0:00 In the first segment of this lecture, we saw two things.

在本讲的第一节，我们看到两件事。

0:04 First, that the Buddha and his famous discourse on the not self, says that you will not find the self in any of these five aggregates, and second, that this is considered a very, very important fact. Now, what may not be clear to you is why is this considered so important? I mean, what is the connection between this idea that there is not a self, and the Buddha's larger mission of ending suffering, ending dukkha. You know after all, supposedly he delivered this discourse right after the discourse about the four noble truths, and these monks were enlightened upon hearing this course, but it's kind of not clear why. Why exactly is the doctrine so important? It doesn't take long to explain, why logically, this teaching might have led to the enlightenment of the monks, so we'll just spend a couple minutes on that, but then that is going to lead to a very interesting question. Is it possible, that when the

首先，佛陀和他在非我上的著名演说，说你不会在五蕴里找到自我；第二，这被认为是一个非常重要的事实。现在，对你来说不清楚的是，为什么会被认为如此重要？我的意思是，在没有自我的观念，和佛陀结束受苦，结束dukkha（痛苦）的大愿景之间，有什么联系呢？你知道，毕竟，假设他传授了这个演说，刚好在关于四真谛演说的后面，这些和尚听到这些演说后被启发了。但是它有点不清楚，为什么，究竟为什么这个教义如此重要？这花了不太多时间解释，为什么逻辑上，这个讲授可能会导致和尚们的开悟。所以我们只花几分钟在这上面，但是然后这将导向一个非常有趣的问题：这可能吗，

Buddha said you won't find the self in these five aggregates, he did not mean to deny the existence of the self altogether? That is the view of some scholars, maybe not a majority, but of some scholars. I think it's at least a plausible view worth hearing, and it may have important implications, because some people may find this a more useful teaching, than the more conventionally accepting teaching, that the self does not exist. As for the question, of how the Buddhist teaching led to the enlightenment of these monks, to their liberation from suffering? Well, here's an important clue.

就是当佛陀说你不会在这五蕴中找到自我时，他没有否定了自我的存在。这是一些学者的看法，可能不是大多数，但是一些学者。我想它至少是一个值得一听的貌似合理的观点，它可能有重要的应用，因为一些人可能发现它是一个更有用的讲授，比更传统地接受讲授，即自我不存在的讲授。对于那个问题，佛教教义怎样让这些和尚开悟，从受苦中解放？好的，这是一个重要的线索。

plausible：（解释或说法）似乎真实的，貌似合理的

These five aggregates are sometimes called the five aggregates of clinging. You probably remember this term, clinging, from an earlier lecture when we talked about the four noble truths, the Buddha's diagnosis of the human predicament. He said that the source of our dukkha or suffering, the unsatisfactoriness of life, is craving for things, and clinging to things that are not going to last forever. Now, normally when you think about clinging to things, you think about things that are kind of out there in the world. I used my own favorite example, powdered sugar donuts, and you imagine yourself kind of clinging to the donuts themselves. But when you think about it, the clinging is going to have to be mediated by the aggregates. I mean there can't be direct contact between your mind and the donuts, right? The way you apprehend the donuts, is well, first of all, you have this

这五蕴有时候叫依附的五蕴。你可能记得这个术语，依附。从更早的讲课中，当我们谈论四真谛时，佛陀对人类困境的诊断。他说我们dukkha或者受苦的源头，对生活的不满足，是对事物的渴望，是依附那些不会持久的事物。现在，通常当你思考对事物的依附时，你思考世界上的事物。我用自己最喜欢的例子，糖粉甜甜圈做例子，你想象你自己有点依附于甜甜圈。但是当你想它时，依附将会被五蕴连接着。我是指在你的思想和甜甜圈之间，不可能有直接的接触。对吗？你理解甜甜圈的方式，是，首先，你有

predicament：困境 dukkha：苦

perception of the donuts, whether you see them, feel them, taste them. The perception may be associated with a positive feeling, and that leads you to crave, and to cling to the donuts. And, even leaving aside the way that things in the outside, the clinging to things on the outside of your body, can be mediated by these aggregates, there are things just floating around in here that you might cling to. For example, opinions, which would be in the realm of mental formations. You know, if you cling to them, you'll wind up arguing with people needlessly, you may get sad when people reject your opinions, and so on. That's a form of attachment, of clinging, so, basically all forms of clinging.

甜甜圈的概念，无论是你看到它们，感觉它们，品尝它们。概念可能与积极的感觉关联，它让你渴望，依附于甜甜圈。即使离开路边，外面的事物（华佼注：这句不懂），对你身体外面事物依附，能被这些五蕴连接。有你可能依附的东西在这里悬浮着，例如，观点，那将是在精神形式的实现。你知道，如果你依附于它们，你将最终与人进行不必要的争辩，你可能悲伤，当人们拒绝你的观点，等等。那是迷恋的形式，依附的形式。所以基本上所有依附的形式。

needlessly：不需要的，不必要的

The Buddha apparently concluded, could be taken care of, if you could just get these monks to quit clinging to these aggregates, okay? And the way he accomplishes this, is there's a kind of refrain in this sermon. He goes from aggregate to aggregate and says that, In conclusion, this is not mine. This I am not. This is not myself. He says that. That kind of three-part refrain, about all of the aggregates, and apparently the idea, is that once the monks realized these things are not part of their selves, then they will let go of them. Now I'm not sure it would happen so automatically in my case. If you

佛陀显然总结道，能，照顾，如果你只是让这些和尚退出依附这些五蕴，好吗？（华佼注：此句不通。）他完成这个的方式，是在这个布道里有一种老话。他一个接一个的讲“蕴”，说，总之，这不是我的。这不是我。这不是我自己。他说那些话。这种三部分老话，关于所有的蕴，显然这个观点，是那个一旦和尚们意识到，这些东西不是他们自我的部分，然后他们就会放手。现在我不确定它会这样自动在我身上发生。

refrain：克制，忍住，反复说的话 aggregates：集合

convince me that in some sense, myself isn't in these things, I don't imagine my desire for donuts just vanishing miraculously, but that is said to have happened. To put a slightly finer point, on the logic of this, what the Buddha says, he explains to the monks, look, a disciple who gets the picture upon seeing that this, is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself, will become disenchanted with each of these five aggregates. And upon being disenchanted, he will become dispassionate, and upon losing the passion, upon becoming dispassionate, he will be released, he will be liberated. That's what the Buddha says, he will be liberated.

如果你让我确信，在某些意义上，自我不在这些东西里，我不会想象我对甜甜圈的渴望，只是奇迹般地消失，但是那据说发生过。拿一个有点儿更好的点，在这个的逻辑上，不是我的，不是我，不是我自己，将变得对五蕴种的每一个都不再抱有幻想。在不再抱有幻想上，他将变得平心静气，在失去激情上，在变得不动感情上，他将被释放，他将会自由。那就是佛陀说的，他将会自由。

vanishing miraculously：奇迹般的消失 disenchanted with：不再抱有幻想 dispassionate：不动感情的，不带偏见的

4:59 Now, this leads to a question and possibly a paradox.

现在，这导向了一个问题，可能是一个悖论。

paradox：悖论

5:03 The Buddha says, that you let go of all this stuff and you will be liberated, okay, but where are you once you're liberated on this map?

佛陀说，你释放了所有这些东西，你将会自由。好的，但是一旦你解放了，你在地图的哪里呢？

5:13 I mean, didn't we say, that according to Buddhist teaching, these five aggregates constitute everything about a person, and everything about a person's experience. So, I don't quite understand how this person steps away from all this and remain intact in theory, right? It sounds to me suspiciously like there actually is a self, and the self is being liberated. In any event, it's kind of hard to reconcile this, with the basic Buddhist teaching, that these five aggregates constitute everything there can be about a person, or a person's experience. The idea that you let go of them entirely, and you're still around and you're liberated. It's not obvious to me how that works. Now of course there are ways of resolving paradoxes. Paradoxes arise in various religions, in philosophical systems, and thinkers come along who purport to resolve them.

我是指，我们不是说，根据佛教教授的，这五蕴组成人的任何部分。关于人经验的任何东西。所以，我非常不理解，这个人怎么从所有这些里走开，还理论上保持完整，对吗？对我它听起来可疑，像实际上有一个自我，自我被解放。无论如何，有点难协调这些。对于基本佛教讲义，这五蕴构成了一个人，或者经验的任何东西。那个你完全释放它们的观点，你仍然在，你解放了。那是怎么起作用的，这对我不够清楚。现在当然，有很多解决悖论的方法。悖论在各种宗教中产生，在哲学系统，在声称去解决它们的思想者中发生。

purport：声称，自称，标榜 come along：来吧，一起来；发生，来到

6:11 You can do that here. Thinkers have thought about this. I think, we will get into this later, but I think a particularly auspicious possibility, is to think about the possibility, that maybe consciousness is what's liberated. There are other Buddhist teachings where that kind of seems to be the idea, but the fact is that in that one sermon, he talks about clinging to consciousness, and then letting go of the clinging. So, it seems like there's something that winds up outside of the system.

在这里你能那样做。思想者思考过这个。我想，我们将会深入这个。但是我想一个特别好的可能性，是思考意识是被解放的东西的可能性，。有其他佛教讲义，似乎是这个观点。但是事实是，在一个布道中，他谈论了对意识的依附，然后释放了依附，所以，它看起来像有些东西在系统外终结。

auspicious：吉祥的，吉利的

6:45 Well, there's an alternative to trying to actually resolve the paradox.

好吧，这有另一个替代方式来试着实际解决这个悖论。

6:49 We can just ask the question of, is it possible, that the interpretation of this discourse has been wrong all along. Maybe he did not mean to assert, that there is no such thing as a self at all. I mean, after all, in the sermon, he never says flat out, there is no self, no such self exists. And you might reply, well okay he doesn't say that, but we know that in Buddha's thought, these five aggregates constitute everything there is. So when he goes through, and says no self here, here, here, here, he's seeing self can't exist, but the fact is, he never says in the sermon, these five aggregates constitute everything about a person, and a person's experience. Now both of these things certainly did become Buddhist teaching.

我们可以只问这个问题：它可能吗，这个演说的解释一直是错误的。可能他并不是断言，完全没有自我这个东西。我是指，毕竟，在布道里，他从没有直接说，没有自我，没有这样的自我存在。你可能回答，好吧他没有那样说。但是我们知道，在佛陀的思想里，这五蕴构成任何事物。当他逐个检查时，说这里没有自我，这里，这里，这里，他看到自我不能存在。但是事实是，在那个布道里他从没说，有五蕴构成了人和人经验的所有东西。现在，这些东西当然变成了佛教的讲义。（华佼注：翻译到这里有些糊涂。）

7:43 That these are exhaustive categories, and that the self does not exist. There's no doubt about that, but as for the question of what was meant by this first sermon, there is the real possibility, that the idea was not To deny the existence of self. Okay, well, what was the idea? Well, one possibility is that he looked at these monks, at the trouble they were having kind of dealing with things. And he found they were all entangled with these feelings and mental formations. They were attached to their body and he thought, well, maybe if I put it to them this way. These are not part of the self.

这是繁杂的分类，自我并不存在。对此毫无疑问，但是对于那个问题，第一个布道是什么意思，有个真实的可能性，是这个观点不是否定自我的存在。好吧，这个观点是什么，有个可能性是，他看着这些和尚，看着他们对付这些事情时遇到的麻烦。他发现他们都纠结这些感觉和精神形式。他们依附于他们的身体和思想，好吧，可能如果我把它这样呈现给他们。这不是自我的部分。

entangle：被缠住的，纠结在一起的；陷入的，卷入的

8:33 Maybe that will be a constructive way to think about it. It's not that he's asserting a metaphysical doctrine. He just says, maybe I should tell him, you don't have to own this stuff. And in a way, when you look at the way he phrases it, that's kind of plausible. I mean, he keeps saying, this is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself. That's a very, kind of pragmatically, useful way of putting it. I don't have to own this. I don't have to identify with this. So, that is a real possibility that this was more of an instrumental doctrine, a pragmatic doctrine than an assertion of metaphysical truth. Now, I don't have a firm conviction one way or the other as to what was meant in this discourse. I

可能有一个建设性的方式去思考它。它不是他在主张一个形而上学的教条。他只是说，可能我应该告诉他，你不必要拥有这些东西。总之，当你看他形容它的方式，那有点合理。我是指，他一直说，这不是我的，这不是我，这不是我自己。这非常，有点儿务实的，有用的方式去呈现它。我不必拥有这个。我不必认同这个。所以这是一个真实的可能性，这更多是一个工具性学说，一个实用的教条，而不是一个形而上学的真谛的主张。现在，关于这个演说里的意思，我没有一个确定的确信，一个方法，或者另一个。

constructive：（讨论、意见或方法）建设性的，积极的，有助益的 metaphysical：玄学的，形而上学的 plausible：（解释或说法）似乎真实的，貌似合理的 pragmatically：讲求实效的，实用的，务实的 identify with：同情，认同，有共鸣的，认为……等同于 instrumental doctrine：工具性学说

would have to go through reams of Buddhist teaching to arrive at some sort of confident opinion. However, I do know someone who has gone through reams of Buddhist teaching. We've already met him in an earlier lecture of Bhikkhu Bodhi, who has translated reams of Buddhist teaching, including this particular sermon. And this question of how we should take this doctrine of not self came up in a conversation I had with him. And what he says is really interesting and on point here. >> And I would not say that the teaching non-self means that there is no self, whether we don't have a self. Though I would not say that when I explained it in that way, that it implies that we do have the kind of absolute, unconditioned, indescribable self. The way some of the Vedanta, the Hindu interpreters of Buddhism

我本想逐个检查佛教大量的讲义，来获得某种自信的观点。然而，我知道有人已经逐个检查了大量的佛教。我们已经见过他，在先前Bhikkhu Budhi的演说里。他翻译了大量的佛教教义，包括这个特别的布道。这个问题，我们应该怎样理解这个非我的教义的问题，出现在我跟他的谈话当中。他说的话真的很有趣，在这里。 >> 我不会说，教授“非我”意味着没有自我，无论我们是否没有自我。尽管我不会说，当我通过那个方式解释时，它暗示着，我们确实有某种绝对的，无条件的，不可描述的自我。一些Vedanta，佛教的印度教徒翻译者，他们的方式，

reams of： 大量，许多 Vedanta：吠檀多（古代印度哲学中一直发展至今的唯心主义理论） Hindu：印度教徒，印度教的

10:27 try to interpret the Buddhist teaching of non-self. What I would say is that the Buddha uses different modes of discourse depending on the context. And so when he's speaking within what I would call a contemplative context, within the context of inside contemplation. Or within the context of the aspiration for liberation. Then he takes us at the primary obstacle to the attainment of liberation, is the grasping or clinging to the mental and physical components of our being as a self. With the primary obstacle we could say, is the view of self that arises in regard to the mental and material constituents of our being. Or to the clinging to the notion that I am. That there's some kind of true,

试着解释非我的佛教教义。我将要说的是，佛陀根据具体内容使用不通的演说模式。当他在一个我将称为冥思的背景中演说时，在内部沉思的背景里。或者在对自由渴望的情景里。然后他把我们带到获得自由的最主要障碍上，即抓住，或者依附精神或者物理的自我的组成部分。在主要障碍上，我们可以说，自我的观点，关于组成我们的精神和物理部分。或者抓住我的观念。有某些是真的，

contemplative：沉思的，冥思的 context： （想法、事件等的）背景，环境；上下文，语境；在上下文中，置于背景之下；脱离上下文，断章取义的 contemplation： 深思熟虑，沉思，苦思冥想

substantial core at the center of our being. And so in order to debilitate and eliminate that clinging to the view of self and to the notion of a substantial I. The Buddha teaches not that there is no self but that all of the objects of clinging are not self. And the objects of clinging, or what he sums up in what are called the five aggregates, or the five constituents. Bodily form, feeling, perception, mental functions or volitional activities and consciousness. So within that framework, that liberative framework or that framework of contemplative insight. The Buddha teaches that one should contemplate all the constituents of being as not mine, not I, not myself.

牢固的内核，在自我的中心。因此，为了削弱和消除抓紧自我的观念，抓紧一个牢固自我的观念。佛陀讲授，不是没有自我，而是所有依附的对象不是自我。依附的对象，或者他总结的，被称为五蕴的东西，或者五构件。身体形式，感觉，知觉，精神功能，或者意志活动和意识。所以在那种框架当中，解放的框架或者沉思洞察力的框架中。佛陀讲授，一个应该苦思冥想所有组成部分不是我的，不是我，不是我自己。

debilitate： 使虚弱，使衰弱；削弱（组织、社团或政府）的力量 volitaional：意志的 framework：框架 insight：洞察力 contemplate：

12:26 But in other contexts, what I would call the context of ethical action or the context of karma and its fruit. The Buddha teaches, again, not that there is a self, but he will use the language of selfhood saying that, for example, one is responsible for ones self. >> Now reinforcing Bhikkhu Bodhi's view of this is the fact that there is a discourse in the teachings in which the Buddha says. That it is unwise to hold that as a true and established view, either that the self exists for me or that the self does not exist for me.

在其他具体背景中，我将要称为道德行动或者因果报应的背景，和它的果实。佛陀讲授，再次，不是这里有一个自我，而是他使用了自我语言说那些。例如，一个人为他的自我负责。>> 现在给Bhikkhu Bodhi的观点提供更多支持，这是事实，有个佛陀讲过的一个演说。它是不明智的，去把它作为一个真的、已被认可的观点抓住，无论对我来说自我存在，或者不存在。

ethical： 道德的，伦理的；合乎道德的，合乎伦理规范的 karma： （印度教和佛教信仰的）羯磨，业（认为今世的行为会影响来世） selfhood： 自我 reinforce：给予…更多支持;为…提供更多证据 established：已被认可的;已被接受的

13:08 And another thing that may lend some strength to this view is the contention of some scholars that the teachings, generally taken as earliest, do not include the flat out assertion that no self exists. And one of the scholars who has made this argument, he's named Peter Harvey. And he wrote a book called Selfless Minds. It's about this whole early Buddhist conception of the self. And he framed this whole issue in a really interesting way. Here's what he wrote. A philosophical denial is just a view, a theory, which may be agreed with or not. It does not get one actually to examine all the things that one really does identify with, consciously or unconsciously as self or I. This examination in a calm meditative context, is what the not-self teaching aims at. It is not so much a thing to be thought about as to be done. So in a way we're back to Adjun Cha who insisted that we shouldn't try to

另一件事是，可能让这个观点更扩展一点，是一些学者的争论的观点，这些讲授，通常作为最早的，不包括全力以赴地主张没有自我存在。其中一个学者，说了这个主张，他叫Peter Harvey。他写了本书叫做Selfless Minds。它是关于这整个早期佛教对于自我的观点。他用一个很有趣味、的方式构建了这整个问题。这是他写得。一个哲学的否定，只是一个观点，一个理论。那可能被赞同或者否定。它并不得到一个实际地去检查所有东西，一个人实际确实认为，（华佼注：此句不通。）有意识的或者无意识的等同于自我或者我。这个检查，在一个平静的冥想的情景中，是非我教授的目的所在。它不是一个要被考虑去做的事情。所以，总之，我们回到Adjun Cha，那个坚持我们不应该试着

contention： (争论或讨论时的)看法，观点；不和;争吵;争执；有机会获胜 flat out：全力以赴地

intellectualize about this no self thing. Because basically he was saying, quit talking about it and just sit down and do it. And I've gotta say that in some ways, I like the conception of the teaching that we're talking about here more user friendly. Than the teaching as it's conventionally interpreted as being this kind of doctrinaire thing. I think it's in some ways useful and for some people will be useful to think of the Buddhist teaching as just a way of framing the issue productively, as kind of instrumental and pragmatic. And here's why I think that. If you look at the liberation of these monks that happens in the course of the discourse on the not-self, it's not necessarily a very appealing sight, I think, for many of us. Because remember, the Buddha says they should become disenchanted from every aspect of the mind and experience. And that word disenchanted

试图用理智化这些非我的东西。因为基本上，他是在说，停止谈论它，只是坐下来做。我要说，在某种方式上，我喜欢这个关于讲授的概念：我们在这里谈论的更加对用户友好。比这种有点儿教条式的传统解释更加友好。我想它在某种方式上很有用，对某些人将会很有用，去思考佛教教义，仅仅作为一个有益的形成这个议题的方式，作为有点儿有帮助的和pragmatic。这是为什么我那样想。如果你看这些和尚的解放，发生在非我演说期间的，它不一定一个appealing sight，我想，对我们许多人来说。因为记住，佛陀说，他们应该从思想和经验的各个方面变得disenchanted。那个词disenchanted

productively： 多产的；高产的；富有成效的，有益的；创造…的；生产…的；产生…的 instrumental： 有助益的;有帮助的;起作用的 pragmatic： 讲求实效的；实用的；务实的

is sometimes translated as estranged from. One translation has it as revulsed by. So in any event, we seem to be talking about a pretty thorough alienation from everything here. And I don't know many people who would look forward to that. And this is a reminder, by the way, that in these discourses, the Buddha is typically talking to two monks. They often began with his greeting the bhikkus, which means monks. And that's a very special audience. Remember, in those days, these monks were people who had left society in search of truth and liberation. They were willing to undergo very harsh austerities in search of truth and liberation. In fact So harsh that the Buddha presented the eightfold path, which as we've seen is pretty arduous as a moderate thing, as a middle way, that isn't as demanding as what these monks were used to. Well, for an audience like that, they want full out liberation, and so an extreme teaching makes sense.

有时候被翻译为变疏远。一个翻译为厌恶。所以无论如何，我们看起来在谈论一个非常彻底的疏离，从这里的任何事情。我不知道许多人会期待那个。这是一个提醒。顺便说，在这个演说里，佛陀典型地在跟两个和尚谈论。他们常常以问候比丘开始，那意思是和尚。那是个非常特别的观众。记住，在那些日子里，这些和尚是那些离开社会追寻真谛和解放的人们。在追寻真谛和解放时，他们愿意忍受非常难的苦行。实际上如此艰难以至于佛陀讲了八正道，从我们看来相当困难的为一个中等的东西，是一个中间的道路，那不是像那些和尚过去那样作为命令。（华佼注：此句不太通。）作为那样一个观众，他们想要完全的解放，所以一个极端的讲授是说得通的。

estranged from：变疏远 revulsed by：厌恶 thorough alienation：彻底的疏离 greeting the bhikkus：问候比丘 austerities：苦行 arduous：困难的；艰巨的；费力的

16:22 For a lot of people, at least certainly to start with, they would like to have more modest goals. And so that's what I like about seeing the teaching of not self as saying, basically, look, there´s nothing in here that you have to own. There´s nothing in here that you have to identify with. This particular hatred, this particular jealousy, this particular sorrow, you don't have to think of it as yours. And in fact, Buddhism offers a technique, which we discussed, mindfulness meditation, that may help you in a certain sense, weaken the connection of these things. In a certain sense, even disown them. At least to the extent of not letting them get the kind of traction they used to get and control your thoughts and your subsequent behavior. Now, at the same time, anybody is of course as free to go as far as they will, all the way to the sort of liberation that the monks sought. But this interpretation of the teaching leaves room for anybody. It's just, you don't have to own anything here. And if you want to own nothing, good luck.

对很多人，至少当然是开始，他们想要更温和的目标。这是我喜欢的，看到非我的讲授，这样说，基本上，看，这里什么都没有，你必须要拥有的地方。你必须要认同的地方什么都没有。这特别讨厌，这特别令人嫉妒，这特别悲伤，你不必要把它当作你的。事实上，佛教提供了一个技术，我们讨论过的，正念冥想，可能会帮你，在某种意义上，削弱跟这些事情的联系。在某种意义上，甚至与他们断绝关系。至少，至少到那个程度：不让他们像过去那样有某种牵引力，控制你的思想和你接下来的行为。现在同时，任何人当然是自由的，想走多远就走多远。所有的方式，到和尚们追求的某种解放。但是这解释，对教义的解释，给所有人留下了空间。它只是，你不必拥有这里的任何事物。如果你想什么都不要，祝你好运。

disown：与…断绝关系;否认对…的责任;否认…是自己的 traction：牵引(术);牵引治疗； (对车辆的)牵引力，拉力； (尤指车轮对地面的)附着摩擦力

17:34 Now, it is still the case, even if this interpretation of that sermon is right. There is no denying that the idea of not self in the sense that the self does not exist did become part of Buddhist teaching. And it did include this emphasis on the concept of control that we saw in the teaching. In other words, the self as this controller, as this CEO is thought to not exist. So Buddhaghosa, who is one of the very most important Buddhist thinkers, who lived centuries after the Buddha, said deeds exist, but no doer is found. And this idea, deeds without a doer, has become part of the idea that the self doesn't exist, things happen, you do stuff, but there's no CEO in there. Meditators often report,

现在，仍然是这个例子，即使对那个布道的这个解释是对的。没有否认，非我的观点，在这个意义上，自我不存在，变为佛教讲义的部分。它的确包括了这个强调，在控制的概念上，我们从讲授里看到的。换句话说，自我作为控制者，作为CEO，被认为不存在。所以，觉音，佛教思想者中最重要的人物之一，生活在佛陀之后的世纪里，说事情存在。但没有做事的人找不到。这个观点，事情没有做事的人，变为了自我不存在的观念的一部分。事情发生，你做这些事情，但是没有CEO。冥想者常常报道，

buddhaghosa： 觉音

those meditators who get so far into the practice that this all makes sense to them, they talk about thoughts without a thinker. They see their thoughts, but they become convinced that they're in some sense not the thing that generated the thoughts. And they also, by the way, these meditators, often put a lot of emphasis on the other theme we saw in the Buddha's discourse, impermanence. They, while meditating, are quite taken by the fluidity of things, and this feeds into their idea that there's no substantial core there. A lot of these meditators who say they have experientially apprehended the idea of not self, say it's been very important, made them happier, maybe better people, and in some cases they say it's been absolutely transformative.

那些冥想者，练习得很深入，所有这些对他们说得通。他们谈论思想，没有思考者。他们看见他们的思想，但是他们变得确信，他们在某种程度上不是那个产生思想的东西。他们也，顺便说下，这些冥想者，常常强调，在另一个主题上，我们在佛陀的演说里看到过的，无常。他们，在冥想时，非常容易被事物的流动性吸引。这助长了他们的观点，那里没有实质性的内核，说它是非常重要，让他们更快乐，可能变得更好，在某种情况下，他们说那绝对是革命性的。

take： (工作、兴趣等)使…去，使…前往 feed： 将…放到，将…投入(容器或装置中)

19:22 We're going to be hearing from some of these people, hearing what the experience is like, the experience of not self, and the sense in which it has made a difference. But, I want to be in position to assess the validity of their apprehension. In other words, I want to ask not just has it been a useful experience for them, but does it comport with what science is telling us about the structure of the mind. So before we hear from them, we're going to turn to the question of what modern psychology has to say about the self and we're going to do that in the next segment of this lecture. And we're going to find that actually there's more support for these meditative apprehensions than you might imagine.

我们将要听这些人说，说那种经验是什么样的，非我的经验，它变得不同的意义。但是，我想在一个位置上，评估他们理解的有效性。换句话说，我想要问的不只是它对他们是否是一个有用的经验，还有，它与科学告诉我们的关于思想结构的东西一致吗。所以在我们听到他们说之前，我们将要转向现代心理学对自我说的东西，我们将要在本讲的下一节做这件事。我们将要找到，实际上对这些冥想理解的有比你想象的更多的支持。

comport： 举止;表现 comport with：一致

Source:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/science-of-meditation/lecture/Xj7UN/what-did-the-buddha-mean