|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attā, Nirattā, and Anattā in the early Buddhist literature=初期佛教文獻中的Atta、Niratta和Anatta |
|
|
|
| Author |
Mukherjee, Biswadeb (著)=穆克紀 (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
中華佛學學報=Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal=Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.6 |
|---|
| Date | 1993.06 |
|---|
| Pages | 391 - 424 |
|---|
| Publisher | 中華佛學研究所=Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.chibs.edu.tw/publication_tw.php?id=12
|
|---|
| Location | 新北市, 臺灣 [New Taipei City, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese; 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | 作者穆克紀為中華佛學研究所專任客座教授。 |
|---|
| Keyword | Attā=我; Nirattā; Anattā=無我; Upaniṣad=奧義書; Indian Buddhism=印度佛教; Early Buddhism=Primitive Buddhism=原始佛教=早期佛教=初期佛教=根本佛教 |
|---|
| Abstract | The present article deals with the non-Buddhist concepts of attā and their refutation through the doctrine of anattā. This article is divided into five sections.
Section I discusses Nikāya passages which states which the attā is not existent either in the sphere of the Conditioned or in the realm of the Unconditioned. It is nothing but a figment of imagination.
Section II refers to the different opinions held by scholars as to the proper implications of the term attā. Except for the lone voice of E. Conze who found similarity between the attā and the Puruṣa of the Sāṃkhya, all other scholars who cared to ponder over this problem, seem to be preoccupied with the relationship that could exist between the attṃ and the Ātman of the Upaniṣads. This may be due to the fact that these two terms-attā and Ātman-are philologically identical. The philological identity led the scholars readily to accept the view that these terms are also philosophically identical without making any further investigation into the exact onnotations of these two terms. The need for a more objective study of the problem of equation of attā and Ātman is obvious, and a suitable methodology for such a study has been suggesed.
Section III delineates the main features of the thoughts of the Śāśvatavādins, Ekacasassatavādins, the ucchedavādins and the followers of the Satkāyadṛṣṭi. They were the chief propagators of the attā heresies rejected by the Buddha.
Section IV, Part A contations the criticism of all these heresies meant for the Buddhist monks. The validity of such a criticism mainly rests on the Buddha's claim to superior and higher knowledge of which the heretics know nothing.Part B of the same Section offers us the following two patterns of reasonings which were ultimately meant for the non-Buddhist ascetics and employed for the refutation of the different attā heresies except the Ucchedavāda: I) To reject the opponent's view by showing the internal contradictions, a method which was later followed by Nāgārjuna with great success; ii) To temporarily accept a part of the opponent's view in order to show that the view as such is unacceptable. This may be taken as an instance of skillfulness of means praised so much in the Mahāyāna.
Section V comes to the conclusion that the anattā doctrine was mainly formulated keeping in view the śāśvatavāda and the Ucchedavāda. This is in conformity with some statements in the buddhist texts that the buddha preached the anattā doctrine as a middle way between these two extremes. It is also clear that the attā concepts of the Śāśvatavādins and the Uccedavśdins cannot be identical with the Ātman of the Upaniṣads. the Buddhist sages were aware of the fact the that the attā rejected by the buddha is 'ahaṅkāra-viṣayaḥ' whereas the Upaniṣadic Ātman is 'Buddhānām viṣayaḥ'.
本文共分五節，討論外道持的 attā( 我 )觀究竟如何，佛教又如何用 anttā (無我 )論來破它。第一節引《阿含》和《尼柯耶》，肯定在有為界與無為界都沒 attā，它只不過是想像的產品。第二節介紹近代學者對 attā 一詞函義的種種看法。其中只有 Conze 一人發現，佛教講的 attā 和數論所謂的 puruṣa 有相似處。其他所有思考過此一問題的學者或許由於 attā、ātman 二詞對等，單單關心 attā 與奧義書 ātman 有何關聯，而未經系統的研究，確信二者之間有關係。此一觀念顯然有必要重新評估。本節則提出較客觀、適當的研究方法。第三節簡要敘述持 attā 見的常論者和持 nirattā 見的斷論者主要思想。第四節分析佛教如何破 attā 的信念。在反駁 attā 的基礎上分別擬構出常論者和斷論者所持的論點，並發現佛教用三種推理方式來破 attā。尤其破常見及身見者的方式顯示辯論的兩種重要特色: 一、以揭發對方說法內在矛盾來駁斥。這個方法後來的大乘佛教用得非常成功。二、先接受對方部分說法，把它當做進一步顯示該說法謬誤的基礎。這或許可以看做大乘教所推崇的 [ 方便 ]。第五節指出，佛陀提 anattā 的中道是針對常論者和斷論者的極端見解。同時證明常論、斷論所謂 attā，並非奧義書的 ātman。
|
|---|
| ISSN | 10177132 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 1389 |
|---|
| Created date | 1998.07.22
|
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.06.15 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
