0:00 So there was a pretty famous Buddhist monk from Thailand named Jung Chaw who in the 20th century did a lot to spread awareness of Buddhism in the West. And he once warned against doing what we're about to try to do. I'm about to try to explain the doctrine of not-self or non-self or no-self. The idea that, in some sense, the self, this thing we think of as being inside of us, does not exist. And Jung Chaw once, once wrote that if you try to understand the doctrine in this way, by having somebody lecture about it or read about it, that your head will explode.
20世纪有一个来自泰国的特别有名的佛教和尚，叫Jung Chaw，他在西方做了很多传播佛教意识的事情。他曾经警告不要做我们即将要做的事情。我即将要试着解释非我，或者无我。这个观点是，在某种意义上，自我，这个我们认为在自身里面的东西，并不存在。Jung Chaw曾经写道，如果你试着用这个方式理解教义，通过让别人演讲这个，或者让别人阅读这个，那么你的大脑会爆炸。
0:40 Now, I assume he was exaggerating. I guess we'll find out soon enough. But, he was pointing to an important distinction between two different ways of trying to apprehend this pretty hard to fathom idea. One is the way he warned against. You know, reading about it, hearing about it.
现在，我假设他是夸张了。我猜我们很快就会知道。但是他指出一个重要的区别，在两个方式之间，两个不同的试着理解这个相当难彻底了解观点的方式，是他警告的那种。你知道，阅读，听讲。
fathom：彻底了解，理解 apprehend：理解
0:58 And the other is an experiential understanding of the doctrine. That is, sitting down and meditating, and eventually, maybe coming to kind of feel the truth of the doctrine, see the truth of no-self, become convinced that there is no self in you. And it's certainly the case that most people I have seen who seem convinced that the doctrine is valid that the self in some sense does not exist are people who actually grasp the doctrine during meditation, and some of them say that it was transformative and has changed their lives. And, and their perspective on not self is a very important one. So eventually we're going to be hearing from some of them and hearing about some of these experiences that convinced them that the self does not exist. But right now, I'm going to try to describe the doctrine in, in you know the way that Jung Chow warned against. I'm just going to do it by what he called intellectualizing.
另一个是一个对教义试验性的理解。那就是，坐着冥想，最终，可能达到某种教义真谛的感觉，看到无我的真谛，变得确信，在你里面并没有自我。这个情况是必然的，大多数人，我看到的，看起来确信教义是有效的，即自我在某种意义上并不存在，是那些实际上在冥想期间抓住教义的人。他们中的有些人说，它是革命性的，改变了他们的生活。他们对非我的看法是非常重要的一个。所以最终我们将要从他们中的一些人那里听说，这些经验中的一些，让他们确信自我并不存在。但是现在，我将要试着描述教义，你知道的，就是Jung Chow警告的那种方式。我将要用他称为理性的方式去描述。
transformative：变化的，变形的，有改革能力的，起改造作用的 intellectualizing：诉诸理智；使理智化
2:02 I want to emphasize before we start that he was right. It's a very hard, infuriatingly hard, doctrine to grasp in some ways. And, it's even hard to understand what exactly the Buddha meant by the not-self idea, and scholars don't, don't agree on exactly what he meant. And in fact, as we will see, the kind of mainstream interpretation of what he meant may not be true. I'm going to, I'm going to kind of start by giving you more or less the mainstream the kind of standard interpretation. But as we'll go on to see, that, that may not be valid, and it really matters which, which interpretation you buy into. Now, the Buddha laid out the idea of not-self in a famous sermon: The Discourse on the Not-Self, that is said to be the second sermon he delivered after his enlightenment. Remember, the first one was the Discourse on the Four Noble Truths. And then, according to tradition, he gave this discourse on the not-self. And it's
我想强调，在我们开始之前，他是对的。这是在某些方式上非常难，令人生气的难掌握的教义。甚至难以理解佛陀说“非我”的确切意思。学者并不完全赞同他的意思。实际上，像我们将要看到的，佛陀意思解释的主流，可能不是对的。我将要，通过给你标准的解释，多多少少有些主流，来开始。但是像我们将要看到，佛陀提出非我的观点，在一个著名的布道里：非我的演说，就是据说是第二布道他传递的，在他开悟之后。记住，第一个是对第四真谛的布道。然后，根据传统，他在非我上给了这个布道。
infuriatingly：令人气愤地 laid out：安排，陈列，喝醉了的 sermon：布道
a tribute to, it's a testament to the importance of the not-self idea in Buddhist thought. That tradition holds it to be the second sermon he delivered. Another testament to the importance of the doctrine is that, supposedly, in fact this is written in the account of the discourse, the monks in attendance were instantly enlightened once they heard this teaching about the not-self. Okay. So, what does, what does the doctrine mean? Let's, let's, let's start to wrestle with that. This is the word in in Sanskrit for not-self this is the word in the closely related ancient language of Poly. In both cases the an just means not. So this means self. And the question arises what exactly did the Buddha mean by the self? After all it's a word you can use in a lot of different ways and this was a long time ago. Who knows how exactly it was being used then. There are two ways to go about figuring out what the term meant. One is to kind of delve into the prevailing Indian philosophical discourse of the time and, and, and try to gather what the word would have meant to the Buddha. That's not what we're going to do. We're
在佛教思想里，这是致敬，是证明非我观点的重要性。这个传统把它保留为他讲授的第二布道。另一个证明教义的重要性，是，应该是，实际上是写在教义的报道里。出席的和尚一听到这个非我的教授，就立刻开悟了。好的，那么，教义是什么意思呢？让我们，让我们，让我们开始权力对付它。这在梵文里是无我对应的词，是与远古Poly语言最相近的词。在两个情况下，“an”就是“非”。所以这意思是自我，那么问题来了，佛陀说的自我到底是什么意思呢？毕竟它是一个你能在很多不同方式使用的词，而且这是很长时间以前。谁知道它过去究竟是怎么被使用的。有两种方法弄清楚这个术语是什么意思。一个是钻到流行的印度哲学会话的时代，试着收集这个词对于佛陀可能是什么意思。那不是我们将要做的事情。
tribute：奉献，贡品，致敬 testament：是……的证据，是……的证明 account：描述，报道 wrestle with：全力对付，设法克服 Sanskrit：梵文 delve：钻研；探究 prevailing：流行的，盛行的
going to take what is in some ways a more straight-forward course, which is we're going to try to infer what the Buddha meant by self from his argument against the self. So an analogy would be: if you were an archeologist from a future civilization and you came across this term Santa Claus, and you didn't know what it meant, and then you came across a lecture I had delivered arguing that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and something I said was that Santa Claus couldn't exist because no man can visit a million homes or more in a single night. Well then, if you were this archeologist, you could infer this Santa Claus character must have been someone who was thought to visit a million or more homes in a night, right? That would be a valid inference. And we're going to do something comparable in, in assessing the Buddha's argument about not-self, and we're going to infer from it the properties he associated with the self, and how he seems to have thought of the self. Now, I want to, before we get into that, give you kind of a broad overview of the structure of the Buddhist argument.
我们将要采取的是，在某种程度上更直接的路线，就是我们将要试着从他否定自我的论断中推断佛陀说自我时是什么意思。所以一个类比将是：如果你是一个考古学家，来自未来文明，你遇到了这个词“Santa Claus”，你不知道它是什么意思。然后你遇到了一个演讲，我讲授的，主张“Santa Claus”不存在，我说的东西是“Santa Claus”不存在是因为没人能够拜访一百万个家庭或者更多，在一个晚上。然后，如果你是考古学家，你能推断这个Santa Claus角色必然是某个人，是被认为会在一个晚上拜访一百万甚至更多的家庭，对吗？这是一个有效的推断。我们将要做一些比较，评估佛陀关于非我的主张，我们将要从那里推断，他提到的跟自我相关的属性，他看起来是怎么看待自我的。现在，我想要，在我们那么做之前，给你有点儿像佛教论断结构的更宽广的概览。
course：路线 analog：类比 archeologist：考古学家 assessing：评估 overview：概述，综述，概览
5:45 These are what are called the five aggregates. And according to Buddha, Buddhist thought, they together constitute everything there is about a person, including the person's body, the person's mind, the person's experience. Everything is in one of these five aggregates. I'll run over them quickly, although the details don't matter much for today's purposes. Okay. Form, in principal, actually a applies to anything physical in the world, but, but in this context you can just think of it as being the body, the person's physical body. Feeling we've talked about. You know, pleasant, unpleasant. As we've said, by this term the Buddha did not mean emotion. Emotion, would, would be over here in mental formations,
这些是被称为五蕴的东西。根据佛陀，佛教思想，它们共同构成了所有事物，一个人，包括人的身体，人的思想，人的经验。任何事情都在这五蕴之中的一个。我将很快浏览它们，尽管细节对今天的目的并没有什么关系。好的，形式，原则上，实际上是可以应用到世界上任何物理的事物。但是在这个情境中，你能把它认为是身体，人的肉身。我们谈过的感觉，你知道，愉快的，不愉快的，像我们之前说过的，佛陀用这个词，不是表达情绪的意思。情绪，在这里是精神的形式。
form：形式；形态 five aggregates：五蕴 run over：在……上掠过，迅速浏览，扫视，扼要重述 formation：构成，组成，形成
6:39 along with various other things: desires volition. You know? The, the, kind of the energy that motivates willful action, and thoughts and so on. perception, of course. You know? You know what perception is.
伴随着其他各种东西：渴望意志。你知道吗，驱动有意的行动的那种能量，和思想，等等。知觉。当然。你知道，你知道知觉是
volition：意志，意志力 willful：故意的，任性的，固执的
6:55 consciousness.
意识。
6:57 You know? The trouble with talking about consciousness, is, it's kind of hard to define. People have different conceptions of it. We won't get too deeply into it. But, you know, it refers to the phenomenon of subjective awareness. And the reason I've chosen to, to kind of draw it like this, give it a kind of privileged place in contact with all of these other things is because, you know, the awareness is of these things. These things can be the, the contents of consciousness, so to speak. Which isn't to say that these things are not in contact among themselves. So for example, a perception can have a feeling associated with it and so on. So what the Buddha basically does, according to the standard interpretation of this discourse on the not-self, is he goes through these aggregates. And he goes through each one and he talks about the properties that the aggregate seems to have, and he says these properties are not compatible with the properties we associate with the self. The, the, the self could not be, you know? Show me where the self is. Could it be here, here, here, here, here?
你知道吗，谈论意识的麻烦是，它有点儿难定义。人们有对它不同的概念。我们不会进入太深。但是，你知道，它指主观意识的现象。我选择这样描绘它的原因是，给它一种有特权的地位，和所有其他事情接触时。因为，你知道，意识在这些事情其中。这些事情能是意识的内容。所以说，不是说这些事情在它们内部没有联系。例如，一个知觉，有一个感觉跟它相关等等。所以佛陀基本上，根据这个discourse对“非我”的标准解释，是他讨论了这些聚合体（指五蕴）。他仔细检查每一个，谈论聚合体看起来有的特性，他说这些属性不是与我们联系自我的那些属性相兼容。自我，不可能是，你知道吗，让我知道自我在哪里。它可能在这里吗？这里吗？这里？这里？
privileged：有特权的 aggregates：聚合体 go through：检查，通读，查阅，经历，获得通过
8:05 And he concludes: no, it, it couldn't be, given what he asserts about the nature of these aggregates. So what does he assert? Well, there's basically two properties that he says you'll find in all of these aggregates.
他总结道，不，它不可能是，假设他断言的关于这些蕴的本质。所以他断言了什么？好吧，他说的有基本的两个属性，你会在所有这些蕴里找到。
8:18 One of them is impermanence. Now as we know, you know, the Buddha saw impermanence everywhere, I mean literally everywhere. Every, everything was impermanent so certainly the, the five aggregates would be impermanent. And he, he goes around with the monks he says, okay what about form what about feeling, is it permanent or impermanent? The monks say it is impermanent, and he says, well in that event, if it is impermanent, if this is characterized by change, is it proper to call it self? And they say no, it's, it's not.
其中一个是无常。现在像我们所知道的，你知道，佛陀到处看到无常。我是指真的到处。每件事是无常，所以当然，五蕴将不持久。他在和尚里面转，他说，好的，关于形式，关于感觉，它是永恒的还是无常？和尚说它是无常。然后他说，好吧在那个事情上，如果它是无常，如果这被赋予了变化的特征，称呼它为自我合适吗？然后他们回答说不，它，不合适。
literally：真地强调，确实地强调，字面上地
8:52 And so we can infer from that, that he must have thought the self had a property roughly the opposite of impermanence. That's not necessarily to say that the self would last forever. But, he, he seems to thought of the self as something that persists through time. And that is consistent with the way we use the term. RIght? I mean when I think of myself, I think of a self that was intact when I was 12 years old, and it's the same self I have now. I've changed a lot since I was 12, I'm, in, in, in a lot of ways. But, fundamentally, there was some essence in me, I kind of think, intuitively, some, some essence in me that accounts for kind of continuity of identity. So we do think of the self, in a common, sensical way, as being something, kind of solid, a kind of essence that endures through time; its structure endures. and, the Buddhist said, no. There's too much flux. Everything is changing all of the time in all of these aggregates, so, it, it's hard to imagine a self being there.
所以我们能从那里推断，他必定认为自我有一种属性，大概是无常的反面。这不一定是说，自我会永恒持久。但是他看起来认为自我是一种会随着时间持续的东西。那与我们使用这个词是一致的。对吗？我是说当我思考自我时，我想一个自我，是完整的，当我12岁时，它和我现在有的自我是一样的。从12岁起我改变了很多，在很多方面。但是，从根本上，我有一些本质，我想点儿想，直觉地，某些本质为个性的持续负责。所以我们确实思考自我，在一个通常的、可感知的方式。是某些固定的、本质的会随着时间持续的东西。它的结构持续。佛教教义说，不，有太多不断的变化。任何事物都在一直在改变，在所有这些aggregates里。所以，很难想象有一个自我在那里。
sensical：可感知的？有道字典上没有。 flux：不断的变化
9:56 So, one thing he's saying the self is, is kind of, you know, it has this kind of substantial persistence. There's one other thing we can infer about his conception of the self from the argument he delivers here, and that is that the self is associated with control. And the way we know that is that the second basic argument he makes after the impermanence argument is, he says, he goes around the aggregates and he says, like feeling for example. He says, if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to affliction, and, and the deal would be that you could just say, may my feelings be like this, or may my feelings be like that. In other words, you could just control them. He says the same thing about the, the form, the body, you know. If it were self, you'd be able to control it. It would be under control. Okay? And by the way you may not, you may not buy these arguments but, but for now the main thing is just to, to lay them out. They're not, not intuitively clear to everyone.
所以他说的自我的一件事是，你知道的，它有这种牢固的持续性，有一个其他事，我们能从他传授的论断中推断出关于他对自我的概念。就是自我与控制相关。我们知道这个的方法是第二个基本论断，他在无常论断之后的做的。他说，他讲着五蕴，他说，例如像感觉。他说，如果感觉是自我，那么感觉将要导向痛苦，达成的交易将是你可以说，让我的感觉像这样，或者让我的感觉像那样。换句话说，你就是能控制它们。他说了同样的事情，关于形式，身体，你知道的。如果它是自我，你将能控制它。它将在掌控之下。好吗？通过那个方式，你可能不会认可这些论断，但是对于现在，主要的事情是，把它们放一边。它们不是对每个人都直观清晰。
substantial：大而坚固的，大量的，多的 affliction：痛苦，折磨 intuitively：直觉的，本能的
11:10 It's important, there's a distinction here that needs to be made, okay. When the Buddha talks about control, he's not, he's not saying, apparently, what we might guess that he would say about the self and control. You know, you might guess he'd say the self is the CEO. It's the thing in control. It's the thing that asserts control. In this sermon at least, he's saying the self should be under control. That seems to be part of his definition of the self. It, the self's house should be in order. Now that may mean that there is also a controller within the self. For all we know, what he says in the sermon doesn't exclude that. And in fact, there's another sermon in which he kind of suggests as much, another discourse, and that's where it's getting into just a little. I personally find, find it kind of amusing. It involves this character named Augavesinna, who's kind of an annoying character. He denies the Buddha's teaching on the self. He says, no feeling is self, perception is self, mental formations are self.
这很重要，有一个区别，需要指出。好的。当佛陀谈论控制，他不是，不是说，显然，我们可能猜测他将要说关于自我和控制。你知道，你可能猜他将要说自我是CEO，它是在控制之中的东西。它是坚持控制的东西。至少在这个布道，他是说，自我应该在控制之中。那看起来像他对自我的部分定义。它，自我的房子必须有秩序。既然可能意味着自我内也有一个控制者。我们所知道的，他在布道里说的，没有排除那个。实际上，有另一个布道，他有点同样暗示，另一个演说，那是，它进入了有一点儿，我个人发现，发现它有点儿有趣。它包括了这个叫做Augavesinna的人物，这是有点儿烦人的人物。他否定了佛陀在自我上的教授。他说，不，感觉是自我，知觉是自我，精神形式是自我。
assert：坚定地陈述，显示（权威），坚持（权利或要求），彰显（自己） discourse：演说 amusing：令人发笑的，有点好笑的，有趣的
12:20 And he confronts the Buddha, he seems to think he can win a debate with the Buddha. Now, if you want my advice, it is do not debate the Buddha on matters of Buddhist doctrine. The Buddhist scriptures are full of cases where the Buddha encounters someone who doesn't understand the doctrines or wants to deny them, and they sometimes challenge him. They never win. But in this case he is he is challenged. Augavesinna is sure that he can win this debate with the Buddha, so he takes him on. he, he, he, he repeats. Yes this is self, this is self, this is self. Exactly what the Buddha denies. And here's how the Buddha handles it. He says, okay, tell me, A ugavesinna, a king, and he even names some kings, a king, does a king have the power within his domain to say who should be executed, who should be banished, and so on? And Augavesinna says, yes, yes he has, and he should have that power. And the Buddha says, well tell me, do you have the power to say of your form, of form, of your body, you know, let my body be like this, let my body be like that.
他confront佛陀，他看起来像他能赢得跟佛陀的辩论。现在，如果你想要我的建议，那就是不要和佛陀在佛家教义的事情上辩论。佛教scriptures充满了这些例子，佛陀遇到某人，不理解教义，或者想要否定他们。他们有时候挑战他，他们从来没有赢过。但是在这个例子里，他被挑战了。Augavesinna很确信他能赢得与佛陀的辩论，所以他take him on。他重复道，是的，这是自我，这是自我，这是自我。完全是佛陀否定的东西。佛陀是这样处理的，他说，好的，告诉我，Augavesinna，一个国王，他甚至说了国王的名字，一个国王，一个国王在他的领地有权力决定，谁应该被executed，谁应该banished，诸如此类。AUgavesinna说，是的是的，他有。他应该有那个权力。佛陀说，好的告诉我，你有权力决定你的form，你的身体，你知道，让我的身体像这样，让我的身体像那样吗？
13:35 And Augavesinna then falls silent. He doesn't say anything. The Buddha asks him again. Augavesinna still doesn't say anything, and at this point the Buddha brings out a rule that I didn't realize existed. He says, he says you have to understand there is this rule that if someone refuses to answer a legitimate question asked by the Buddha three times in a row, that person's head will be split into seven pieces. And as if to drive this point home, a spirit appears above Augavesinna's head, wielding an iron thunderbolt, and threatens to split his head open. So far as I know, this is the closest that anyone has ever come to actually having their head explode as, as Jung Chaw warned while trying to apprehend the not-self concept. And, and it actually didn't happen in this case. He gives in, he says you're right, my,
Augavesinna然后陷入沉默了。他什么也没说。佛陀又问。Augavesinna还是没说什么。在那个点上，佛陀引出一个规则，之前没有意识到的。他说，他说你必须理解，有一个规则，如果有人连续三次拒绝回答佛陀问的一个合理的问题，那个人的脑袋将会劈成七瓣。好像是为了把这个问题讲清楚，一个幽灵出现在Augavesinna的头上，挥舞着一个铁丝霹雳，威胁着要劈开他的脑袋。至此我知道，这是最接近的一次，有人真的脑袋爆掉了。像Jung Chaw警告的，当试着理解非我的概念，在那个案例里它实际上没有发生。他投降了，他说你是对的。
legitimate：正当合理的，合情合理的，合法的，法律认可的，法定的 drive this point home: 把问题讲清楚 spirit： 幽灵 wield：挥，操，使用（武器、工具等） thunderbolt：雷电，霹雳
I don't have control ultimately over my body, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on. So, in this case, the Buddha is invoking the kind of, what we would call today the CEO metaphor, the closest thing to it. The king he does seem to be kind of associating in a certain sense of the self with the controller and not just asserting that it should be itself under control. But in any event what's clear is that the Buddhist says the self is about control. The self is about, kind of, persistence through time. A kind of solid, some sort of solid core that persists. And these things are lacking throughout the aggregates. And, and that's the end of the story. Now, a lot of people find this a little unsettling. I mean, we think of ourselves as having these, these selves, you know, and we, we think there is a CEO in here. It's me, it's myself, I am in charge.
我对自己的身体没有最终控制力。等等，等等，等等，等等。所以在这个例子中，佛陀援引的，我们今天称为CEO的隐喻，是最接近它的东西。国王，他看起来像在某种意义上联系一个自我，作为一个控制者，不只是论断应该是自我在控制之下。但是无论如何，清楚的事，佛教说自我是关于控制的。自我是关于，有点儿像，在时间上持续。某种固定的，固定的内核持续。这些东西缺少throughout的aggregates。这就是故事的结尾。现在，很多人发现这有点站不住脚。我的意思是，我们认为自己是，有这些自我，你知道，我们认为有一个CEO在这里，这是我，这是我自己，我是掌控者。
invoke： 援引，援用（法律、规则等作为行动理由）；提出（某人的名字，以激发某种感觉或行动） metaphor：暗喻，隐喻
15:27 And we also think that, you know, I have endured through time. You know, it, it's the same CEO in some sense that it was when I was 12. Well, if this interpretation is, is true and I've given you kind of the standard interpretation of the, of the Buddha's foundational discourse on the not-self, then there's bad news. Then, then, you know, if, if, if that is your conception of the self and if you like it. That the, the self is that there isn't the control within you that you would maybe imagine or hope for and there is not not the permanence of self that you might have imagined. Now, you may in addition to not buying this or resisting it, you may wonder, well why does this matter? Let's suppose it's true. This just doesn't seem like news I can use. What do I do with this idea that the self doesn't exist? Okay, well that's where we're going to address in the next segment. And we are going to explore the alternative interpretation to the interpretation I've just given you. And as you'll see, that may be in a way more user-friendly interpretation, maybe an interpretation that, that does you more good, that you can get more out of.
我们也想，你知道，我随着时间持续。你知道，它是同一个CEO在某个意义上，它是我12岁的自己。好吧，如果这个解释是真的，对于佛陀在非我上基本话语，我已经给你某些标准解释，（华佼注：翻译不太准确）那么有个坏消息，你知道，如果这是你对自我的概念，如果你喜欢的话。自我是，在你里面没有你将可能想象或者希望的控制，没有你可能会想象的自我持续。现在，你可能额外不认可这个或者抵触它，你可能想知道，好吧为什么这个很重要？让我们假设这是真的，这只是看起来不像我能用到的信息。我能拿“自我并不存在”的观点去做什么呢？好的，那就是我们将要在下一小节里强调的东西。我们将要探索另一个解释，对于刚才给你们的解释。就像你将看到的，那可能是一种更加对用户友好的解释，可能是一种对你更好，你能得到更多的解释。
discourse：论文，演讲；语篇，话语 foundational：基本的，基础的
Source: