本不錯。
（下午3:05）AEN：明白，是啊。
（下午3:05）Thusness：是的……我記得了。
（下午3:06）AEN：另外還有一本更厚的是Dakpo Tashi Namgyal寫的，可能更全面，叫《Moonlight, Quintessence of
Mind and Meditation》。
（下午3:06）Thusness：明白。
（下午3:06）AEN：哦對了，
（下午3:06）AEN：你怎么看這篇文章http://www.iol.ie/~taeger/mahamud/mahamud.html
（下午3:16）Thusness：還不錯。
（下午3:16）AEN：明白……
（下午3:17）Thusness：不過你懂的，在金剛乘里得到某種權威的認可很重要。
（下午3:17）Thusness：哈哈
（下午3:17）Thusness：我對此沒什么好評價。我只關注實修體驗。
（下午3:17）AEN：你是說得到某種權威認可很重要嗎？
（下午3:18）Thusness：意思是傳承很重要啦。
（下午3:18）Thusness：對我而言，我不在意這些東西。
（下午3:18）Thusness：只要修行者能展現出對我們光明且空性的直接體驗，他就是個真正的修行人。
（下午3:19）Thusness：以我當下的修行階段，我無比清晰地認定，佛陀的教法是解脫之道。
（下午3:19）Thusness：我對自己的體驗和修行，以及對佛陀教法都毫無疑惑。
（下午3:20）Thusness：我并不太關心所謂的權威。:)
（下午3:20）AEN：明白……
（下午3:22）Thusness：你從哪里拿到這個鏈接的？
（下午3:22）AEN：不清楚
（下午3:22）AEN：我在網上找到，然后存在瀏覽器里了
（下午3:22）Thusness：是從網絡搜索來的？
（下午3:22）AEN：應該是吧
腳注/附注（如果有）：
無
Comments by John Tan (Thusness)
2008:
(12:19 AM) Thusness: There
is no action or movement is not true.
(12:20 AM) AEN: huh
(12:20 AM) AEN: oic
(12:20 AM) AEN: why
not true
(12:20 AM) Thusness: it
is not right to say that
(12:20 AM) AEN: icic
(12:20 AM) Thusness: There
is action, intention
(12:21 AM) AEN: oic
(12:21 AM) Thusness: There
is no doer of action
(12:21 AM) Thusness: Don't
confuse anything about spontaneous arising
(12:21 AM) AEN: icic..
(12:22 AM) Thusness: Check
an article by Charlie Singer
(12:22 AM) Thusness: Well
written
(12:23 AM) Thusness: But
can go further
(12:23 AM) AEN: who
is Charlie Singer
(12:24 AM) AEN: this?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/singer.htm
(12:24 AM) Thusness: on
the aspect of appearances and awareness and DO.
(12:24 AM) AEN: oic
where u found from
(12:24 AM) Thusness: There
should be deeper insight
(12:24 AM) AEN: u
mean he has deep insight?
(12:24 AM) Thusness: From
internet
(12:25 AM) Thusness: Yes
(12:25 AM) Thusness: But
can be better
(12:25 AM) AEN: icic..
(12:25 AM) AEN: u
mean this article? http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/singer.htm
(12:26 AM) Thusness: Yes
(12:26 AM) AEN: icic..
(12:26 AM) AEN: wahh
(12:26 AM) AEN: the
article was written on the day i was born
(12:26 AM) AEN: lol
(12:26 AM) AEN: [date
redacted]
(12:26 AM) AEN: haha
(12:26 AM) Thusness: Lol
(12:29 AM) Thusness: Whatever
I told u just bear in mind and authenticate urself
(12:29 AM) AEN: icic..
ok
(12:29 AM) Thusness: Don't
write as if I m enlightened and cannot be wrong.
(12:29 AM) AEN: icic..
haha ok
(12:30 AM) Thusness: What
I tell u is there are such experiences
(12:30 AM) AEN: oic..
(12:32 AM) Thusness: no
need to overemphasize. Just understand what is awareness that is all.
(12:32 AM) Thusness: I
go sleep.
(12:32 AM) Thusness: Nite
(12:33 AM) AEN: icic..
ok nite
…
Session Start: Sunday, August 31, 2008
(2:08 PM) Thusness: wah
u wrote so much about one taste. :P
(2:08 PM) Thusness: kok
ur head!
(2:10 PM) AEN: huh
where
(2:10 PM) AEN: lol
(2:10 PM) AEN: i
just updated my post
(2:10 PM) AEN: removed
some part and added some part
(2:10 PM) Thusness: every
place. :P
(2:11 PM) Thusness: next
time must do a constant check on the url awakeningtoreality. :P
(2:11 PM) Thusness: One
Taste here and there...kok ur head
(2:11 PM) AEN: orh
u mean google haha
(2:11 PM) AEN: i
tot u mean sgforums
(2:11 PM) Thusness: yeah.
Although ken wilber experience is non-dual, it is not exactly One Taste yet.
(2:11 PM) AEN: oic
y
(2:11 PM) AEN: one
taste include emptiness?
(2:12 PM) Thusness: yes
din i tell u?
(2:12 PM) AEN: icic..
(2:13 PM) Thusness: The
non-duality of advaita sort of understanding is different from buddhism.
(2:13 PM) Thusness: how
could one reaches the phase of One Taste without understanding the emptiness
nature?
(2:14 PM) Thusness: The
One Taste realisation is of 2 parts: No object/subject split and both
object/subject are empty of any inherent existence.
(2:15 PM) AEN: oic..
(2:15 PM) Thusness: Penetrating
these 2 aspects, insight arises of the One Taste.
(2:15 PM) Thusness: Since
when did i tell u about Advaita sort of understanding is non-dual of Buddhism?
(2:15 PM) AEN: icic..
(2:16 PM) Thusness: So
many times I told u it is the empty nature that Buddha came to teach us, not
only the luminosity aspect.
(2:16 PM) Thusness: The
non-dual luminous nature is described all over the Vedas
(2:17 PM) AEN: oic..
(2:17 PM) Thusness: kok
ur head!
(2:18 PM) Thusness: Anyone
not talking about the 3 seals, understanding the anatta sort of non-duality is
not talking about Buddhism.
(2:19 PM) Thusness: anyone
that lead to the understanding of Brahman is deluded in Buddhist
perspective. The One Mind, the One Reality is the non-inherent in nature.
(2:19 PM) Thusness: it
should not be understood from a dualistic and inherent perspective.
(2:19 PM) AEN: oic
but ken wilber talk about brahman meh :P
(2:20 PM) Thusness: Yes.
(2:20 PM) AEN: oic
(2:21 PM) Thusness: Therefore
the experience is non-dual but the insight isn't.
(2:21 PM) AEN: icic..
(2:23 PM) AEN: so
next time i shld show them the charlie singer article instead :P
(2:23 PM) Thusness: Charlie
still need further refinement but it is already very good.
(2:24 PM) Thusness: There
are not many good articles.
(2:24 PM) AEN: oic..
(2:24 PM) Thusness: Many
do not have the clarity of the differences
(2:25 PM) Thusness: They
are unable to discern correctly the difference. In terms of experience
and insight.
(2:25 PM) AEN: icic..
(2:25 PM) Thusness: U
have to be careful when telling ppl.
(2:25 PM) Thusness: Fortunately
u always quoted the bahiya sutta...haahah
(2:26 PM) AEN: oic..
haha
(2:26 PM) Thusness: it
is both. :)
(2:26 PM) AEN: wat
u mean both
(2:26 PM) Thusness: both
non-dual in terms of experience and insight
(2:26 PM) AEN: oic..
(2:28 PM) AEN: the
insight means theres insight into emptiness
(2:28 PM) AEN: ?
(2:28 PM) Thusness: yes
(2:28 PM) Thusness: so
far the best to me is still Ajahn Amaro. In terms of practical insight
and experience.
(2:29 PM) Thusness: Clear
and precise.
(2:29 PM) AEN: oic
(2:29 PM) AEN: but
u said his e book not so gd?
(2:29 PM) Thusness: But
that 'source' must be fully replaced with DO.
(2:29 PM) AEN: oic
(2:29 PM) Thusness: yes.
(2:29 PM) Thusness: That
is the only problem.
(2:29 PM) Thusness: But
he is still not wrong.
(2:29 PM) AEN: why
not wrong
(2:29 PM) Thusness: The
"I" is just a luminous clarity.
(2:30 PM) Thusness: In
his mind, there is no sense of independence but still not thorough.
(2:30 PM) AEN: oic..
(2:31 PM) Thusness: Means
he knows what Awareness is exactly. Therefore when he said "I
AM", u should not mistake him as referring to that stage 1.
(2:31 PM) Thusness: Though
to him it is the same.
(2:32 PM) Thusness: But
he is using it as if a practitioner has understood the full insight of
emptiness and non-duality
(2:32 PM) Thusness: It
is not the same.
(2:32 PM) AEN: icic..
(2:32 PM) Thusness: But
to him, he is not aware of that point.
(2:32 PM) Thusness: It
is not obvious to him.
(2:32 PM) Thusness: That
is my opinion.
(2:33 PM) AEN: he
is not aware of what
(2:33 PM) Thusness: That
the experience of "I AM" is different.
(2:33 PM) AEN: but
u said in the ebook is still quite dualistic rite
(2:33 PM) Thusness: yes
(2:33 PM) AEN: i
tink he said something like oil and water
(2:33 PM) AEN: are
separate
(2:33 PM) Thusness: yes
(2:33 PM) Thusness: i
will talk about that later.
(2:34 PM) Thusness: means
he cannot rest in the phenomena...
(2:34 PM) Thusness: the
arising and ceasing
(2:34 PM) Thusness: why
so?
(2:34 PM) Thusness: because
of certain 'block' still.
(2:34 PM) Thusness: that
'block' must be completely gone.
(2:34 PM) AEN: oic..
(2:35 PM) Thusness: same
goes for Charlie Singer
(2:35 PM) Thusness: Seems
almost there but not there. :P
(2:35 PM) AEN: why
not
(2:35 PM) Thusness: Don't
go everywhere say that i say hah...
(2:35 PM) AEN: oic
(2:35 PM) Thusness: The
mirror is still there. :)
(2:36 PM) AEN: icic..
(2:36 PM) Thusness: what
is appearance to him?
(2:36 PM) Thusness: seems
like awareness yet not.
(2:36 PM) Thusness: seems
like merely a reflection
(2:36 PM) Thusness: apparition
(2:36 PM) Thusness: of
a mirror
(2:37 PM) AEN: oic..
(2:37 PM) AEN: but
we can use that analogy for its emptiness?
(2:37 PM) Thusness: yes
but unfortunately in terms of experience, it is not
(2:38 PM) Thusness: means
the nature of an arising is not thoroughly experienced.
(2:38 PM) Thusness: and
he is right.
(2:38 PM) Thusness: one
needs to go through until this nature is fully and completely understood.
(2:38 PM) AEN: oic..
(2:40 PM) Thusness: What
are the 2 truths of egolessness about?
(2:40 PM) AEN: emptiness
of self and phenomena?
(2:40 PM) Thusness: yes
(2:40 PM) Thusness: subject
and object
(2:40 PM) Thusness: if
there is no background, no "ITness" to be found as 'Self/self'
(2:41 PM) Thusness: and
there is no 'ITness' to be found in object or attributes
(2:41 PM) Thusness: 'What
is' is mere Appearances
(2:42 PM) Thusness: there
is no 'redness' in flower or any 'ITness' found anywhere
(2:42 PM) Thusness: both
as 'Self' and 'Object' of identification
(2:42 PM) Thusness: So
what is there?
(2:43 PM) AEN: awareness
as appearances?
(2:43 PM) Thusness: Yes.
(2:43 PM) Thusness: There
is only appearances
(2:43 PM) Thusness: and
we do not know that this Appearance is our Buddha Nature in real time.
(2:44 PM) Thusness: There
is a 'block' because the direct experience is not strong and thorough enough.
(2:44 PM) Thusness: There
will come a time when total clarity dawn, there is no more doubt.
(2:45 PM) Thusness: Because
of this 'Block', there is still traces of an independent 'I'.
(2:45 PM) Thusness: And
there is no One Taste. :)
(2:45 PM) AEN: oic..
(2:47 PM) Thusness: Think
I will write my opinion about it.
(2:47 PM) AEN: okie
(2:48 PM) Thusness: Actually
I do not like to comment on these articles because it often leads to disputes
and arguments.
(2:48 PM) Thusness: :P
(2:48 PM) AEN: no
la
(2:48 PM) AEN: dun
tink it will
(2:48 PM) AEN: our
forum like v quiet
(2:48 PM) AEN: haha
(2:48 PM) Thusness: ahaha...
(2:49 PM) Thusness: it
is for practice sake
(2:49 PM) Thusness: for
experience sake
(2:49 PM) Thusness: not
to create noise in ur forum
(2:49 PM) AEN: icic..
(2:51 PM) Thusness: have
u finished reading 'The Sun, My Heart'?
(2:53 PM) AEN: nope
(2:53 PM) AEN: i
read slowly one leh
(2:53 PM) AEN: maybe
one chapter or less a day
(2:53 PM) AEN: haha
(2:53 PM) AEN: thats
why i always take a long time to finish a bk
(2:53 PM) AEN: u
wan to get from me isit
(2:55 PM) Thusness: yeah
(2:55 PM) Thusness: how
is it?
(2:55 PM) Thusness: have
u read it?
(2:57 PM) AEN: not
a lot yet
(2:57 PM) AEN: i
think shld be quite gd
(3:03 PM) AEN: namdrol
also recommend clarifying the natural state for mahamudra :P "
Must reads are Clarifying the Natural State and Moonlight,
Quintessence of Mind and Meditation. As for Buddhist magazines, I can't really
say any of them are particularly bad or good-- they are for the most part
lineage marketing material; and in the case of Tricycle, it is aimed at Barnes
and Nobles Buddhists i.e. the authors you find at B&N are the authors you
see in its pages."
(3:04 PM) Thusness: ic
(3:04 PM) AEN: no
no
(3:04 PM) AEN: the
orange book u had
(3:05 PM) AEN: last
time we discussed b4 mah
(3:05 PM) AEN: that
one is another one.. is not dzogchen, is mahamudra
(3:05 PM) Thusness: oh...yeah
(3:05 PM) Thusness: that
one is good.
(3:05 PM) AEN: ic
ya
(3:05 PM) Thusness: yeah...remembered.
(3:06 PM) AEN: theres
another book, a thicker one... by dakpo tashi namgyal, i think more thorough.
called Moonlight, Quintessence of Mind and Meditation
(3:06 PM) Thusness: ic
(3:06 PM) AEN: oh
btw
(3:06 PM) AEN: wat
u tink about this article http://www.iol.ie/~taeger/mahamud/mahamud.html
(3:16 PM) Thusness: not
bad.
(3:16 PM) AEN: icic..
(3:17 PM) Thusness: but
u know vajrayana got recognition by certain authority is important.
(3:17 PM) Thusness: lol
(3:17 PM) Thusness: I
do not like to comment about that. I am only interested in practical
experience.
(3:17 PM) AEN: wat
u mean got recognition by certain authority is important.
(3:18 PM) Thusness: means
lineage is important lah
(3:18 PM) Thusness: for
me, i have no interest in this sort of stuff.
(3:18 PM) Thusness: as
long as the practitioner shows direct experience of our luminous and empty
nature, he is a true practitioner
(3:19 PM) Thusness: at
my current stage, i am vividly clear of that Buddha's teaching is the way
towards liberation.
(3:19 PM) Thusness: There
is no doubt in my experience and practice and Buddha's teaching.
(3:20 PM) Thusness: I
am not particularly concerned about authority. :)
(3:20 PM) AEN: oic..
(3:22 PM) Thusness: where
u get this url from?
(3:22 PM) AEN: dunnu
leh
(3:22 PM) AEN: found
somewhere then i save it in my browser
(3:22 PM) Thusness: seach
from the web?
(3:22 PM) AEN: think
so
[在本條消息之后無更多原文內容。翻譯已完整呈現。]
譯后說明（1-2段簡短解釋）：
- 關鍵概念：本段文本系統討論了佛教“無我”與“空性”的核心思想，以及大乘、金剛乘（包括大圓滿）的相關修持途徑。特別關注了“不二覺知”（vidya
或
rig-pa）與“自行解脫”（self-liberation）的概念。
- 主要譯法選擇：
- 遵循指示，將“view”譯為“知見”、將“I
AM”或“I
AMness”譯為“我是/本我”、將“vipassana”譯為“毗婆舍那（意思是觀察如其本然的實相）”等。
- 嚴格保持原文結構與內容，無任何刪減或改動，段落間亦未作合并或重新編排。
- 對涉及佛教術語時，根據指示使用精確術語（例如“無為”在不同語境下譯為“unconditioned”或“non-action”），但原文并無該特定語境，故未見相關內容。
- 書目參考或致謝（如需）：
- 本文部分內容來自于網絡資源及相關佛教典籍（例如中觀、金剛乘經典、大圓滿傳承著作等），作者為查理·辛格（Charlie
Singer），評論部分來自于John
Tan（Thusness）與AEN之對話記錄。
（完）
请先看：
Please read this first (English):
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
