Atta, Niratta, and Anatta in the early Buddhist literature

本文共分五節，討論外道持的atta(我)觀究竟如何，佛教又如何用antta(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atta，它只不過是想像的產品。第二節介紹近代學者對atta一詞函義的種種看法。其中只有Conze一人發現，佛教講的atta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atta、atman二詞對等，單單關心atta與奧義書atman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atta見的常論者和持niratta見的斷論者主要思想。第四節分析佛教如何破atta的信念。在反駁atta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atta。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anatta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atta，並非奧義書的atman。

關鍵字

無資料

並列摘要

The present article deals with the non-Buddhist concepts of atta and their refutation through the doctrine of anatta. This article is divided into five sections. Section I discusses Nikaya passages which states which the atta 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 atta. Except for the lone voice of E. Conze who found similarity between the atta and the Purusa of the Samkhya, all other scholars who cared to ponder over this problem, seem to be preoccupied with the relationship that could exist between the attm and the Atman of the Upanisads. This may be due to the fact that these two terms-atta and Atman-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 atta and Atman is obvious, and a suitable methodology for such a study has been suggesed. Section III delineates the main features of the thoughts of the Sasvatavadins, Ekacasassatavadins, the ucchedavadins and the followers of the Satkayadrsti. They were the chief propagators of the atta 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 atta heresies except the Ucchedavada: I) To reject the opponent's view by showing the internal contradictions, a method which was later followed by Nagarjuna 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 Mahayana. Section V comes to the conclusion that the anatta doctrine was mainly formulated keeping in view the sasvatavada and the Ucchedavada. This is in conformity with some statements in the buddhist texts that the buddha preached the anatta doctrine as a middle way between these two extremes. It is also clear that the atta concepts of the Sasvatavadins and the Uccedavsdins cannot be identical with the Atman of the Upanisads. the Buddhist sages were aware of the fact the that the atta rejected by the buddha is 'ahankara-visayah' whereas the Upanisadic Atman is 'Buddhanam visayah'.