正觀第17期刊登拙作「初期佛教之四念處」。該文指出四念處中的身、受、心相當於五蘊中的色、受、識，並主張四念處未涉及想蘊是因解脫者無想。關於解脫者無想這一論點，當時已提到學者有不同的意見。本文旨在修正此論點，提出一個不同的見解，大意如下: 經文中所說解脫者應捨離的想並非泛指一切的想，而是指不善巧的想。例如《經集》中的《八篇章》與《中部》的《蜜丸喻經》所破斥的想是指會導致戲論(Papañca)的想。本文並探討想與念(Sati,或譯「正念」)在認知功能上的多項共通點，依《蜜丸喻經》等經典所述的認知過程，闡明念的作用即在於導正想蘊，以成就善巧的想。承蒙正觀雜誌惠予進一步探討的機會，特此致謝。由於前一篇文章以英文刊登，為顧及前文讀者中有不懂中文者，故本文仍以英文發表，造成許多讀者的不便，尚請見諒。本文之大部分節錄自筆者的博士論文。 In An Article Published Earlier In This Journal (Vol. 17), I Argued That The First Three Objects Of The Four Satipa Hānas Correspond To Rūpa, Vedanā And Viññāöa Among The Five Khandhas, But Saññā Is Not Involved In The Four Satipa Hānas Because A Liberated Person Has No Saññā. While Quoting Two Canonical Passages To Support That A Liberated Person Is Devoid Of Saññā, I Also Indicated That Sue Hamilton (1996: 60) Had Disagreed With Me And Contended That “Saññā Not Only Apperceives And Conceives All Our Saµsāric Experiences, Sensory And Abstract, But Is Also Instrumental In Identifying The Liberating Experience” On Account Of A Canonical Passage Which Describes The Experience Of Liberation As Being The Highest Activity Of Saññā. After More Investigations, I Have Found That My Argument That A Liberated Person Has No Saññā Was Wrong. Here I Would Like To Show That Those Passages That Criticise Saññā And Dissociate It From Liberation Only Disapprove Of Unwholesome Types Of Saññā, And That The Practice Of Sati Consists In The Wholesome Functioning Of Saññā. Let Us First Examine What Saññā And Sati Refer To.
目次
I Sanna 185 II Sati 190 III Sanna and Sati 195 IV Conclusion 211 Abbreviations 211 References 212
