法友飛鴻 388：向白瑞德教授請教法義

----------

我嘗試在 Gmail 的來往信函去撈出我們這老一代往來討論法義的情況，這或許和邱大剛 David 邱大剛 （David Chiou）「獅子吼網站」上的法義問答類似而有不同的色調與彩度。

　　對法義有疑問時，我通常跟菩提比丘、無著比丘、白瑞德教授 Rod Bucknell 和辛島靜志教授 Karashima Sheishi 提問，他們也都在百忙之中撥冗回答。有時候被我搞煩了，還會直接稱我的問題為「Stupid question 愚蠢的問題」。

　　但是，當學生的總要從笨問題開始問，久而久之，才問得到比較像樣的問題。

------- Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2011 5:57 PM Subject: SA 36 and SA 638

Dear Rod, I was side-tracked to SA 36 and SA 638 for other topics. I have two questions for your comments: Question 1: On SA 36, The Buddha is trying to explain what is the four (practices) for 'dwell oneself as the island, and dwell oneself with the Dhamma'. 《雜阿含36經》卷2：「比丘！當正觀察，住自洲自依，法洲法依，不異洲不異依。何因生憂悲惱苦？云何有四？」(CBETA, T02, no. 99, p. 8, a24-26) But from here to the end of SA 36, he did not explain 'what is the four', instead, he teaches to contemplate these five aggregates to be impermanent and non-self. And it does not fit here, it should be four instead of five. Then I turn to SA 638 and SN 47.9 & SN 47.13, all of them is consistent, they all refer it to the four mindfulness. 《雜阿含638經》卷24：「阿難白佛：「世尊！云何自洲以自依？云何法洲以法依？云何不異洲不異依？」 佛告阿難：「若比丘身身觀念處，精勤方便，正智正念，調伏世間貪憂。如是外身、內外身，受、心、法法觀念處，亦如是說。阿難！是名自洲以自依、法洲以[2]法依、不異洲不異洲依。」」(CBETA, T02, no. 99, p. 177, a7-13) [2]法依＝依法【宋】【元】【明】。 My question is, is it fair to say SA 36 is wrong at this passage? though, SN 22.43 did expound in terms of five aggregates? Question 2: 《雜阿含638經》卷24：「佛言：「云何？阿難！彼舍利弗持所受戒身涅槃耶？[16]定身、[17]慧身、[18]解脫身、[19]解脫知見身涅槃耶？」」(CBETA, T02, no. 99, p. 176, c11-13) For SA 638, the passage sounds like: 'Did Sariputta take his own Sīlakkhandha, Samādhikkhandha, Paññakkhandha, Vimuttikkhandha, or Vimuttiññāṇadassanakkhandha for Nibāna?' This reading sounds better to acredit it to Ananda himself and ask 'Did Sariputta take your own Sīlakkhandha, Samādhikkhandha, Paññakkhandha, Vimuttikkhandha, or Vimuttiññāṇadassanakkhandha for Nibāna?' Because Ananda is only a trainee, would not carry the last two items. Do you assume the Pāli passage carry an error? Best regards, Ken Su [16]定身Samādhikkhandha.。[17]慧身Paññakkhandha.。[18]解脫身Vimuttikkhandha.。[19]解脫知見身Vimuttiññāṇadassanakkhandha.。

---------

2011年9月27日5:57 PM(蘇錦坤提問)

親愛的教授：

　　為了某些議題，我正在將《雜阿含36經》與《雜阿含638經》並列閱讀。我想向你請教兩個問題：

問題1：

世尊在解釋「產生『憂悲惱苦』」有什麼原因時，提到「云何有四」：

　《雜阿含36經》卷2：「比丘！當正觀察，住自洲自依，法洲法依，不異洲不異依。何因生憂悲惱苦？云何有四？」(CBETA, T02, no. 99, p. 8, a24-26)。

　　但是，直到經文結束，我們並未見到「云何有四」指的是哪四項。經文解釋的是觀五蘊無常與無我。似乎和「四」沒關係。如果從《雜阿含638經》及其對應經典《相應部47.9經》與《相應部47.13經》來看，它們都提到「四念住」

我的問題是：《雜阿含36經》的經文是否有誤？(雖然，其對應經典《相應部22.43經》也確實是以觀五蘊來解說) ？

問題2：

　　《雜阿含638經》卷24：「佛言：「云何？阿難！彼舍利弗持所受戒身涅槃耶？[16]定身、[17]慧身、[18]解脫身、[19]解脫知見身涅槃耶？」」(CBETA, T02, no. 99, p. 176, c11-13)

　　《雜阿含638經》的經文，似乎世尊是問：「舍利弗以他自身的戒身、定身、慧身、解脫身或是解脫知見身入涅槃？」

　　從上下文來看，此問似乎是阿難所問，而非世尊所問。你認為巴利經文也在此出了錯嗎？

　　　蘇錦坤　敬上

------------------

Rod Bucknell 白瑞德教授回答

Sep 28, 2011, 10:56 AM

Dear Ken,

Good to hear from you. Here are my responses:

Question 1:

In SA36, it seems that云何有四 refers to 憂悲惱苦 . The answer to the question is that these four arise from failing to see the five aggregates as impermanent and non-self. The four are mentioned again near the end: 若色因緣生憂悲惱苦斷。彼斷已無所著。不著故安隱樂住。So, I don’t think SA36 = SN22.43 is wrong.

In SA638, the topic is again relying on the Dhamma, but a different example of that reliance is given, namely the four foundations of mindfulness. In SA36 reliance on the Dhamma is practised by contemplating on the origin of 憂悲惱苦 . In SA638 it is practised by developing the four foundations of mindfulness -- two different sets of four.

Question 2:

You are right to query this. The Pali parallel says the same. In a footnote to this sutta Bhikkhu Bodhi acknowledges that this is an “anomaly”, but does not explain it. He says:

‘These are the five “aggregates of Dhamma” possessed in full only by arahants. The ascription to Ananda of the last two aggregates (liberation and the knowledge and vision of liberation) seems puzzling, as he is still a trainee and thus not yet fully liberated. Such anomalies, however, do occasionally occur in the texts, as at SN55:26 (SN v 384) where right knowledge and right liberation, usually unique attributes of the arahant, are ascribed to the stream-enterer Anathapindika.’ (From The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, page 1924, note 160)

Sometimes it is good to be side-tracked !

Best wishes

Rod.

---------

2011年9月28日10:56 AM(白瑞德教授回答)

Dear Ken,

很高興聽到你的消息。以下是我的答覆。

問題1：

《雜阿含36經》「云何有四」似乎是指「憂悲惱苦」。所以經文回答說「若色因緣生憂悲惱苦斷。彼斷已無所著。不著故安隱樂住」。我不認為此處的漢譯經文有錯。

在《雜阿含638經》，主題仍然是「依法」，但是，以「四念住」為例來解說。《雜阿含36經》的 「依法」，是觀「憂悲惱苦」的因。

《雜阿含638經》則是以「四念住」為依法。

問題2：

　　你的質疑頗有道理。巴利經文的敘述與《雜阿含638經》相同。菩提比丘在腳註承認說這裡有些「異常」，但是未進一步解釋。他說：

　　「‘These are the five “aggregates of Dhamma” possessed in full only by arahants. 這是阿羅漢才會全部具足的五分法身。 The ascription to Ananda of the last two aggregates (liberation and the knowledge and vision of liberation) seems puzzling, as he is still a trainee and thus not yet fully liberated. 稱阿難有「解脫身」與「解脫知見身」似乎令人迷惑，因為阿難指是「有學」，尚未達到「心解脫、慧解脫」的俱解脫境界。 Such anomalies, however, do occasionally occur in the texts, as at SN55:26 (SN v 384) where right knowledge and right liberation, usually unique attributes of the arahant, are ascribed to the stream-enterer Anathapindika.’ 不過，這樣的「異常」偶爾出現ˋ在經文中，例如《相應部55:26經》就稱才「預流」的給孤獨長者達到「正智 sammāñāṇaṃ」與「正解脫 sammāvimuttiṃ」，通常這是阿羅漢的境界。(From The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, page 1924, note 160)　菩提比丘《相應部英譯》，1924頁，註 160」。

Sometimes it is good to be side-tracked !

--------------

SEP 29, 2011, 3:46 PM(蘇錦坤提問)

Dear Rod, I plan to go to DDM this coming Tuesday to check other renditions of Tripitaka for T150A and T735. And particularly for the copy of the article in Vetter and Harrison 1998. About Question 1: You are right, the Pali passage depicts this way "And, from what are 1 sorrow, 2 lamentation, 3 pain 4 displeasure, and 5 despair born?" (CDB, Bodhi, p. 883, line 5-6), If we count this way, it will be this way to say "from what are these five born?" instead of 《雜阿含36經》：「云何有四？」(CBETA, T02, no. 99, p. 8, a26). Furthermore, it should be pretty rare, if not never, to count this condition as either four or five items in both Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas. Anyway, in the first beginning, I intended to locate 「云何有四」 as four redundant characters in this sutta. Now, I would adopt your explanation simply to count them as 憂、悲、苦、惱。 Though it is odd to count them this way, but the alternative looks even odder. Question 2: The question remained unsolved. What is the Buddha's question? Did he ask that "Does Sariputta's Nibana take away any of your(meant Ananda) five Khandhas", or he is asking "Ananda, what do you think, does Sariputta's Nibana go with Sariputta's five khandha? " Under the vein of the passage of this sutta, why the Buddha throw this question upon Ananda, what is the logic to ask this question? Could you share your ideas with me about question 2 again? Best regards, Ken Su

----------

白瑞德教授回答Sep 29, 2011, 7:10 PM

Dear Ken,

Question 1.

Yes, the four (or five) are not really distinct from each other and would normally be considered just one thing (aspects of 苦). So it really is odd to treat them as four. But I can't see any other explanation for the Chinese version.

Question 2.

I think the motive for the Buddha's question is to let Ananda see that the death of Sariputta does not prevent Ananda from continuing his practice toward awakening. Even with Sariputta dead, Ananda can still develop the five Dhamma-khandhas and attain liberation. Do you find that this explanation make sense?

--------------

尾聲：

觀於第一個問題，佛光版《雜阿含36經》作：「云何有四？何故何繫著？云何自觀察未生憂悲惱苦而生，已生憂悲惱苦生長增廣？」

印順導師《雜阿含經論會編》作：「云何有因？何故何繫著？云何自觀察未生憂悲惱苦而生，已生憂悲惱苦生長增廣？」

帖主受此啟發，認為經文應作：

「云何有？因何故？何繫著？云何自觀察未生憂悲惱苦而生，已生憂悲惱苦生長增廣？」

所以回答為：

《雜阿含經》「有[8]色、因色、繫著色，自觀察未生憂悲惱苦而生，已生而復增長廣大。」(CBETA, T02, no. 99, p. 8, b1-3)，[8]色＋（色）【宋】【元】【明】。

標點應為：

「色有、色因、色繫著，自觀察未生憂悲惱苦而生，已生而復增長廣大。」

==========

觀於第二個問題，

《雜阿含638經》「云何？阿難！彼舍利弗持所受戒身涅槃耶？定身、慧身、解脫身、[19]解脫知見身涅槃耶？」」(CBETA, T02, no. 99, p. 176, c11-13)

這是世尊對阿難提問，雖然用意很難揣測，但是，整句並無問題。

巴利對應經典《相應部47.13經》則是世尊對阿難提問：「為什麼呢？阿難！舍利弗帶走你的戒蘊後般涅槃，或帶走定蘊後般涅槃，或帶走慧蘊後般涅槃，或帶走解脫蘊後般涅槃，或帶走解脫智見蘊後般涅槃嗎？」

既然，舍利弗入滅未帶走你的五分法身，你仍然可以繼續修習，而證入涅槃。

但是，這一問句雖然更清晰，卻引發了「阿難尚未具有解脫身與解脫知見身」的議題。

我們看王建偉、金暉的《雜阿含經校釋》如何解說。

他們在《雜阿含36經》是作「云何有四？」，在《雜阿含638經》則未對此作任何評論。

明法比丘的遺作《雜阿含經注》，在《雜阿含36經》是作「云何有因？」，在《雜阿含638經》則未對此作任何評論。