前期提示：無我與空
四個大種
前文在提到 Kakuda Katyayana 處，曾提到佛教也承認有四大的存在，並是色蘊的一部份。是這樣分類：
Name 名稱 |
State 狀態 |
Activity 活動 |
1. earth 地 |
solidity 固態 |
produced by repulsion 由推而生 |
2. water 水 |
liquidity or fluidity 液態 |
produced by attraction 由吸而 |
3. fire 火 |
temperature 溫度 |
produced by heat 由熱而 |
4. air/ wind 氣/風 |
expansion, lightness, mobility 擴張，輕，動 |
produced by motion 由動而生 |
宣公上人曾經解釋這四個大種是如何運作的：
你的色身有相，但如果你找它的源頭……，你會發現相是空的。當這四大，名曰地、水、火、風，和合之，則色身成。這就是什麼是叫有形色的東西。和合一起工作就成立一個公司。這家公司以其四大因緣而成。地大堅固持久；水大性溼；火大性溫；風大性動。當四大因緣離散時，各歸其所。因此此身屬空。
Ajita Kesalakambala 與 Lokayatas 的差別在於佛教不將這四大看成是所有生命現象的性質，而是色蘊的一部份，但色蘊並不能預先決定其他四蘊的去處。分析到最後，這組成色身的四大也像其他的現象一樣，都是虛幻不實與空的。了知此身是由四大假和，自有緣聚與緣散之時，是一種對治執著色身或自我的辦法。觀此元素，可以明白人空與法空的道理。
佛言汝應常念，身中四大，雖各有名，皆非屬我。因非屬我，故如幻影。”
駁斥斷見與常見
如前所說，常論與斷論兩邊見之間，佛教持中道。楞嚴經第二冊（英文）說到外道梵志Maskari Goshaliputra , (Sanjayin) Vairattiputra 和(Kakuda) Katyayana 。根據中國辭海，Maskari 翻譯成「不見道」。Goshali 翻譯成「牛舍」。Vairati 翻譯成「無作」。Kat-yayana 翻譯成「斷髮」。楞嚴經於此處，三者都批判，說這些都是外道的斷見論者，即死後一切空的說法。無來生、無再生、無恆我。有一故事，是講佛陀辯才第一的大弟子 摩訶迦旃延。駁斥斷見論者，那些相信一死永亡的人。他舉了一個譬喻，這一個譬喻說的那些外道論者再無回應之力。
在楞嚴經第二冊（英文）裡，年高衰頹的波斯匿王說了他的情形，並請佛開示。他說：
我於往昔，未承佛教，先遇Vaira-tiputra…atyayana。他們皆言此身死後，一切皆滅，即為涅槃。後雖遇佛，尚有疑惑。
然後他懇求垂示，欲了識真心。佛給波斯匿王從宏觀與微觀上分析了波斯匿王衰老的過程。此變化是遷流不斷的。佛問波斯匿王：
亡滅之時，與汝身中，有處不滅?……吾將示汝，此性不生不滅。
王於不同年齡見到恆河，以此為例，佛告訴波斯匿王他的身體是如何衰老的，但是他的見性（佛性）是不生不滅的，他的見性是不衰不老的。佛繼續說：
大王，汝面雖皺，而汝見精，卻未曾皺。不變者，即不生不滅。何受生死？而且為何提起外道梵志之說：此身死後，一切斷滅。
王聞此言，深生信心，方知此身之後，還有再生。
楞嚴經第八冊（英文）提到斷論者。五十陰魔篇（最後一篇）講的是修道人在他修行的過程中所遭遇的魔境，魔境本身非善非惡。如果你能識破魔境，於其出現之時，心無污垢，你就不會生錯見。但如果此修行人，以此經驗，而言開悟，或是證果，即入魔道。如失正見，就為錯見所絆。
……或是傾向斷論，撥無因果，即我身死後，即入永滅，執著於空。
受惑的修道人也會以斷論來找藉口，以此廣行貪欲。
其人常言，無因無果，吾等死後，即入永滅，無有來生。……，即得空境，仍潛行貪欲。
與斷論截然相反的是常論。相信有一個永久的自我或是心靈，是婆羅門教的一大特徵。所以有很多人來找佛問關於自我的問題。但是佛不入玄而上學冥想之網。他的方法很實際，他的教法是對阿難循循善誘，只為了苦，不為其他。佛手持Simsapa葉子能很好地顯出這個。對於不斷而發的玄而上學的問題，佛一般是保持沉默。
有一宗教遊方家，Vacchagotta，找上佛陀，在好幾個場合問佛關於自我的存在問題。他問說，有沒有一個自我？佛不做答。他又問說，有沒有一個自我？佛亦不作答。最後Vachagotta起身走了。阿難生疑而問，佛解釋說他為什麼保持沉默。他如果回答說有一個自我，他便落入常論；如答說沒有一個自我，便入斷論。第一個回答便與無我的教義相違背，而第二個回答會使 Vacchagotta更糊塗。所以靜默是一個最慈悲權巧的回答。
待續 |
|
From last issue:No Self and Emptiness
The Four Great Elements
As mentioned earlier in connection with Kakuda Katyayana, Buddhism also recognizes the existence of the four great elements. They are part of the form skandha and can be classified in the following manner:
Master Hua explains how the four elements function:
Your form-body has an appearance, but when you seek for its origin you will find that it is empty (...) When the Four Great Elements, namely earth, water, fire, and wind, unite, the body comes into being. This is what is meant by having a form. Working together the elements establish a corporation. The corporation comes into being from the four conditioned causes: earth, which is characterized by solidity and durability; water, which is characterized by moisture; fire, which is characterized by warmth; wind, which is characterized by movement. When the four conditioned causes disperse, each has a place to which it returns; therefore, the body becomes empty.
The difference with the views of Ajita Keshakambala and the Loka-yatas lies in that Buddhism does not see the four elements as dictating the nature of all existence. They are part of the form skandha, but they do not predestine the other four mental skandhas. And in the final analysis, the four elements, just like all phenomena, are empty and illusory. Awareness of the coming together and disintegration of the four elements that constitute the body is a means to cure oneself of the attachment to one’s body, or to a self. Thus contemplation of the elements can lead to the realization of the principle of the emptiness of both the self and dharmas.
The Buddha said, “You should be mindful of the four elements within the body, Though each has a name, none of them is the self. Since they are not the self, they are like an illusion.”
Refuting Annihilationism and Eternalism
As mentioned earlier, Buddhism is the Middle Way between the two extreme views of annihilationism and eternalism. Volume II of the Shurangama Sutra mentions the heterodox teachings of Maskari Goshaliputra, [Sanjayin] Vairatiputra, and [Kakuda] Katyayana. According to Chinese etymology, Maskari is interpreted as meaning “not seeing the Way” and Goshali as "cowshed.” Vairatiputra, “son of Vairati” is interpreted to mean “does not do,” and Katyayana as “cut hair.” In this location of the Sutra all three are criticized as adherents to annihilationism, or the view that nothing survives the death of the body. There is no afterlife, no rebirth, and no permanent self. The story of how Mahakatyayana, the foremost of the Buddhas disciples in debate, refuted a non-Buddhist’s annihilationist views, gives an idea how those believing in total extinction after death might argue against rebirth. Mahakatyayana’s skillful use of analogies, however, leaves the annihilationist without any arguments to fall back on.
In Shurangama Sutra vol. II, the aging King Prasenajit describes his situation and makes a special request. He explains:
In the past, when I had not yet received the teachings of the Buddha, I met Katyayana and Vairatiputra, both of whom said that this body is annihilated after death, and this is Nirvana. Now, although I have met the Buddha, I still have doubts about their words.
Then he asks to be enlightened, to realize the true mind. The Buddha and king Prasenajit first examine overall and in detail the physical changes the king has undergone. These have been gradual, but ceaseless. Then the Buddha asks the king:
Do you also know that at the time of extinction there is something in your body which does not become extinct? (...) I will now show you the nature which is not produced and not extinguished.
Using the example of the king's having seen the Ganges River at different ages, the Buddha shows the king that although his body deteriorates, his seeing-nature (i.e. Buddha-nature) does not become extinct or change. His seeing has not aged. The Buddha continues:
Great king, your face is in wrinkles, but the essential nature of your seeing has not yet wrinkled. (...) What does not wrinkle does not change. (...) What does not change is fundamentally free of production and extinction. How can it be subject to your birth and death? Furthermore, why bring up what Maskari Goshaliputra and the others say: That after the death of this body there is total extinction?
The king hears these words, believes them, and realizes that when the life of his body is over, there will be rebirth.
Annihilationist views are also mentioned in vol. VIII of the Shurangama Sutra, the chapter concerning the fifty skandha demons. The states described in this final chapter are demonic states that the meditator can become exposed to in the course of his practice. In themselves they are neither good or evil. "If you can recognize a demonic state when it appears and wash away the filth in your mind, you will not develop wrong views." But if the cultivator takes these experiences to indicate that he has reached sagehood or enlightenment, he enters a deviant, demonic path. If the cultivator loses proper perception, he may be trapped by erroneous views such as the following:
(...) He may veer towards the view of eternal extinction, deny cause and effect, and take everything as empty. The thought of emptiness so predominates that he comes to believe that there is eternal extinction after death.
The confused cultivator can also use annihilationism as an excuse for greedy and licentious behavior:
He often says there is no cause and effect, that once we die, we are gone forever, that there is no afterlife (...) Although he has obtained a state of empty stillness, he covertly indulges in his greedy desires.
The opposite extreme view is that of eternalism. Belief in a permanent self or soul was a central feature of the dominant Brahmanic religion. Thus many came to the Buddha to inquire about the existence of a self. The Buddha, however, refused to get enmeshed in metaphysical speculation. His approach was practical, he taught what was conducive to Nirvana, to the end of suffering, nothing else. The story of the Buddha holding up a handful of simsapa leaves illustrates this well. Towards insistent questioners about metaphysical truths the Buddha usually maintained a noble silence.
A certain religious wanderer called Vachagotta approached the Buddha on several occasions to settle the question of the existence of a self. He asks if there is a self. The Buddha is silent. He asks if there is no self. Still the Buddha remains silent. Finally Vacchagotta gets up and leaves. Questioned by Ananda, the Buddha explains his silence: if he had answered ‘There is a self,’ he would have sided with the eternalists; if he had answered ‘There is no self,’ he would have sided with the annihilationists. The first answer would have conflicted with the doctrine of no self, and the second answer would have thrown Vacchagotta into even greater confusion. Therefore silence was most expedient and compassionate answer to his questions.
To be continued |
