我们误解了这个世界

Zhou: Western philosophy particularly emphasizes the self, whereas Buddhism has an essential theory that there is no self. This is a great difference. Ji: People are quite obsessed with this“self.”Every other religion also posits that there is a so called “self.” Buddha Dharma, however, propounds that what we identify as the“self” is in truth a provisional self, a mistaken assumption. Buddha Dharma views the world from the perspective of dependent origination and posits that all compounded things are impermanent, selfless, and empty in nature. Zhou: This is the most distinctive aspect of Buddhism. Ji: Anatman (no self) is a bit difficult to understand, because we usually live in a state of the self. When hearing “no self”, many people will be puzzled: then what do “I” count for? In fact, anatman does not refute the existence of this life phenomenon, but refutes the mistaken identi cations of the “self.” For instance, we regard our bodies as our “selves”, our identities and statuses as our “selves”, but all these are only of temporary relationships with life. ey are assumptions about the self which are acquired a er we were born, and are by no means true“selves”. However, as long as we regard these as our “selves”, we will become greedy and attached, which hampers ourselves from understanding the truth of life. Buddhism describes the “no self” to refute those mistaken identi cations of the self. Only a er refuting these identi cations are we able to see the original face of the “self”. Zhou: What is the original face of the “self”? Ji: What is self? This is a very interesting question. According to 94 Buddha Dharma, the “self ” that we now identify with is, in reality, an illusion. Everyday we pay close attention to ourselves, but have we ever thought: what, at bottom, represents “I”? We certainly believe that the answer to this question is obvious. In fact, when delving into it, we discover that the answer is brimming with uncertainty: we may think that our bodies are our “selves”, or our identities are our “selves”, or our thoughts are our “selves”, or our emotions are our “selves”, and so on and so forth. As a matter of fact, these things we deem our “selves” do not stand up to careful scrutiny, because they have only temporary relationships with us. Even our bodies that we cannot separate from for even a moment is also nothing more than a temporary anchor in this life. When this body has yet to be born or has already perished, where will I find myself ? Zhou: In all identications of the self, the idea that my body is my self is the most robust, because without body there is no life in this present reincarnation, and thus “I” will not exist in this present lifetime. Ji: This identication of the “self” is nothing more than a blind and strained interpretation, a wishful thinking. If we regard this temporary relationship between body and self as the foundation of our existence, then we will rely heavily on this relationship and even wish it to be eternal, which will incur miseries. For example, when we regard the body as the “self”, we will fear the death of the body; when we regard identity as the “self”, we will worry about losing this identity. Tere are also various other emotions when we cling to this relationship: anger, depression, pain … But what are these emotions? They are like tumors that grow on the body. Though they are connected to us, they by no means represent the “self”, and can even less be the “self”. The reason we are controlled by emotions is we regard emotions as our “selves”, and find numerous reasons to rationalize 95 these emotions, which, subsequently, control us instead. Zhou: None of these things you’ve described is the self. I find that quite understandable. First, external identity, status, and family relationships are not self. Second, one’s emotions and thoughts are not self, either. All of these things are, in actuality, concealing the self. Hence, after these things are removed, is there any self remaining? Or is there still something that positively remains?