How to Compare Without Distorting 怎麼比才不扭曲

D1 Dharma and the West · 佛法與西方哲學Method · 方法Advanced · 高級about 30 min

見・比較的方法

diṭṭhi Pāli　dṛṣṭi Sanskritviews, and how to compare them

The verdict · 判定

The rule of this shelf: a comparison is sound when it says at which of three levels the likeness holds (the conclusion, the argument, the purpose) and at which it ends. The Buddha’s own test for any teaching was what it is for, so purpose is the level that decides.

這個書架的規則：一個比較，要說得出相似之處在三個層次（結論、論證、目的）的哪一層成立、又在哪一層為止，才算站得住。佛陀自己檢驗任何一個教法的標準，是「它是為了什麼」；所以，目的是作決定的那一層。

中文翻譯Every paragraph has a Chinese translation. Tap 中譯▾ under a paragraph to open that one, or use Show Chinese · 顯示中譯 at the top to open them all. 每一段都有中譯：點段落下方的「中譯」只開那一段，或按上方的「顯示中譯」一次全部打開。

1 · What the Dharma says · 佛法怎麼說

The Buddha among other teachers 身處眾多導師之間的佛陀

The Buddha taught in a crowded field. The discourses name materialists, fatalists, skeptics, ascetics of several kinds, and brahmins of the old religion, and wanderers came to him regularly to ask how his teaching differed from the others. His best-known comment on such debates is a story. A king has an elephant shown to people blind from birth. Each is led to one part. Asked what an elephant is like, those who touched the head say a pot, those who touched the ear a winnowing fan, the tusk a plowshare, the leg a pillar, the tail a pestle, and they come to blows. The Buddha’s verse on the scene ends: “Arguing, they dispute, the folk who see just one part.” The story is often told to show that all views are equally true. In the text it shows that a partial view defended as the whole is a cause of quarrels. The king who can see the animal is not in the same position as the men who cannot.

佛陀是在一個擁擠的場域裡說法的。經典裡提到了唯物論者、宿命論者、懷疑論者、好幾種苦行者，以及舊宗教的婆羅門；而遊方的修行者經常來問他：他的教法與別人的有什麼不同。他對這類辯論最有名的評論，是一個故事。一位國王叫人把一頭象帶給一群生來就盲的人看。每個人被帶到象的一個部位。問他們象像什麼：摸到頭的說像甕；摸到耳朵的說像簸箕；摸到牙的說像犁頭；摸到腿的說像柱子；摸到尾巴的說像杵。他們打了起來。佛陀對這一幕所說的偈，結尾是：「他們爭論、互相諍辯；這些只見到一部分的人。」人們常講這個故事，來說明所有的見解同樣是真的。在經文裡，它說明的是：把局部的見解當作全體來捍衛，是爭吵的原因。那位看得見那頭動物的國王，與那些看不見的人，並不處在同樣的位置。

A second passage concerns what happens when a teaching is taken hold of in the wrong way. A monk named Ariṭṭha had concluded that the things the Buddha called obstacles were no obstacle to him. The Buddha compared him to a man who needs a snake and seizes it by the coils or the tail. It turns and bites him. A man who pins it behind the head with a forked stick can hold it safely. “In the same way,” teachings wrongly grasped lead to harm and suffering. In the same discourse he gives the simile of the raft. A traveler builds a raft to cross a flood, and on the far shore he does not carry it on his head out of gratitude. The teaching is “for crossing over, not for holding on.” The two images belong together. A teaching has a use, and it can be picked up by the wrong end.

第二段經文，談的是一個教法被人以錯誤的方式抓住的時候會怎麼樣。一位名叫阿梨吒的比丘得出了這樣的結論：佛陀稱為障礙的那些事，對他並不構成障礙。佛陀把他比作一個需要蛇的人，卻抓住了蛇的身體或尾巴。蛇回頭咬了他。用叉棍把蛇壓在頭後方的人，才能安全地握住它。「同樣地」，被錯誤掌握的教法，導向傷害與痛苦。在同一部經裡，他說了筏喻。一位旅人編了一艘筏渡過洪水；到了對岸，他不會出於感激而把它頂在頭上帶著走。教法是「為了渡過去，不是為了抓著不放」。這兩個意象是一起的。一個教法有它的用處；而它可能被人從錯的那一頭拿起來。

A third passage gives the test by which he sorted what to teach. In a grove near Kosambī he picked up a few leaves and asked the monks which were more, the leaves in his hand or those overhead. What he knew and had not taught, he said, was like the leaves of the forest. He had left it out “because it’s not beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life.” What he taught was suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. Here is a principle for comparison stated by the Buddha himself. To understand a teaching, ask what it is for. Two doctrines that sound alike may serve different ends, and two that sound opposed may be doing the same work.

第三段經文，給出了他挑選「教什麼」的檢驗標準。在憍賞彌附近的一片樹林裡，他撿起幾片葉子，問比丘們：是他手裡的葉子多，還是頭頂上的多？他說：他知道而沒有教的，就像林中的樹葉。他之所以略去，「因為那沒有利益，與梵行的根本無關」。他所教的，是苦、苦的起因、苦的止息，以及道。這是佛陀親口陳述的一條比較的原則。要理解一個教法，就問它是為了什麼。兩個聽起來相像的學說，可能為不同的目的服務；而兩個聽起來相反的學說，可能在做同樣的工作。

2 · In standard form · 寫成標準形式

The argument that comparison is possible, and has rules 「比較是可能的，而且有規則」的論證

3 · How it has been done · 過去怎麼比

The mirror, the blender, and the conversation 鏡子、果汁機，與對話

The mirror · 鏡子

Arthur Schopenhauer 叔本華1844

Schopenhauer was the first major European philosopher to take Indian thought seriously. He read the Upanishads in a Latin version made from a Persian one, and called them the solace of his life. Of Buddhism he wrote that if he took his own results as the standard of truth, he would have to rank it above all other religions, and he was pleased to find his teaching in such agreement with it. The sentence shows the method. His own system is the measure, and Buddhism is praised for resembling it. He saw correctly that the Buddha starts from suffering and traces it to craving. He then read nirvana as the denial of the will to live and Buddhism as a pessimism like his own, and missed that the third noble truth is good news. A mirror gives real information about one side of the room.

叔本華是第一位認真看待印度思想的歐洲大哲學家。他讀的《奧義書》，是從波斯文譯本轉譯的拉丁文本；他說那是他一生的慰藉。關於佛教，他寫道：如果拿他自己的結論當作真理的標準，他就不得不把佛教排在其他一切宗教之上；而他很高興發現，自己的學說與它如此一致。這句話就顯示了方法。他自己的體系是量尺；佛教因為像它而受到稱讚。他看對了：佛陀從苦出發，並且把苦追溯到渴愛。然後，他把涅槃讀成「對生命意志的否定」，把佛教讀成跟他自己一樣的悲觀主義；而沒有看到第三聖諦是好消息。一面鏡子，給出的是關於房間其中一邊的真實資訊。

The blender · 果汁機

Aldous Huxley 赫胥黎1945

In The Perennial Philosophy Huxley gathered passages from Christian mystics, Sufis, Vedāntins, Daoists, and Buddhists to show that all of them, at their highest, teach one doctrine: a divine Ground of all being, with which the human spirit is identical and which it can come to know directly. The book is generous and made many readers curious about traditions they had dismissed. Its method is to select what fits and to treat the rest as local dress. Buddhism fits poorly. The Buddha taught that no self is to be found, and the early discourses decline to affirm a Ground of being. To make Buddhism say the perennial thing, the not-self teaching has to be read as pointing to a higher Self, which is the reading the Buddha rejected. The blender delivers agreement by removing what each tradition took most trouble to say.

在《長青哲學》裡，赫胥黎蒐集了基督教神祕主義者、蘇菲、吠檀多派、道家與佛教徒的文段，要顯示他們在各自的最高處，教的都是同一個學說：有一個一切存有的神聖「根基」；人的靈與它同一，並且能夠直接認識它。這本書很寬厚，也使許多讀者對自己原本不屑一顧的傳統產生了好奇。它的方法，是挑選合用的，而把其餘的當作地方性的外衣。佛教很不合用。佛陀教導的是：找不到任何「我」；而早期的經典拒絕肯定一個「存有的根基」。要讓佛教說出那句「長青」的話，就得把無我的教法讀成指向一個更高的「大我」；而那正是佛陀拒絕的讀法。果汁機交出來的一致，靠的是去掉每個傳統最費力去說的東西。

The conversation · 對話

Mark Siderits and Jay Garfield 席德里茲與嘉菲爾德2003, 2015

A group of recent philosophers trained in both Sanskrit or Tibetan sources and analytic philosophy have proposed that the traditions be treated as partners on a problem. Siderits calls it fusion philosophy: use Buddhist arguments to make progress on a question such as personal identity, and use Western tools to test the Buddhist arguments. Garfield asks Western philosophers to engage Buddhist texts as they would engage Hume, as sources of positions that may be true. This is the approach closest to the one used on this shelf. Its risk is the mirror in a subtler form. What gets taken up is what present-day philosophy can use, and rebirth, meditation, and the monastic life are set aside as background. The Buddhist would say that the arguments were made for the sake of that background.

近年有一群哲學家，既受過梵文或藏文原典的訓練，又受過分析哲學的訓練；他們主張，應該把這些傳統當作在同一個問題上的夥伴。席德里茲把這稱為「融合哲學」：用佛教的論證，在「人格同一性」這類問題上取得進展；並且用西方的工具來檢驗佛教的論證。嘉菲爾德請西方的哲學家，像對待休謨那樣對待佛教的文本：把它們當作「可能為真」的立場的來源。這是最接近這個書架所用的那種取徑。它的風險，是鏡子的一種更細微的形式。被拿來用的，是當今的哲學用得上的東西；而輪迴、禪修與僧團生活，被當作背景放到了一邊。佛教徒會說：那些論證，正是為了那個背景而提出的。

4 · Verdict · 判定

Three questions for every pairing 對每一組配對要問的三個問題

Each lesson on this shelf names the Western thinker closest to a Buddhist teaching and says where the likeness ends. The judgment is reached by asking three questions in order. Do they reach the same conclusion? Do they reach it by the same argument? Do they hold it for the same purpose? Take the pairing of the first lesson after this one. Derek Parfit and the Buddha reach the same conclusion about persons: there is no further fact, beyond a stream of connected events, that makes me me. Their arguments overlap in part. Parfit works from imagined cases of division and replication, and the Buddha from the observation that nothing in experience is permanent or under control. Their purposes differ. Parfit offers a true theory and reports that it made him less afraid of death. The Buddha offers a practice whose aim is the end of clinging. A sentence that says all three things is a comparison. “Parfit was a Buddhist” is a slogan.

這個書架上的每一課，都會指出最接近某個佛教教法的西方思想家，並且說出相似到哪裡為止。這個判定，是依序問三個問題得到的。他們得出了同樣的結論嗎？他們是用同樣的論證得出的嗎？他們是為了同樣的目的而持有它的嗎？拿這一課之後的第一課的那組配對來說。德瑞克・帕菲特與佛陀，對「人」得出了同樣的結論：在一串相連的事件之外，並沒有更進一步的事實使我成為我。兩人的論證有一部分重疊。帕菲特從「分裂」與「複製」的想像案例出發；佛陀則從這樣的觀察出發：經驗裡沒有任何東西是恆常的、是可以掌控的。兩人的目的不同。帕菲特提出的是一個為真的理論，並且記述它使他不那麼怕死。佛陀提出的是一種修行；它的目標是執取的止息。一個把這三件事都說出來的句子，是一個比較。「帕菲特是佛教徒」是一句口號。

The third question is given the last word because the Buddha gave it the last word. The handful of leaves makes purpose the test of what belongs in the teaching. Where a Western view matches a Buddhist one in conclusion and argument and differs in purpose, the lesson will call it the nearest view and will say that it stops short. That is a description of where each stands. It does not mean that the Western view is worse philosophy. A reader who thinks the purpose mistaken is free to prefer the view that stops short.

第三個問題之所以有最後的決定權，是因為佛陀給了它最後的決定權。那一把樹葉，使「目的」成為「什麼屬於教法」的檢驗標準。當一個西方的看法，在結論與論證上與佛教的看法相符，而在目的上不同，這一課就會稱它為「最接近的看法」，並且說它停在半途。那是在描述雙方各自站在哪裡。它並不是說，那個西方的看法是比較差的哲學。認為那個目的錯了的讀者，儘可以偏愛那個停在半途的看法。

Side by side · 並排比較

Five ways to compare 五種比法

	Three levels三個層次	The mirror鏡子	The blender果汁機	The wall牆	Matching lists配對名相
Who誰	This shelf這個書架	Schopenhauer叔本華	Huxley and the perennialists赫胥黎與長青論者	Hegel; “East is East”黑格爾；「東方就是東方」	Zhu Faya, 4th c. China竺法雅，四世紀的中國
What it does它做的事	Asks about conclusion, argument, purpose問結論、論證、目的	Measures the other by one’s own system用自己的體系去量對方	Keeps what is common and drops the rest留下共同的，丟掉其餘的	Declares the two incomparable宣稱兩者不可比	Pairs each foreign term with a familiar one把每個外來的詞配上一個熟悉的詞
What it gets right它對的地方	Says where the likeness ends說出相似到哪裡為止	Real points of contact真實的接觸點	That practice changes people everywhere修行在各處都改變人	That context gives terms their sense脈絡給了詞語意義	A beginner needs a first handle初學者需要一個起手的把柄
Typical error典型的錯誤	The three levels are not really separate三個層次其實分不開	Praises the other for agreeing with oneself因為對方同意自己而稱讚對方	Erases what each took most trouble to say抹掉各自最費力去說的東西	Cannot explain successful translation解釋不了翻譯為什麼做得成	The familiar term brings its own doctrine along熟悉的詞把它自己的學說一起帶了進來
A sentence it produces它造出的句子	“Same conclusion; different purpose.”「結論相同；目的不同。」	“Buddhism is pessimism.”「佛教是悲觀主義。」	“All religions teach one truth.”「所有宗教教的是同一個真理。」	“Buddhism is not philosophy.”「佛教不是哲學。」	“Nirvana is wuwei.”「涅槃就是無為。」

5 · The step the Dharma takes further · 佛法多走的一步

China’s first comparison, and what it learned 中國的第一次比較，以及它學到的事

Buddhism has been through this once already, and the record is instructive. When the sutras reached China, educated readers knew the Laozi, the Zhuangzi, and the Book of Changes, and nothing of India. In the fourth century a monk named Zhu Faya, whose students were “well-versed in secular works, but did not yet excel in Buddhist principles,” took the numbered lists of the sutras and correlated them with passages from Chinese books as aids to explanation. This was called geyi, matching concepts. The practice in that narrow sense was short-lived. The wider habit it stands for lasted longer. Early translators rendered nirvana by the Daoist term for non-action and suchness by a term meaning original non-being, and for a century Chinese thinkers debated emptiness as though it were the nothingness from which, in Laozi, all things come. The great translator Kumārajīva, arriving in 401, replaced much of this vocabulary, and his student Sengzhao showed case by case that emptiness in Nāgārjuna’s sense is neither being nor non-being.

佛教已經經歷過一次這件事了；而那份紀錄很有啟發性。佛經傳到中國的時候，受過教育的讀者熟悉《老子》、《莊子》與《易經》；對印度則一無所知。四世紀時，有一位名叫竺法雅的僧人，他的學生「世典有功，未善佛理」；他就拿經中的「事數」（那些編了號的名相），與中國典籍裡的文段相配，當作講解的輔助。這叫作「格義」。照這個狹義來說，這種做法為時很短。它所代表的那個更廣的習慣，則持續得比較久。早期的譯者用道家的「無為」來譯涅槃，用「本無」來譯真如；而有一個世紀之久，中國的思想家討論「空」的時候，彷彿它就是老子所說的、萬物由之而生的那個「無」。偉大的譯師鳩摩羅什在 401 年到來；他換掉了許多這樣的詞彙。他的學生僧肇則一個案例一個案例地顯示：龍樹意義上的空，既不是有，也不是無。

Two lessons can be drawn. Matching was a necessary first step, since no one can learn a new thing except by relating it to what he knows, and the Buddha himself borrowed and redefined the brahmins’ words. And matching has to be outgrown. Once it had the texts in better translation, the Chinese tradition developed its own tool for comparison, the classification of teachings, which ranks doctrines by the audience and purpose each was meant for. That is the test of the handful of leaves turned into a method. The step the Dharma takes beyond any theory of comparison is to treat views themselves as things that can be clung to. A comparison made to win, or to prove that one’s own tradition had everything first, is the snake taken by the tail. Made to understand what someone else was trying to cross, it is part of the path.

可以得出兩個教訓。配對是必要的第一步；因為沒有人能夠不靠著把新東西連到已知的東西上，就學會新東西；而佛陀自己也借用並且重新界定了婆羅門的用語。而配對也必須被超越。等到有了翻譯得更好的文本之後，中國的傳統發展出了自己的比較工具：判教；它依照每一種教義所針對的聽眾與目的，來為它們排序。那就是把「一把樹葉」的檢驗變成了一種方法。佛法比任何一種比較理論多走的那一步，是把「見」本身當作可以被執取的東西。一個為了贏、或者為了證明「自己的傳統什麼都早就有了」而作的比較，就是抓住了蛇的尾巴。為了理解別人當時想渡過的是什麼而作的比較，則是道的一部分。

6 · How to say it to a Western audience · 對西方人怎麼講

Open a door, then say where the room ends 先開一扇門，再說這個房間到哪裡為止

A Western listener usually arrives with one comparison already made. Buddhism is like Stoicism, or like therapy, or like the mysticism of his own church. Do not begin by correcting it. The comparison is the listener’s raft, and it has carried him this far. Begin by agreeing with what is true in it, and name the thinker if you can, since a familiar name earns trust. Then say plainly where the likeness ends, and give the reason in terms of purpose. The pattern has three parts: “Yes, like X in this respect. Unlike X in that one. The difference matters because of what the teaching is for.” People remember the second part best when the first has been granted.

一位西方的聽眾來的時候，通常已經做好了一個比較。佛教像斯多噶哲學，或者像心理治療，或者像他自己教會裡的神祕主義。不要一開始就去糾正它。那個比較是聽者的筏；它把他載到了這裡。先同意其中真的部分；可以的話，說出那位思想家的名字，因為一個熟悉的名字能贏得信任。然後明白地說出相似到哪裡為止；並且從「目的」來給出理由。這個句型有三個部分：「是的，在這一點上像某某。在那一點上不像。這個差別之所以要緊，是因為這個教法是為了什麼。」當第一部分已經被承認了，人們對第二部分記得最牢。

Sentences you can use 可以直接用的句子

The Stoics and the Buddha agree that our suffering comes largely from how we respond to events. They part on what to do about it.
斯多噶派與佛陀同意：我們的苦，很大一部分來自我們怎麼回應事件。至於該怎麼辦，他們就分開了。
Hume looked for a self and found only passing perceptions. The Buddha said the same, and then asked what follows for how we live.
休謨去找「自我」，只找到流逝的知覺。佛陀說了同樣的話；然後問：這對我們怎麼生活意味著什麼？
That is a real likeness, and it holds at the level of the conclusion. The reasons are different.
那是一個真實的相似；它在結論這一層成立。理由則不同。
The Buddha said his teaching was a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on. So the first question about any Buddhist idea is what it is for.
佛陀說他的教法是一艘筏：為了渡過去，不是為了抓著不放。所以，對任何一個佛教觀念，第一個問題是：它是為了什麼？
I would not say they teach the same thing. I would say they noticed the same problem.
我不會說他們教的是同一件事。我會說，他們注意到了同一個問題。
When Buddhism first came to China, people read it as a kind of Daoism. It took about two hundred years to see the difference, so there is no hurry.
佛教剛傳到中國的時候，人們把它讀成道家的一種。大約花了兩百年才看出差別；所以不用急。

Phrases to avoid 要避開的說法

“Buddhism is basically Stoicism.” 「佛教基本上就是斯多噶哲學。」

True of some conclusions and false of the purpose. Say “close to the Stoics on this point,” and name the point.

對某些結論為真，對目的則為假。要說「在這一點上接近斯多噶派」，並且說出是哪一點。

“All religions say the same thing in the end.” 「所有宗教到頭來說的都一樣。」

Kindly meant, and it erases the not-self teaching. Say “they face the same human problems.”

用意良善；卻抹掉了無我的教法。要說「它們面對同樣的人類問題」。

“Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion.” 「佛教是哲學，不是宗教。」

Both words are European categories, and it fits neither neatly. Say what it does: it offers arguments, practices, and a community.

這兩個詞都是歐洲的範疇；而佛教跟哪一個都不完全吻合。要說它做了什麼：它提供論證、修行，以及一個團體。

“The West thinks this; the East thinks that.” 「西方這樣想；東方那樣想。」

Neither side is one thing. Hume is closer to the Buddha than to Descartes. Name the thinker.

哪一邊都不是單一的東西。休謨離佛陀，比離笛卡兒更近。要說出是哪一位思想家。

Three languages · 三語對照

The vocabulary, in Chinese, Pāli, Sanskrit, and English 術語：中文、巴利文、梵文、英文

中文	Pāli	Sanskrit	English
見	diṭṭhi	dṛṣṭi	a view; a position held, and possibly clung to
筏喻	kullūpama	—	the simile of the raft
蛇喻	alagaddūpama	—	the simile of the snake
無記	avyākata	avyākṛta	undeclared; the questions the Buddha set aside
方便	upāya	upāya	skillful means
格義	—	—	“matching concepts”: correlating Buddhist lists with Chinese texts
事數	—	—	the numbered categories of the sutras
判教	—	—	the classification of teachings by audience and purpose
涅槃	nibbāna	nirvāṇa	extinguishment; early Chinese rendering 無為
無為（佛）	asaṅkhata	asaṃskṛta	the unconditioned, as distinct from Daoist non-action
真如	tathatā	tathatā	suchness; early Chinese rendering 本無
空	suññatā	śūnyatā	emptiness

Reading check · 理解測驗

Did it land? 讀懂了嗎

1. In the text, what does the story of the blind men and the elephant show?

2. What is the point of the simile of the snake?

3. What test does the handful of leaves give for what belongs in the teaching?

4. What are the three levels at which this shelf compares two views?

5. What did geyi originally mean, according to the earliest source?

Write · 你怎麼講？

Take a comparison you have heard or used yourself, such as “mindfulness is just relaxation” or “karma is fate.” Test it at the three levels and rewrite it as one accurate sentence.
拿一個你聽過、或者自己用過的比較，例如「正念不過是放鬆」或「業就是命」。用三個層次檢驗它，把它改寫成一個準確的句子。
A visitor says, “So Buddhism is basically Stoicism.” Write a reply of four sentences on the pattern: yes in this respect; no in that; the difference matters because.
一位訪客說：「所以佛教基本上就是斯多噶哲學。」照這個句型寫一段四句話的回應：在這一點上是；在那一點上不是；這個差別之所以要緊，是因為……
Which Chinese or English word for a Buddhist term do you think misleads most? Explain in 150 words what it brings along that does not belong.
你認為哪一個佛教術語的中文或英文譯詞最誤導人？用 150 個字說明：它帶進來了什麼不屬於原意的東西。

Go further · 延伸