Posts
Please read this first (English):
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
English can be found below.
简体中文翻译：
你可以在文末找到约翰·谭（John Tan）对查理·辛格（Charlie Singer）文章的评论。
原文：
"You can find John Tan's comments on Charlie Singer's
article at the bottom."
简体中文翻译：
无我本性
Soh
更新（2014年1月6日）：我刚刚将此文本更新为他在著作《镜中影：在佛教哲学中对显现之本性的探究》（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"
[在下一条消息中继续]
简体中文翻译：
作者自跋：这本小册子于西元1990年藏历铁马年（3月16日）第一个月的新月日完成于宾夕法尼亚州的金斯顿。写作此书的目的是为了作者自身的学习提高，同时希望将来可能有其他读者阅读它时能从中得到某种利益。
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."
简体中文翻译：
关于作者：查理·辛格（Charlie Singer）1952年出生于比利时的布鲁塞尔。他于1973年获得宾夕法尼亚州立大学通识艺术与科学（General Arts and
Sciences）学士学位，1976年至1978年在加利福尼亚伯克利的宁玛学院（Nyingma Institute）修习藏学课程。自1980年起，他一直在纽约市的Yeshe Nyingpo中心研习藏传佛教。该中心为已故的巴珠仁波切（即法王尊者敦珠仁波切，H.H.
Dudjom Rinpoche）的北美驻锡处，他是藏传佛教宁玛派的最高领袖。
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."
简体中文翻译：
谨以此献给：
已故的法王尊者敦珠仁波切（H.H.
Dudjom Rinpoche）、尊贵的Shenpen
Dawa Rinpoche、尊贵的达塘图库仁波切（Tarthang
Tulku Rinpoche）、尊贵的Ngor
Thartse Khen Rinpoche、尊贵的Khenpo
Paiden Sherab Rinpoche、尊贵的Khenpo
Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche，以及我已故的父亲Samuel
Singer、我的母亲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."
简体中文翻译：
前言
般若波罗蜜多（prajnaparamita）的智慧并非一蹴而就，而是渐次而生。萨迦班智达·贡嘎嘉称·贝桑波（Sakya Pandita, Kunga Gyaltsen Pal
Zangpo）所提出的三大要素——学习、思惟和禅修——正是通向证悟这深邃智慧的途径，这一点也体现在作者写作《无我本性》时的初衷之中。究竟智慧需要个人去亲证，而这部作品则是给寻求般若波罗蜜多究竟智慧之人提供的一条途径。对于他对智慧作出的真诚诠释，我深感欢喜，这正是“智者”所承袭的传统。
只要如来所传的正法之大海仍住于世间，愿这滴法的贡献能同样利益他者。
喇嘛·贝玛旺达克
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"
简体中文翻译：
在思想史上，也许没有比佛教中的“无我”（anatman）概念更加独特的观念了。这“无我”（anatman）的观点是历史上的释迦牟尼佛所教授的，被列为“三法印”或“三种存在的标记”之一，与“苦”（duhkha）和“无常”（anitya）并列。这“三法印”被佛教思想视为遍及人类境况的三种根本特性。在如今已被翻译成英文的佛教文献中，关于苦、无常和“无我”这三者都有大量论述，然而，anatman或“无我”的观念格外难以切入，是思想史上最独特却又至关重要的观念之一。
所有佛教宗派或传承的共同点之一，就是将个体或人（实则是所有具备意识的众生）视为无我（anatman）或“无我性”。佛陀出生在印度教文化环境中，而印度教的基本教义之一向来认为，一切众生都具备“我”（atman）的本性；此“我”或“灵魂”最终与梵（Brahman，印度教传统中创造万物的神性面向）相同，或者说“分享”梵的本质。佛陀从未明确肯定或否定上帝（God）的存在，而是鼓励弟子先去修学和实践他的教法，直到他们亲证圆满觉悟的境界，成为一位“佛陀”，那时自然会对这些形而上学的问题有直观了知。然而，就众生“具有一个恒常之我”的概念而言，佛陀在其初转法轮的教导中就已相当明确地指出，此观念从究竟上说是错误的，事实上，“无我”才是贯穿生命存在的一条根本法则。
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."
简体中文翻译：
对于“无我”这个概念，可以从不同角度加以剖析，但从某一角度来看，我们可以说，“无我”意味着：当我们去探究一个个体或一个人的本性，如果我们审慎深入地调查其中所涉及的内容，最终会发现并不存在一个实有的“我”——也就是那个我们称之为“我”或“自我”的某个确实存在的个体，它似乎“居住”于我们的身心之中，并且连续不断、永久地存在。在日常常识的思维中，乃至于传统的哲学、宗教和科学思维中，人们通常都理所当然地认为，确有一个“我”栖居在我们的身心当中，就是我们口中所说的“我”或“自我”。
这种态度，或这种潜在的存在预设，很能被法国哲学家笛卡尔的名言“我思故我在”所概括。然而，从佛教哲学的观点而言，这样的论断带有某种迷妄的特质。我们或许以为，确有一个“自我”栖居于我们的身心，并且“掌管”我们的思维活动；但若我们实地探究这一状态，佛教哲学告诉我们，事实并非如此。我们的念头和思维过程似乎像是由某个真实存在的“我”来娱乐或思考，这个“我”说着、听着在“我之心”中生起的念头；但若真去探究发生了什么，就会发现，持续存在的“自我”或“我”的概念，不过是一种错误的假设。因为对许多人而言，“自我”之存在似乎是毫无疑问、不可动摇的，就像是一种“既定”的经验与存在，但从佛教哲学的角度看来，把“我”视为真实存在，是一种错误见解。
我们可以说，念头生起时，它们好像“属于”某个持续存在的个体或“自我”或“我”而被思考；可从终极层面上看，也可能会是“其实那里并没有任何人！”的状况。此处所涉及的就像一种“我们脑中的对话”在假扮一个“有人正在思考”的“某个存在”。虽然我们很自然地认为“我”在制造或生起念头，但其实，很可能正是这些念头本身在不断创造出“确有一个‘我’在思维”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!""
脚注/附注（如果有）： 无。
[在下一条消息中继续]
简体中文翻译：
尽管通过修习各种佛教禅修法门（例如专注于观察思维与念头如何在我们心中生起，从而培养平静与对实际所涉之事的直接洞见）可以“解开”有关“思维者”与“念头”之间关系的奥秘，但本书并不打算讨论正式禅修的主题。因为这一话题本身就颇为复杂，而且正规的禅修最好向合格的禅修导师学习。
相反，我们接下来将把焦点转向“无我”在感官知觉层面、尤其是听觉上的体现。依照佛教传统所说，我们感官知觉中，最容易通过听觉去领悟“无我”之理。据说，菩萨观世音（Avalokiteshvara，代表一切诸佛大悲的化身；要注意，在佛教传统中，凡证得圆满正觉者皆可称为“佛陀”，因此实际上一切时代皆有多位佛陀）正是遵照文殊菩萨（Manjushri，象征一切诸佛智慧的化身）的指引，专注于倾听声响的真实本质，从而悟得了无上正觉。如果我们反观持续不断的声音，比如瀑布声，或者音乐等各种声音，我们可以问自己：在这段声音或音频的整体呈现中，哪一部分才是“真正的声音”？又是哪一部分是“自我”或“我”——也就是进行听觉的那位“听者”？更进一步地说，我们如何将这一音频知觉分割成“倾听的一方”与“所被听的一方”？有可能，我们其实错误地设想有一个坚实、永久不变的“自我”在扮演主体或能动者的角色，与我们在此处所感知到的感官对象交互（在这里是声音）。换言之，我们把“自己”视为一个分离的主体，与我们认为实在且和“我”分离的感觉或所缘对象进行交互。
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."
简体中文翻译：
读者或许已注意到，当我们谈到“并不存在一个‘自我’”时，就很难不提到“世界”以及我们各种感官（所接触）的现象。尽管“无我”这一终极实相是所有佛教流派（包括小乘、大乘及金刚乘）都公认的核心要义，但对于后两者（大乘与金刚乘）而言，除了“无我”之外，还有另一层次的理解：不仅个体或“我”是“无我”，我们所认知为“世间万物”及所有感官体验同样也具有“无我”（anatman）的性质。
正如我们在对瀑布声或音乐等声音现象的分析中看到的，很难把感官体验切分成某个独立的主体（进行感知的主体）与某个独立存在的客体（被感知的声音）。在佛教阿毗达摩（Abhidharma）的相关文献中，传统上并不承认一个具备实体性且永久不变的“我”在完成诸如看见或听见这样的感官知觉；他们更倾向于将感官觉受拆解成彼此相关的要素。例如，不说“我看见某物”，而更会说视觉知觉的完成须有三要素：能见者、视觉识，以及所见之对象。
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."
脚注/附注（如果有）：
无。
[在下一条消息中继续]
简体中文翻译：
无论我们是将“事物”和各种感官所知觉的现象视为由一个集中于“自我”的主体来感知（这个“自我”好像感知着所有不同感官的各种感受），还是依照阿毗达摩（Abhidharma）的观点，或者依照二世纪哲学家龙树菩萨（Nargarjuna）所创、基于佛陀的《般若经》（Prajñápáramitá Sutras）而建立的“大乘”中观（Madhyamaka）学派的观点来分析，这个世界上的“事物”及感官所感知到的各种现象，都同样具备“无我”（anatman）或“无我性”。这与我们认定个人或个体本身具有“无我性”是同一个道理。
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."
简体中文翻译：
正如我们所说，听觉的本质或许是最容易用来理解“感知主体”与“感知对象”关系的途径，或者更确切地说，最容易让我们体认到，这两者从究竟层面上看都同样不存在一个真实独立的实体。与其说是某个主体（或者用阿毗达摩的说法，即某种特定类型的感官识）与感官对象交互并加以感知（或者如佛教哲学文献所言，“执取”那个对象），不如说感官所缘是以一种最终并无独立“主体面向”与“客体面向”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."
简体中文翻译：
因为感官所缘生起于超越独立或分离的主体面向、以及独立或分离的客体面向之境界，因此并不存在一个主体与客体或维度之间交互的过程。按照中观哲学的观点，我们所有的感官所缘——无论是视觉、听觉，还是其他感官——都具有“无我”之性。在中观的论述中，使用的术语是“shunya”（空）或“shunyata”（空性），也就是说，这些感官所缘都被视为“空”的。为了公平地看待中观体系，我们要指出，中观哲学非常坚持不对“事物之真实状况”采取任何实质性立场，以至于即使是“万事万物及感官现象皆具无我性”这一说法，本身也并非不受批判。然而，从佛教传统对于“无我”或“无我性”的描述来看，将“事物”和感官所缘称作“shunya”（空）或“空性”，其所指向的意义实则相同。它们所“空”的是本体论意义上的“真实存在”地位，亦即缺乏一个固有的、“真正实存”的性质。我们可以说，虽然在感知情境中，我们会面对某种“认识对象”或似乎可以被认知、被感知的表面对象，但就其作为一个“本体论上的客体”而言，或者说作为“真正实存之对象”而言，它是“空”的，也就是它并不具备固有且“真实存在”的本质地位。
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."
脚注/附注（如果有）：
（无）
[在下一条消息中继续]
简体中文翻译：
这对我们所有感官的所缘都同样适用，不过我们需要对视觉与“所见之对象”进行更深入的分析。因为虽然所有感官加上我们的思维共同强化或塑造了一个认知——似乎存在一个彼此分离的“我”，与一个由“真实存在的事物”所构成的世界相互作用——但视觉在其中或许最为重要，再加上思维（在佛教哲学中被视为另一类识），共同形成我们对世界的主要认知。
我们每天都会遇到各种形状、大小、颜色的“对象”或“事物”：它们出现在自然环境中，也可能在各种房间或建筑物里，而建筑物本身又是另一种“对象”。我们还会遇到其他生物，如动物或人类，他们在某种意义上也成为了“对象”，与我们这个表面上被视为“主体”的存在进行交互。
或许，我们可以用某种逻辑来证明：并不存在一个固定且永久不变的“自我”在担当我们视觉感官的“能见者”。举例来说，我们可以设定“能见者”这个概念，然后说“能见者在看”。但如果进一步强调“能见者在看”，就好像给这个“能见者”附加了双重作用，因为我们在第一次陈述“能见者”时，已包含了“看”的动作；既然一个主体不可能同时执行两次相同动作，那么说“能见者在看”就不具逻辑一致性。然而，借助逻辑推理并不是最有效、最直接的方式来体验或理解这里所说的“无我”。要想直接明白何谓“并无一个以主体身份进行视觉感知的自我”，还需要更具体验性的了解与修持。
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."
简体中文翻译：
如果我们回顾视觉感官中的所谓“主观面向”，或者说视觉中那个所谓的“自我”层面，就会发现我们通常有个根深蒂固的倾向，认为“在我们体内有个人”正透过眼睛、从一个相对稳定的、好似位于脑内的视点“向外”看着外面的世界。我们相信有一个连续不变的个体或“自我”，就从那个稳定的视点出发，观照着世间一切形形色色的“事物”或“对象”。可是在佛教哲学看来，这不过是一种错误或迷惑的前设，即执著于存在一个真实的、具有独立性且恒常不变的“我”。
通过培养对实际情况的洞见，我们会发现，“在里面有个人向外看”这种想法其实是根基于“有一个真实存在的自我”之信念，而事实是，视觉感官并不需要也并不存在一个“自我”或“意识”去“向外攀缘”或“执取”什么外在对象。
至于那些出现在我们面前、被我们看作“事物”或“对象”的外在部分，表面上看，它们种类繁多，大小、形状、颜色各不相同，既包括自然环境，也包括我们所处的屋室、建筑物及形形色色的生命体。然而，就其本质而言，任何出现在我们面前的“人”与“所见之显现”都同时“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."
简体中文翻译：
从日常经验的角度来看，我们通常将眼前所见当作是“真实存在”的“事物”。换言之，我们认为它们是实实在在且“客观地”存在于那里的；我们也经常觉得，就算此刻我们并不看它们，它们依然“保持原样”。我们把世界想象成一个容纳了许多“真实存在的东西”的容器，而我们可以在这里或那里与它们“互动”。而且我们相信，这些“东西”内部是实体性的，“真实无比”。然而，中观（Madhyamaka）哲学是一种非常独特的思想体系，因为它从来不对“世界的真实样貌”作任何实体化的断言，它只是一再驳斥那些企图为“世界究竟是什么”建立固定理论的各种立场。
即便如此，或许我们还是可以“暗示”或“指向”某些可能更接近事物真相的理解方式。正如前面所说，众生与其面前所显现的景象是不可分离地同时出现的。理解这些显现（所谓“外在世界”）之真实本质的关键，在于体认到“所显之形色”与“觉知”实则完全不可分割，它们如同“在每一点上都相互交融”，从而“在所有点上完整融合”，共同营造出一种“似乎有外在景象”且“似乎有觉知”的幻象。虽然说，在终极意义上既不存在一个独立的“主体”或“我”去感知，也不存在一个独立的“客体”可供攀缘，但为了给人以方便比喻，我们也可以说“感知”与“形色”恰似完全交织在一起，“超越了二元对立”。换句话说，并不是由某种“心”或“意识”去“到外面”接触某个“对象”；而是显现本身就具备一种“觉知”的层面。
并不意味着“我们眼前的外在显现”在进行“了知”，取代了原本“是我在知”；而是说，外在显现自有一个无二无分、无法将主体与客体割裂的“觉知维度”。从究竟意义上来看，一切显现都是“不二的”（advaya）。它们呈现得犹如幻相，却并非真正从一个被称作“主体”的意识面向去攀缘另一个分离的“客体”。
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"."
脚注/附注（如果有）：
无。
[在下一条消息中继续]
简体中文翻译：
当我们说事物具有“幻相（apparitional）”的本质时，我们的意思是：呈现在我们面前的这些显现，从究竟层面而言，好似镜中倒影一般地存在，而并非以某种具体、“实实在在在那里”的方式存在。我们所谓的“事物”更像是一种“幻相般的显现”，它超越了“主体与真正独立存在之客体交互”的范畴，更具体地说，实际上就像一个“只有表面”的幻相。我们所说的“只有表面”，意味着所有显现都仅仅停留在表面；换句话说，显现之中并无任何真实体“在内”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"."
简体中文翻译：
例如，让我们考虑一个常见的物品，比如一盒麦片。我们所面对的，也许可以称为“一块色彩形状”，仅仅是一个在我们觉知领域中生起的显现。这种形状与我们对“它”的觉知完全融合，从究竟层面来说，就好像镜中倒影一样地显现。
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."
简体中文翻译：
另一个层面则涉及这样一种观念：我们假设这个盒子是一个坚固的客体，且其内部具备真正的客观存在。然而，我们需要培养这样一种理解，即“你所见到的就是全部”，在一个完全整合、圆满的情境中。当然，我们可以通过“打开盒子并倒出里面的内容”这样的行为来“揭示”该显现的更多层面，但必须记住，这实际上会带来一个进一步的、或独立的、以不二方式呈现的视觉显现，它本身就是“完整”的，并超越了主体面与对象面互动的范畴。我们可以在心中将它与我们所称之为“盒子外部”的显现相联系。然而，至关重要的是要认识到，这种在时间维度上“连接”视觉呈现（它从根本上也具有“空”或缺乏固有、真实存在的性质）的原理，只适用于约定俗成的常识层面。而以一种“完整”方式生起的不二视觉显现之层面，才是显现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."
简体中文翻译：
同样地，我们可能会假定，当我们看着“盒子的正面”时，盒子的“背面”或“底部”此刻并未被看到，但它“真实地存在”并且“看起来就是它本来的样子”。然而，就像“盒子的内部”一样，“背面”或“底部”也是同样的道理。我们可以像对“内部”一样，揭示那个“盒子的背面”或当前“隐藏”的部分，但所谓“盒子”的究竟本性，是如同镜中倒影一般、仅有“表面”且带有幻相性质的呈现——它是一种不二的显现，超越了“真正存在的事物”之范畴。
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"."
简体中文翻译：
现在让我们考虑一个情境：有人“走向停在街对面的那辆车”。从常识的角度来看，我们在“这边”，看见了那辆在“那边”的车。我们是主体，那辆车是我们所见的客体，两者被空间分隔。在日常约定层面上，我们会认为我们可以通过“走向它”而“更接近”它，直到我们“到达那里”，然后“拉门把手”并“坐进车里”。
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"."
简体中文翻译：
然而，从究竟层面来看，我们所称为“我们的车”的那个显现，实则以一种不二的方式与我们的觉知紧密相融，好似奇迹般显现的幻相。“我们”与“出现在我们面前的显现”在所谓“初次看见”时就已完全融合，因此就某种意义来说，我们从未与那个“出现在我们面前的显现”被“空间”分隔。所以在所谓“走向车子”这个情境中，从究竟意义来说，我们其实从未真的“更加接近车子”，因为在所谓“第一次看见”与后续“似乎我们更加接近车子”的种种看见中，这个显现都与我们的觉知完全融合。
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"."
简体中文翻译：
类似地，“空旷空间”将“我们”和“我们面前的显现”分隔开的概念，从究竟层面而言也是一种错觉，源自我们没有觉察到“我们面前的显现”其实就像一个不二的幻相，完全融合在觉知的范畴中。如果在我们所谓的“意识”和所谓的“对象”之间并不存在距离，那么就根本不会有什么“看不见的空间”把“我们”和“那辆车”分开。此外，考虑到我们所称的“我们停好的车”这一显现完全与不二觉知融为一体（并记住我们先前所讨论的所有不同维度），那辆车就不再是一个拥有“内部”和“外部”、可以说“真实存在”的坚实“事物”，也不再有一个真正属于“它”本身的“内部”与“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"."
简体中文翻译：
还有一个角度是：若我们不认识梵文佛教术语中所称的vidya（不二觉知）的维度——它觉知“我们自己”和“事物”皆具“空”与“无我”本性——就会以为“我们”和“我们的车”是彼此分离、真实存在的“事物”或“对象”（“object”一词从词源上说可拆分为“thrown-against”）。这样，我们实际上就营造或强化了一种幻觉：认为我们是一个真正独立存在的“东西”，被皮肤包裹着，在四处走动，并将世界视为由许多“东西”组成的集合，供我们去交互。当我们相信自己“正走向我们的车并进入这个东西”时，就仿佛将“我们是一个与面前显现相分离的真正实存之物”这样的信念固化下来或直接创造了它。
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."
简体中文翻译：
从佛教哲学的角度来看，将人（以及其他具备意识的生命，如动物）视为与其环境相分离的有机体，并与之发生交互的“科学概念”，在究竟意义上被认为是错误的。诚然，从某种意义上说，身为人，我们是“心的体现（embodiment of mind）”。但这种心是一个开放无尽的“连续体”，开放到一种程度，仿佛心能够“呈现为”任何“在它面前出现”的形态，即我们认为“真正存在之事物”的各种显现。虽然从究竟层面看，这种“心”与“自我”或“事物”一样，都是“空”的，不具备真实或固有的自性，但为了“指向”事物的究竟样貌，我们仍可方便地说，我们是一个“心的体现”，它以不二的方式被显现所“终止”，超越了一个主体与对象的交互层面。
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."
简体中文翻译：
此外，将“由诸多事物构成的世界”视为与“世界中的有情”分离的一个领域，好像“事物世界”是独立“在那里”，只等我们去交互的想法，也需要更加谨慎地分析。
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."
简体中文翻译：
举例来说，想想那些著名地标，比如白宫或克里姆林宫。从通常的思维来看，我们会说它们“占据着某处的空间”，并且“确实在那里‘耸立’着，显现出其本来的样子”，拥有一个“真正存在之物”的地位。或许我们可以解构这种有关“事物”和“地点”“在那儿等着我们”的观念，最终得到一种更高明的理解，即这些“人”“地点”和“事物”究竟如何。那样的理解超越了“有机体与独立环境中的坚实事物进行交互”这一层面。
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，本条消息翻译到此处。请见下一条消息
[在下一条消息中继续]
】
简体中文翻译：
从被称为“一个美国人看着克里姆林宫”或者“一个俄罗斯人看着白宫”的情境中，若我们能够理解自己是一个“心的体现”（embodiment of mind），在超越主体与对象的层面上，以不二的方式被某种显现所“终止”，那么我们或许就有必要彻底重新思考我们过去那种对世界的分析方式——即把世界分割成若干互不相同的“类别”或“人”“地点”“事物”等——此种思维方式在社会政治及其他领域中都会引发深远的后果。而且，如果在这个角度下去看，比如在战争或侵略史这一主题中，我们所面对的是不同国家的士兵；他们作为“心的体现”，从更高层面来看，当他们以日常常识为基础，将对方视作“敌军”时，其实本质上是他们的心在不二的层面被此类显现所“终止”，那么这里的含义就极具冲击性，既超越却也涵盖了道德层面。在这个例子中，与其把我们心的这种显现贴上“我们的敌人”的标签，不如让我们不二觉知的自然“表达”变为对这些幻相般有情的悲悯之心，并据此而行。
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."
简体中文翻译：
至于这种不二觉知/智慧（vidya）超越主体和对象的能动面，则被称为“jnana”（与“vijnana”相对应）。在“vijnana”或“普通的二元识”之中，主、客两极被视为本质上真正存在；而拥有“jnana”的人，则觉知到众生与显现的非二性。举个例子，“两个人和他们停车的车”——对于以“vijnana”运作的人来说，他/她会把那辆车视为真实存在的，自己可以“走到那里并坐进去”的东西；而对于运用“jnana”的人来说，则洞见到一个不二的层面，在此层面中，“个体”与“那个东西”都“空”，都不是实打实地彼此交互的存在。就那位以“vijnana”为特征的人而言（“vijnana”从词源上可理解为“分离地知”，knowing-apart），这例子里有三种分离的东西：两个人，外加一辆车。
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."
简体中文翻译：
但从那位以“jnana”为特征的人来看情况就不同了。而“实际是什么情况”或许已超出了我们运用普通语言——把“人”和“事物”视作可分开、可彼此“叠加”或“相互作用”的客体——所能表达的范围。显然，对于运用“jnana”的人而言，他/她仍然理解，像麦片盒子和汽车之类的东西在约定俗成的层面上看来似乎确实存在，也就是说，“对于其他使用vijnana之人”而言，它们似乎确实存在。但此人从未与不二觉知/智慧（vidya）分离，而这正是所谓佛陀觉知的特征。
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."
简体中文翻译：
依据佛教思想，如果我们把面前的显现误认为是具有真实、固有自性的“真正在那里”的“事物”，那么我们就会深陷错误之中，把一个个体与一切显现（即所谓“事物”）彻底分离开来。这就是所谓“轮回”（samsara）的境界，亦可说是“转来转去、不断流转”的世界：我们执著于那些我们认定为“真实存在”的“事物”，希望占有；同时又排斥那些我们不喜欢的“事物”。然而，这些执著或贪欲，以及厌恶或嗔恚等情绪，以及其他如自大或嫉妒等，都源于二元性的愚痴，不明白“人和事物实际上是怎么回事”。据说，轮回以及与之相对的涅槃都不在任何别处，而仅仅在我们的心中：当我们的心被情感及智能上的障蔽所笼罩时，我们就陷在轮回里；若是同一个心彻底摆脱了这些障蔽，就得证涅槃。因此，所谓涅槃并非某个与世隔绝的境界，在那里我们所见之物与他人所见截然不同；而是我们的这个同样世界，在不二觉知/智慧（vidya）的照临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."
简体中文翻译：
另外，当我们的心与显现的究竟本性相结合时，实际上就是法身（Dharmakaya），也就是佛陀的“法身”，它是佛“三身”之一。并且，相对菩提心（即“觉悟之心”）可以被视为悲悯心，以及为利益众生而发愿成就圆满觉悟（并尽其所能去帮助他者），而究竟菩提心则是对“空”之觉知的智慧。因此，被视为至关重要的是，在成就圆满觉悟、证得佛陀之境界的过程中，要将慈悲与智慧结合起来。
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."
简体中文翻译：
虽然我们最初以“人”和“事物”是彼此独立、交互作用的真实存在这一常识性观点为起点，但当我们聆听、思惟并禅修关于众生与万法的“空”或“无我”本性（同时也通过身、语、意的善行积累了大量的“福德”或“正面能量”）之后，我们就可能开始经历一种“心转”的过程，使我们渐渐“调谐”到“人”与“显现”之究竟“空性”。一点一点地，我们可以加深对这一维度的觉知，直到它逐步成为我们本性更为深刻且更具整合性的部分。最终，我们或许能够成为这种不二觉知/智慧（vidya）真正的体现。
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."
简体中文翻译：
在佛教典籍最初被翻译到西藏时，vidya（不二觉知）译为藏语“rig-pa”。但否定这个不二觉知/智慧（vidya）的梵文词“avidya”并未被译作“rig-med”（那会暗示对“rig-pa”的彻底否定），而是被译作“ma-rig-pa”，表示在“rig-pa”或不二觉知水平上的一种质的降低。因此，从某种角度而言，我们对“人”和“事物”本性的觉知并非完全混乱，而是需要转化，让它与“事物实际的样子”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"."
简体中文翻译：
虽然在印度教（Hinduism）中，各种瑜伽（yoga）是为了与神合一而修习，但在佛教中，我们或许可以说，所修习的乃是“空瑜伽”（emptiness-yoga），也就是努力与众生和显现的究竟“空”（幻相）本性相契合。关于众生与显现（所谓“事物”）的“空”（幻相）本性的教法，是大乘佛教的根本教法，也是其分支金刚乘（又称密乘或坦陀罗佛教）的重要基础。即便如此，虽然在大乘中，“众生”和“事物”的“空”或“无我”之教法是核心，但在被称为“大圆满”（Dzogchen）的金刚乘最高层次中，主要修持的其实是持续安住于不二觉知/智慧（vidya 或 rig-pa）之中——这被称作是大圆满最高层次的奥秘法门的核心。
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."
简体中文翻译：
在大圆满这一最高的佛教神秘体系中，修行者通过上师的直接引导，得以认识这种不二觉知/智慧（vidya 或 rig-pa），并将对心（及实相）之真正本性的持续观照作为核心修行。体认到一切念头实际上都是“空”的，皆不属于某个“自我”，所有念头都会不断自行解脱（self-liberation），从法身（Dharmakaya）的 相续流（continuum） 中生起，又回归其中，犹如海浪在海洋中生起又消融。同时，修行者不断观照显现与“空”不可分的统一。
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.""
简体中文翻译：
普遍认为，要在各种显现中都培养对众生与“事物”不二本性的觉知至关重要，并且需要不断加深我们对其涵义的理解，直到在极深层、全面整合的水平上成为我们自然而然的一部分。当我们初次尝试去理解“空性”（shunyata）或显现“空”（幻相）本性的意义时，也许会觉得在某些“事物”上更容易觉察到这种幻相性质，而在其他“事物”上则不那么容易。然而，我们最终应该努力去理解一切显现都具备这种“空”而幻相的本性，虽然有时我们会发现，在那些更能明显启发不二觉知的对象上，“练习”会更得心应手。
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."
简体中文翻译：
随着我们对显现“shunya”（或具备“shunyata”（“空性”））乃至“缺乏固有存在”这一性质的探讨，在金刚乘或密乘教法中还提到“光明性”层面；即我们拥有一种了知能力，或能以全然清晰的方式“如其本然”地看见“事物”的能力。而且，这些显现还可被视为具有“无分割”的本性；也就是说，它们在主体和客体之间完全“不分”，或更准确地说，在所谓主客二分之外，它们本身是完全“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."
简体中文翻译：
关于这三个层面，据说“空”显现为佛陀的法身（Dharmakaya）；“光明性”显现为报身（Sambhogakaya）；而“空”与“光明”不可分的统一则显现为化身（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."
简体中文翻译：
就关于显现的这三重层面而言，我们或许可以思考犹太-基督教传统中的路西法（Lucifer）神话。Lucifer的字面含义是“带来光的人”。如果从适当角度来审视这个堕落（the fall）的故事，就会发现，这也许并非只是路西法的堕落，而是“人类之堕落”：从与究竟、空性、具光明的不二觉知的结合状态，堕落到个体层面，并以为各种显现都是真实、确凿地“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."
简体中文翻译：
在大乘与金刚乘佛教中，“如来藏”（tathagatagarbha）一词通常可被视为普遍意义上所有众生所具足的、尚需开启与成就的佛性。但从另一个角度来说，它也可指“本有的存有（Being）被引领回到它真正状态”的过程。既然此境界已超越“某个自我”去达到此觉悟之层次，所以从某种意义而言，此种觉悟或成就乃属于“存有”本身，而非某个“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"."
简体中文翻译：
如此一来，我们就有可能理解那些关于“众生”与“显现”之本质，实际上不过是“存有”自身戏耍（lila）本性的说法。看起来，存有似乎能“创造”出各种仿佛幻相一般的显现，但我们必须明白，这些显现正如前所述，完全“空”无固有实性。这些显现的本质，是存有以全然奇妙的方式显现或展现自身，在其中“照映”或“凝视”自己；不过，就其“真实存在事物”的地位而言，它们究竟从未真的生起过。如同西藏著名的诗僧密勒日巴（Milarepa）所言：“万物显现，却并不真实存在！”
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!""
简体中文翻译：
如果我们能达到这种境界，真正成为不二觉知的体现或“持有者”（vidyadhara），并让这种觉知不断增长，直到达到彻底圆满的层次，同时还能以完全善巧、充满悲悯的方式面对如幻般的“众生”与“事物”，则据说我们再无任何更高的需要或目标，一切皆已圆满。
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."
简体中文翻译：
正如藏传佛教大圆满法系中著名的西藏大成就者龙钦饶绛（Longchen
Rabjam）所言：“既然一切不过是幻相，在其所是之境中已圆满，无关乎好坏、接受或拒绝，一个人或许会不禁大笑而出！”
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!""
简体中文翻译：
Nam kay tar tug ta yay sem chan nam
愿所有众生，其数如天空般无限广大，
Ma bed zhin du ku sum ngon gyur te
皆得证悟如来之三身，
Pa ma dro drug sem chan ma lu pa
愿我父母——亦即轮回六道中一切有情，无有遗漏——
Cham chig dod may sa la chin par shog
同归于本初状态（亦即自身即是觉悟）。
——摘自一则藏文祈愿文
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 | |
简体中文翻译：
约翰·谭（Thusness）的评论
2008年：
（凌晨12:19）Thusness：说“没有行动或活动”并不正确。
（凌晨12:20）AEN：嗯？
（凌晨12:20）AEN：明白
（凌晨12:20）AEN：为什么不正确？
（凌晨12:20）Thusness：这样说不对。
（凌晨12:20）AEN：明白。
（凌晨12:20）Thusness：是有行动、有意图的。
（凌晨12:21）AEN：明白。
（凌晨12:21）Thusness：但没有一个施为者/主体（agent）去做这个行动。
（凌晨12:21）Thusness：别把一切都跟自发生起搞混了。
（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：写得不错。
（凌晨12:23）Thusness：不过可以更深入。
（凌晨12:23）AEN：谁是查理·辛格？
（凌晨12:24）AEN：是这个吗？http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/singer.htm
（凌晨12:24）Thusness：关于显现和觉知以及缘起（DO）这方面的。
（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：你是说他有很深的见解吗？
（凌晨12:24）Thusness：从网络上找到的。
（凌晨12:25）Thusness：是的。
（凌晨12:25）Thusness：不过还可以更好。
（凌晨12:25）AEN：明白……
（凌晨12:25）AEN：你是指这篇文章吗？http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/singer.htm
（凌晨12:26）Thusness：对。
（凌晨12:26）AEN：好的……
（凌晨12:26）AEN：哇……这篇文章写于我出生那一天。
（凌晨12:26）AEN：笑
（凌晨12:26）AEN：[此处省略日期]
（凌晨12:26）AEN：哈哈
（凌晨12:26）Thusness：呵呵。
（凌晨12:29）Thusness：我告诉你的东西，你自己记在心里并亲自验证。
（凌晨12:29）AEN：明白，好。
（凌晨12:29）Thusness：别把我写得好像我已经成佛、不会犯错一样。
（凌晨12:29）AEN：明白……哈哈，好。
（凌晨12:30）Thusness：我只是告诉你确有那样的体验。
（凌晨12:30）AEN：明白……
（凌晨12:32）Thusness：也不必过分强调。只要明白觉知是什么就可以了。
（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。
…
对话开始时间：2008年8月31日星期日
（下午2:08）Thusness：哇，你写了好多关于“一味”（one taste）的东西。:P
（下午2:08）Thusness：敲你脑袋！
（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：删了一些，又加了一些
（下午2:10）Thusness：到处都有。:P
（下午2:11）Thusness：下次得常常查看awakeningtoreality那个网址了。:P
（下午2:11）Thusness：“一味”到处都是……敲你脑袋
（下午2:11）AEN：哦，你是说谷歌吗，哈哈
（下午2:11）AEN：我还以为你指的是sgforums
（下午2:11）Thusness：对。虽然Ken Wilber的体验是非二元的，但还称不上真正的“一味”。
（下午2:11）AEN：哦？为什么？
（下午2:11）AEN：一味包含空性吗？
（下午2:12）Thusness：对，我不是已经跟你说了吗？
（下午2:12）AEN：明白……
（下午2:13）Thusness：吠檀多（advaita）的那种非二元理解与佛教不同。
（下午2:13）Thusness：如果没有理解空性的本质，怎么能到达“一味”阶段？
（下午2:14）Thusness：“一味”的证悟包含两方面：主体/客体不分，以及主体/客体皆无任何自性。
（下午2:15）AEN：明白……
（下午2:15）Thusness：洞见这两方面后才会生起“一味”的洞见。
（下午2:15）Thusness：我什么时候跟你说过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：我多次跟你说过，佛陀教的是空性的法，而不只是光明性的层面。
（下午2:16）Thusness：非二元的光明性在吠陀经里到处都有描述。
（下午2:17）AEN：明白……
（下午2:17）Thusness：敲你脑袋！
（下午2:18）Thusness：任何不谈三法印、不了解无我形态下的非二元，都不算真正的佛教。
（下午2:19）Thusness：任何引向“梵”（Brahman）理解的，在佛教看来都是一种错谬。那个“一心”“一实相”应该被理解为非自性的。
（下午2:19）Thusness：不能从二元和实有的角度理解它。
（下午2:19）AEN：明白，但Ken Wilber有谈到“梵”吗？:P
（下午2:20）Thusness：是的。
（下午2:20）AEN：明白
（下午2:21）Thusness：所以他的体验是非二元的，可洞见还不算。
（下午2:21）AEN：明白……
（下午2:23）AEN：那下次我就该给他们看查理·辛格的文章了
:P
（下午2:23）Thusness：查理还需要进一步完善，但已经很不错了。
（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异。
（下午2:25）Thusness：他们无法正确区分经验与洞见。
（下午2:25）AEN：明白……
（下午2:25）Thusness：你跟人说的时候要谨慎。
（下午2:25）Thusness：幸亏你常引用巴希亚经（Bahiya Sutta），哈哈哈
（下午2:26）AEN：明白……哈哈
（下午2:26）Thusness：那两方面都有。:)
（下午2:26）AEN：你是说哪两方面
（下午2:26）Thusness：同时在经验和洞见层面上都是非二元的。
（下午2:26）AEN：明白……
（下午2:28）AEN：洞见是指对空性的见地？
（下午2:28）AEN：？
（下午2:28）Thusness：对。
（下午2:28）Thusness：到目前为止，我仍觉得Ajahn Amaro最好，实修经验与洞见都很明确。
（下午2:29）Thusness：清晰而精准。
（下午2:29）AEN：明白
（下午2:29）AEN：但你曾说他那本电子书不好吗？
（下午2:29）Thusness：不过那个“根源/source”必须被彻底换成“缘起”（DO）。
（下午2:29）AEN：明白
（下午2:29）Thusness：对。
（下午2:29）Thusness：那是唯一的问题。
（下午2:29）Thusness：不过他也没错。
（下午2:29）AEN：为什么没错？
（下午2:29）Thusness：“我”只是一种光明澄明。
（下午2:30）Thusness：在他心里，并没有一种独立感，但还不够彻底。
（下午2:30）AEN：明白……
（下午2:31）Thusness：这意味着他知道觉知究竟是什么。所以当他说“I AM”时，你别把他当成“阶段1”的那种意思。
（下午2:31）Thusness：对他而言是一样的。
（下午2:32）Thusness：可他使用它，就好像一个修行者已经明白了空与非二元的完整洞见。
（下午2:32）Thusness：实际不尽相同。
（下午2:32）AEN：明白……
（下午2:32）Thusness：不过他自己没注意到这个问题。
（下午2:32）Thusness：对他来说，并不明显。
（下午2:32）Thusness：这是我的观点。
（下午2:33）AEN：他没注意到什么？
（下午2:33）Thusness：即“I AM”的体验其实不一样。
（下午2:33）AEN：可你说那本电子书还是有些二元嘛，是吗？
（下午2:33）Thusness：对。
（下午2:33）AEN：他好像说过类似油与水是分离的？
（下午2:33）AEN：相分离？
（下午2:33）Thusness：对。
（下午2:33）Thusness：以后再说。
（下午2:34）Thusness：这意味着他无法安住在现象之中……
（下午2:34）Thusness：在生灭之中
（下午2:34）Thusness：为什么？
（下午2:34）Thusness：因为某些“障碍”尚存。
（下午2:34）Thusness：那个“障碍”必须彻底消失。
（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：看起来快到了，可还没到。:P
（下午2:35）AEN：为什么不算到？
（下午2:35）Thusness：你可别到处跟人说是我说的哈……
（下午2:35）AEN：明白。
（下午2:35）Thusness：镜子依然在那儿。:)
（下午2:36）AEN：明白……
（下午2:36）Thusness：对他而言，显现是什么？
（下午2:36）Thusness：好像是觉知，又好像不是。
（下午2:36）Thusness：像只是个倒影
（下午2:36）Thusness：像镜子里的影子
（下午2:37）AEN：明白……
（下午2:37）AEN：可我们也可以用镜子来譬喻它的空性？
（下午2:37）Thusness：可以，但在经验层面就不一样了。
（下午2:38）Thusness：这意味着对生起之本性的体验尚不透彻。
（下午2:38）Thusness：不过他是对的。
（下午2:38）Thusness：要真正彻底明白，需要经过全过程。
（下午2:38）AEN：明白……
（下午2:40）Thusness：关于无我的二谛指的是什么？
（下午2:40）AEN：自我的空、现象的空？
（下午2:40）Thusness：对
（下午2:40）Thusness：主体与客体
（下午2:40）Thusness：若没有任何背景、没有可视为“Self/self”的“ITness”，
（下午2:41）Thusness：客体或属性中也无“ITness”可得，
（下午2:41）Thusness：那么所呈现的就只有显现而已。
（下午2:42）Thusness：花中并没有“红色”的自性，或者说任何地方都找不到“ITness”。
（下午2:42）Thusness：无论是自我还是可被认同的客体都没有。
（下午2:42）Thusness：那么留下的是什么？
（下午2:43）AEN：觉知即显现？
（下午2:43）Thusness：是的。
（下午2:43）Thusness：只有显现。
（下午2:43）Thusness：我们并不知道这个显现当下就是我们的佛性。
（下午2:44）Thusness：因为有个“障碍”让直接体验并不够强烈、透彻。
（下午2:44）Thusness：终有一天，当无上明晰到来，就再没有疑惑。
（下午2:45）Thusness：因为这个“障碍”，还残留某种独立的“我”之痕迹。
（下午2:45）Thusness：因此也没有“一味”。:)
（下午2:45）AEN：明白……
（下午2:47）Thusness：我想我会写下我的看法。
（下午2:47）AEN：好
（下午2:48）Thusness：其实我不太想评论这些文章，因为容易引起争论和分歧。:P
（下午2:48）AEN：不会啦
（下午2:48）AEN：我不觉得会。
（下午2:48）AEN：我们论坛很安静的。
（下午2:48）AEN：哈哈
（下午2:48）Thusness：哈哈哈……
（下午2:49）Thusness：我只想从实修层面来谈，
（下午2:49）Thusness：为了经验上的缘故，
（下午2:49）Thusness：不是为了在你论坛上制造噪音。
（下午2:49）AEN：明白……
（下午2:51）Thusness：你读完《我的心如同太阳》（The Sun, My Heart）了吗？
（下午2:53）AEN：没有……
（下午2:53）AEN：我看得很慢……
（下午2:53）AEN：一天也许就看一章或更少……
（下午2:53）AEN：哈哈
（下午2:53）AEN：所以我读一本书很久才读完。
（下午2:53）AEN：你想从我这拿走它吗？
（下午2:55）Thusness：是啊。
（下午2:55）Thusness：你觉得怎么样？
（下午2:55）Thusness：看了吗？
（下午2:57）AEN：还没看很多，
（下午2:57）AEN：我觉得应该不错。
（下午3:03）AEN：Namdrol也推荐为了修习大手印（Mahamudra）去读Clarifying the Natural State :P “
必须阅读的是《Clarifying
the Natural State》和《Moonlight,
Quintessence of Mind and Meditation》。至于佛教杂志，我不太好说它们孰优孰劣——它们大多是传承推广的材料；如果说Tricycle，它面向书店里的那类‘读者’，也就是说你在书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：你有的那本橙色的书，
（下午3:05）AEN：我们上次讨论过的那本，
（下午3:05）AEN：那不是大圆满，是大手印。
（下午3:05）Thusness：哦……是的。
（下午3:05）Thusness：那本不错。
（下午3:05）AEN：明白，是啊。
（下午3:05）Thusness：是的……我记得了。
（下午3:06）AEN：另外还有一本更厚的是Dakpo Tashi Namgyal写的，可能更全面，叫《Moonlight, Quintessence of
Mind and Meditation》。
（下午3:06）Thusness：明白。
（下午3:06）AEN：哦对了，
（下午3:06）AEN：你怎么看这篇文章http://www.iol.ie/~taeger/mahamud/mahamud.html
（下午3:16）Thusness：还不错。
（下午3:16）AEN：明白……
（下午3:17）Thusness：不过你懂的，在金刚乘里得到某种权威的认可很重要。
（下午3:17）Thusness：哈哈
（下午3:17）Thusness：我对此没什么好评价。我只关注实修体验。
（下午3:17）AEN：你是说得到某种权威认可很重要吗？
（下午3:18）Thusness：意思是传承很重要啦。
（下午3:18）Thusness：对我而言，我不在意这些东西。
（下午3:18）Thusness：只要修行者能展现出对我们光明且空性的直接体验，他就是个真正的修行人。
（下午3:19）Thusness：以我当下的修行阶段，我无比清晰地认定，佛陀的教法是解脱之道。
（下午3:19）Thusness：我对自己的体验和修行，以及对佛陀教法都毫无疑惑。
（下午3:20）Thusness：我并不太关心所谓的权威。:)
（下午3:20）AEN：明白……
（下午3:22）Thusness：你从哪里拿到这个链接的？
（下午3:22）AEN：不清楚
（下午3:22）AEN：我在网上找到，然后存在浏览器里了
（下午3:22）Thusness：是从网络搜索来的？
（下午3:22）AEN：应该是吧
脚注/附注（如果有）：
无
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
[在本条消息之后无更多原文内容。翻译已完整呈现。]
译后说明（1-2段简短解释）：
- 关键概念：本段文本系统讨论了佛教“无我”与“空性”的核心思想，以及大乘、金刚乘（包括大圆满）的相关修持途径。特别关注了“不二觉知”（vidya
或
rig-pa）与“自行解脱”（self-liberation）的概念。
- 主要译法选择：
- 遵循指示，将“view”译为“知见”、将“I
AM”或“I
AMness”译为“我是/本我”、将“vipassana”译为“毗婆舍那（意思是观察如其本然的实相）”等。
- 严格保持原文结构与内容，无任何删减或改动，段落间亦未作合并或重新编排。
- 对涉及佛教术语时，根据指示使用精确术语（例如“无为”在不同语境下译为“unconditioned”或“non-action”），但原文并无该特定语境，故未见相关内容。
- 书目参考或致谢（如需）：
- 本文部分内容来自于网络资源及相关佛教典籍（例如中观、金刚乘经典、大圆满传承著作等），作者为查理·辛格（Charlie
Singer），评论部分来自于John
Tan（Thusness）与AEN之对话记录。
（完）
Please read this first (English):
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
请参阅：
