你以為佛法是一種「生活的藝術」嗎?

中譯出處
簡體中文中譯出處

菩提長老

在許多我看過的佛教出版品,覺察到一個幾乎被視為必然的普遍作法,就是把佛教修行從信仰與教理的基礎抽離,移植到其本質由西方人文主義——特别是人道主義心理學和超個人心理學——所界定的一般世俗日常生活。

我想,我們可以看到很多例子,利用內觀禪修當成西方心理治療的附屬品或對等物。實際上,我並不過度擔憂心理學家使用佛教技巧來提升心理的療愈。如果佛教禪修,能幫助人們對自己感覺更好,或者能活得更加醒覺和平靜,這是好事;若心理治療師能將禪修當作心理治療的工具,我祝他們成功!畢竟,「如來並非握拳不教的老師」,我們應該讓他人擷取佛法,有效運用於利樂世間。

我所關切的是,現今教授佛法的普遍趨勢,用大量心理學語詞來改寫佛陀教法的核心義理,之後說這是佛法。然而這樣,我們絕無法從佛教本身的結構,看出佛法的真正目的——並非導致心理上的療愈、完整或自我接受,而是策勵心靈朝向解脫—對治所有造成繫縛與痛苦的心理因素,最後從中解脫。我們應謹記,佛陀並未將佛法教導成「生活的藝術」,雖然它蘊含於內,但佛陀教導的是更超越、無上的「解脱道」——通往終極解脱和覺悟的道路。佛陀所指的覺悟,並非贊揚人類的有限,也不是被動屈服於我們性格的脆弱,而是透過徹底改革,突破至全然不同的境界,來克服這些有限。

這是我發現最能掌握佛法的叙述:在出世間法最高的成就,我們克服所有人類的缺點和脆弱,也包括生命必然死亡這件事。佛道的目標,不僅在於具足正念地生活與死去(當然這是值得成就的),而是超越生死達到完全不死、無可限量的涅槃。這是佛陀追尋覺悟過程中冀求的目標,也由於佛陀成就正覺,使得這目標可在世間實現。這是如法修行的結果,亦是依佛教原架構修學的終點。

然而,當把內觀修行教導成只是一種醒覺的生活方式,在洗碗盤和換尿布時保持覺知與平靜,這目標便失落了。當佛法存在的理由——出世間法被删除時,在我看來,剩下的只是去除菁華、空洞無力的教導,不再是能導向解脫的工具了。正確修行佛法,確實帶來許多現世的快樂。但佛陀終極的教導不只關於現世樂,而是要達到世間滅——這成就並非存在於遙遠的他方世界,而是在這具有感官與意識的六呎之軀中。

Climbing to the Top of the Mountain – An interview with Bhikkhu Bodhi
(Insight Journal, Barre Center for Buddhist Studies Volume 19, Fall 2002)
原始訪談全文

What do you make of the fact that Buddhism is becoming so popular in this country?

It is not difficult to understand why Buddhism should appeal to Americans at this particular juncture of our history. Theistic religions have lost their hold on the minds of many educated Americans, and this has opened up a deep spiritual vacuum that needs to be filled. For many, materialistic values are profoundly unsatisfying, and Buddhism offers a spiritual teaching that fits the bill. It is rational, experiential, practical, and personally verifiable; it brings concrete benefits that can be realized in one’s own life; it propounds lofty ethics and an intellectually cogent philosophy. Also, less auspiciously, it has an exotic air that attracts those fascinated by the mystical and esoteric.

The big question we face is whether and to what extent Buddhism should be refashioned to conform to the particular exigencies imposed by American culture. Throughout history Buddhism has generally adjusted its forms to enable it to adapt to the indigenous cultures and thought-worlds in which it has taken root. Yet beneath these modifications, which allowed it to thrive in different cultural contexts, it has usually remained faithful to its essential insights. This may be the biggest challenge facing Buddhism in America, where the intellectual milieu is so different from anything Buddhism has ever previously encountered that in our haste to effect the necessary adaptations we may be unwittingly diluting or even expurgating principles fundamental to the Dhamma. I believe we need to be very cautious if we are to find a successful middle way between too rigid adherence to traditional Asiatic forms and excessive accommodation to contemporary Western—and specifically American—intellectual, social, and cultural pressures.

It might be counterproductive to attempt to import into America a version of Theravada Buddhism that retains all the customs and mores of Southeast Asia. But I believe it is essential to preserve those principles that lie at the very heart of the Dhamma, and to clearly articulate the proper purpose for which the practice of the Dhamma is undertaken. If we tamper with these, we risk losing the essence along with the extrinsic accretions. In our current situation, I think the main danger is not inflexible adherence to established Buddhist forms, but excessive accommodation to the pressures of the American mind-set. In many of the Buddhist publications I have seen, I have detected signs of a widespread program, regarded almost as obligatory, to extract Buddhist practices from their grounding in Buddhist faith and doctrine and transplant them into a basically secular agenda whose parameters are defined by Western humanism, particularly humanistic and transpersonal psychology.

Can you point to ways this might be happening?

I think we see examples of this in the use of vipassana meditation as an adjunct or companion to Western psychotherapy. Actually, I’m not overly worried about psychologists using Buddhist techniques to promote psychological healing. If Buddhist meditation can help people feel more comfortable about themselves, or to live with greater awareness and equanimity, this is good. If psychotherapists can use Buddhist meditation as a tool of inner healing, I would say more power to them. After all, “the Tathagata does not have the closed fist of a teacher,” and we should let others take from the Dhamma what they can effectively use for beneficial ends.

What I am concerned about is the trend, common among present-day Buddhist teachers, of recasting the core principles of the Buddha’s teachings into largely psychological terms and then saying, “This is Dhamma.” When this is done we may never get to see that the real purpose of the teaching, in its own framework, is not to induce “healing” or “wholeness” or “self-acceptance,” but to propel the mind in the direction of deliverance – and to do so by attenuating, and finally extricating, all those mental factors responsible for our bondage and suffering. We should remember that the Buddha did not teach the Dhamma as an “art of living” – though it includes that – but above all as a path to deliverance, a path to final liberation and enlightenment. And what the Buddha means by enlightenment is not a celebration of the limitations of the human condition, not a passive submission to our frailties, but an overcoming of those limitations by making a radical, revolutionary breakthrough to an altogether different dimension of being.

This is what I find most gripping about the Dhamma: its culmination in a transcendent dimension in which we overcome all the flaws and vulnerabilities of the human condition, including our bondage to death itself. The aim of the Buddhist path is not living and dying with mindfulness (though these are, of course, worthy achievements), but transcending life and death entirely to arrive at the Deathless, at the Immeasurable, at Nirvana. This is the goal the Buddha sought for himself during his own quest for enlightenment, and it is this attainment that his enlightenment made available to the world. This is the end at which the proper practice of Dhamma points, the end for which the practice is undertaken in its original framework.

This end, however, is lost to view when insight meditation is taught as just a way to live mindfully, to wash dishes and change baby’s diapers with awareness and tranquility. When the transcendent dimension of the Dhamma, its very raison d’etre, is expunged, what we are left with is, in my view, an eviscerated, enfeebled version of the teaching that can no longer function as a vehicle to deliverance. Though correctly practiced, the Dhamma does bring abundant happiness within the world, ultimately the teaching is not about living happily in the world but about reaching “the end of the world"—an end that is to be found not in the far regions of outer space but within this fathom-long body with its senses and consciousness.

So you do not think Dhamma is being taught as a path of deliverance?

The impression I get from what I’ve read in contemporary American Buddhist publications is that this aspect of Buddhist practice is receiving little emphasis. I hear of students being taught to accept themselves; to live in the present from moment to moment without attachment and clinging; to enjoy, honor and celebrate their vulnerability. Again, I don’t want to underestimate the importance of approaching the practice with a healthy psychological attitude. For a person troubled by self-condemnation, who is always dejected and miserable, the practice of intensive meditation is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. The same might be said of a person who lacks a strong center of psychological integration or of one who tries to deny his weaknesses and vulnerabilities by presenting a façade of strength and self-confidence.

But I have to emphasize that the training that accords with the Buddha’s own clear intentions presupposes that we are prepared to adopt a critical stance towards the ordinary functioning of our mind. This involves seeing our vulnerabilities, i.e., our mental defilements, not as something to be celebrated but as a liability, as a symptom of our "fallen” condition. It also presupposes that we are determined to transform ourselves, both in the immediate moment-to-moment functioning of our minds and in their more stable and persistent extension over time.

To take up the Buddha’s training is thus to draw a distinction, even a sharp distinction, between our characters (proclivities, dispositions, habits, etc.) as they are now, and the ideals to which we should aspire and seek to embody by our practice of the Buddhist path. The mental dispositions we must acknowledge and seek to rectify are our kilesas, the defilements or afflictions: the three root-defilements of greed, aversion and delusion, and their many offshoots such as anger, obstinacy, arrogance, vanity, jealousy, selfishness, hypocrisy, etc.

So the great affirmation to which the Buddhist path points us is not the wonders of our “ordinary mind,” but of the mind that has been illuminated by true wisdom, the mind that has been purified of all taints and corruptions, the mind that has been liberated from all bonds and fetters and has become suffused with a universal love and compassion that spring from the depth and clarity of understanding. The practice of the Buddhist path is the systematic way to close the gap between our ordinary unenlightened mind and the enlightened, liberated state towards which we aspire, a state which rises to and merges with the Deathless.

To reach this transcendent goal requires training, a precise, detailed and systematic process of training, and fundamental to this whole course of training is the endeavor to master and control one’s own mind. One begins with the development of such fundamental qualities as faith, devotion, moral virtue and generosity, proceeds through the development of concentration, and then arrives at direct insight and true wisdom.

到底是誰的責任?

前幾天寫了「站在你的坐骨上」,有些話還沒講完,例如說,該坐在什麼樣的椅子上這個問題。

很多人覺得花了大錢,買了貴參參(kùi-som-som)的設計師高貴人體工學椅,事情就解決了,腰痠背痛應該從此就遠離自己,日子應該就能過得幸福快樂才對。類似的道理,就好比有很多人覺得在高級超市買著標籤上打著「有機」字樣的食品(拉丁字母表達的,感覺會更有加成效果),吃下肚子就一定沒問題;絕大多數人也都認為,生了病,去看醫生(或者,去看名醫),刷了健保卡(或者自費給付更昂貴的藥材、新開發出來的實驗藥品),身體病痛的責任,就能夠順利轉移歸屬給其他人了。

讓我們先回到高貴人體工學椅的話題。Adrian Farrell 老師點出一個關鍵:「不論椅子設計得再棒,使用者總是會帶著自己過去的使用習慣」,「與其把錢花在購買這些名貴設計的椅子,倒不如好好學習如何使用簡單的椅子」。

我再翻譯一下這句話:就把名貴椅子的預算拿來上課吧,上瑜珈課、亞歷山大技巧課、任何能幫助自己認識自己的身體並且安全輕鬆使用身體的技能都好。

更簡單的比喻是,釣杆和釣魚技巧的選擇。我們的金錢預算、時間預算總是有限的。有限的預算,迫使我們非得明智地抉擇。

如果其他人來擔負照護我們自己身心的責任,這件事能夠長期有經濟並有效率地進行,未嘗不是一種選擇。但是,真的有這樣的選擇空間嗎?或者,真的有這樣的選項出現時,是不是意味著我們已經全然失去對於自己身心的掌控能力?這樣的狀況是我們樂於接受的嗎?

一位矽谷的中醫師談到前一陣子的 Nike 運動手環的集體訴訟案,Nike 和 Apple 對這件集體訴訟案提出和解和賠款,意思是承認這運動手環並不像廣告說的那樣,能正確計算使用者運動的卡路里消耗量。這位中醫師指出一般人常見的心態

這件事背後真正值得討論的是,為什麼那麼多的消費者願意花上百美金,買一個原本不到五美金的「計步器」?原因在於現代人對數字的迷思,認為只要有個數字去觀察、去遵守,問題就可以解決,至於數字怎麼來的、背後的理論根據、數字的代表性、準確度等等,就「太複雜了」、「不用多管了」。

你餵給我一個公式、一篇「科學報導」、一種解決方案(太多種還得花腦筋去思考,很累人的),我就照表操課,剩下的就沒我的事了。於是,人體工學椅再貴也值得買,哪個名醫要掛個號三五個月才看得到也得排下去。於是,花錢花時間上瑜珈課、上靜坐課應該就能有清楚可計算、可對價的收獲與報償

我們不見得有能力扛起一切自己身心的責任,很多事物都有限度,自然界、生命體也都侷限在某些條件範圍。但這麼說,並不代表我們可以把所有責任都丟給其他人,也不代表那是正確(或者經濟、有效率)的選擇。

前面提到的中醫師非常生動地描寫一種場景:

如此的演變十分可悲,幾年以後,很多人可能連自己吃飽了沒有、自己有沒有頭痛等,都得靠「穿戴式電子產品」來顯示數字,即使已經頭痛的在地上打滾,如果「頭痛指數」沒有達標,還只能在臉書上說:「今天很幸運,沒有頭痛!」

中部尼柯耶82經《護國經》(MN.82/(2) Raṭṭhapālasuttaṃ,中阿含132經《賴吒惒羅經》)裡有一句話,後來南傳佛教常常唱頌

atano loko anabhissaro

《賴吒惒羅經》中譯,「此世無護,無可依恃」,依莊春江中譯的《護國經》,「世間無庇護所、無保護者」,依 Bhikkhu Bodhi 的英譯,”[Life in] any world has no shelter and no protector”,依 Thanissaro Bhikkhu 後來的英譯,”The world offers no shelter, there is no one in charge”。

Thanissaro Bhikkhu 對這句話進一步的詮釋是:

You’re free to choose. You are free to write the story of your own life because there is nobody up there taking down the narrative from their point of view. You can write the story of your life right now. You can write one little bit of it right now. But sometimes that little bit can be very important. It can change the whole plot.

你可以自由選擇。你可以自由地編寫自己的生命故事,因為沒有人可以逼迫你採納他們的觀點。你現在就可以編寫你自己的生命故事。你現在也可以先只寫下一小小部分的故事。但有些時候,關鍵就在這小小的一部分,很可能就改變了整個故事情節。

下一次,出現了「看手機好累,怎麼辦?」或者「腰痠背痛,怎麼辦?」的問題時,或許可以試試看「你可以自由選擇」這句咒語。當然,自由選擇之後,責任,也就不完全在其他人身上了。

融合為一體之前

「除非能分辨出不同的事物,否則就沒辦法讓他們融合為一體。這對很多人來說可都不容易。很多人根本連自己的肩胛骨和上背的體感都分不清。」– Leslie Kaminoff

“You can’t integrate the pieces until you can differentiate them, and that for most people is a big deal – most people don’t even register on a sensory level that there’s a distinction between their shoulder blades and their upper back.” – Leslie Kaminoff

這個句子裡有個英文動詞很有意思,也不太容易翻譯:register。通常我們以為就是「註冊」的意思。在這個句子裡,register 指的是 “(often used in negative sentences) register (something): to notice something and remember it; to be noticed”(根據 Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries),要先能夠注意到、意識到、並且區辨清楚,然後還要能夠牢記在心裡。

我們的體位法練習過程,是不是真的能幫助自己去 “register” 自己不同部分的體感?試試看 tadasana,你認得多少?你記得多少?試試看 urdhva hastasana,能分清楚肩胛骨和上背嗎?其他的身體部位呢?

samasthiti-tadasanaurdhva hastasana iyengar

在 urdhva hastasana 移動手臂往上舉的過程,試試看,從正前方往上舉,從斜四十五度往上舉,從側邊往上舉,彎著手肘舉,兩手輪流舉。找到不一樣的感受了嗎?發現差別在哪些部位了嗎?這些體感,回到 tadasana 時,還能夠記得住,還能夠 register 嗎?

在講融合為一體之前,嗯,我們還有很多功課要做呢。

「站在你的坐骨上」,以及,船式 Navasana

現代人非常多時間,都是坐著的。現代人享有各式各樣的坐具,但在還沒有舒適的坐具之前,人們很可能是或者席地而坐,或者跪坐,就像是瑜珈裡的金剛坐(vajrasana)一樣。

vajrasana

(參見 FIXED GEAR, THE SORES AND THE COMPLEMENTARY DO’S,裡面列出 BKS Iyengar 的 “Illustrated light on yoga” 關於 vajrasana 的重點。)

該怎麼坐變成一個大問題。

除了軀幹要能輕鬆直立之外,和「坐」這個動作最直接有關係的,就是我們的骨盆,以及坐骨。

到底應該怎麼坐,照 Adrian Farrell 老師的說法,「從脊椎的角度來看,坐和站是非常相似的事情」。也就是說,如果我們知道該怎麼好好站著,那就沒有理由不這麼坐著。

簡單講,坐的時候,你的骨盆,應該「站在坐骨上」,平衡穩定(因此輕鬆舒適)「站在」坐骨上。

坐骨

椅面的材質、形狀影響也很大。再套一句 Adrian Farrell 老師的話,「如果你能站在上面,那你就能坐在上面」,想想看家裡的沙發,你能平穩地站在沙發上嗎?坐上沙發時,骨盆、脊椎變成什麼狀態呢?

很多人其實習慣是把「躺」在沙發上的「坍塌」當成「放鬆」。(類似的情況,在公車或捷運的座椅上,也時常出現。)

回想看看瑜珈課練習過的「船式」(navasana)。根據 BKS Iyengar 在《瑜珈之光》裡的說法,「身體由臀部保持平衡,脊椎的任何部位都不能碰到地面」(The balance of the body rests on the buttocks and no part of the spine should be allowed to touch the floor.)。(這其實是半船式 Ardha Navasana 的說明,只是這本書英文原文和中譯本裡的船式 Paripurna Navasana 都沒「步驟和技巧」的說明,而且在半船式的說明中也特別指出,半船式和船式這兩種體位法的差別就在於「腿部的位置不同」,可以推論出,脊椎和臀部該注意的事是一樣的。)

Iyengar Paripurna Navasana

Iyengar Ardha Navasana

通常我們對哺乳類「脊椎」的認識應該都是「7頸椎、12胸椎、5腰椎、骶骨和尾骨」。如果我們將依照這種脊椎定義,以及 Iyengar 在《瑜珈之光》裡的文字說明

身體由臀部(buttocks)保持平衡,脊椎的任何部位都不能碰到地面。

合在一起來看的話,大概就會知道,在船式要把腿伸得又直又高,而且同時「脊椎的任何部位都不能碰到地面」,幾乎是一種不可能的任務了(至少我真的沒辦法做到)。

平常我在教船式的時候,常常鼓勵同學,先別想著腿要抬得很高、伸得很直,而且把注意力帶回到「怎麼坐」的這件事:我們是坐在坐骨上,還是利用尾骨來幫忙支撐,變成「坐骨、尾尾三點共平面」,而達到看似表面穩定的樣子。

試試看吧:在地板上好好坐著,彎曲膝蓋(暫時不管要不要併攏),雙腳同時離地後,能不能回到「只坐在坐骨」(或者,「站在坐骨」)的狀態。尾骨呢?尾骨已經受到壓迫,靠在地面上了嗎?

不太清楚嗎?換這種方式試試:拿塊瑜珈磚,確認自己的坐骨已經穩定「站」在瑜珈磚上,然後摸摸看自己的尾骨。調整自己的坐姿,輕鬆坐穩,但別坐在尾骨上。再試著一隻腳離地,回地板,另一隻腳離地,回地板。接著再試試看,兩腳一起微微離地一點點(一點點就好,less is more!),能繼續讓自己的尾骨穩穩「站」在瑜珈磚上嗎?在這種狀態下,呼吸還順嗎?那些肌肉情不自禁、不由自主就啟動了呢?下腹、上腹、下背、上背的情況如何?Ok,感覺撐好久了,放下雙腳,回味一下剛剛的過程吧。

的確是有點辛苦,的確是不太容易。但比起模倣出照片裡的樣態,我自己是覺得,這些不同的嘗試,觀察,感受,好像有趣多了。

與其說瑜珈體位法是在做一些動作、擺一些姿勢,我覺得倒不如換個方式來理解:我們在什麼情境、條件下,進入另一種狀態,這個過程,我們付出哪些代價,我們得到哪些體驗。

下次上瑜珈課、下次搭捷運、下次坐在餐桌前準備用餐、下次拿著手機看著電腦螢幕躺在沙發上看電視,記得都試試看,體會看看,自己到底是怎麼坐,自己的尾骨到底是怎麼站著的!


  • 其實中文裡的「坐」,原本就是指「雙膝跪地,臀部靠在腳後跟上」,「抬起臀部,保持準備拜伏的恭敬姿勢叫『跪』;身體放鬆,臀部落在腳後跟上叫『坐』;由跪姿再彎腰把頭叩到地面叫『拜』;兩膝著地,伸直腰股,叫做『跽』」。(《王力古漢語字典》)

參見〈中国古代“坐”姿与坐具形式的演变〉

  • 這一陣子英國有些人注意到學童課桌椅的議題,不良的椅面設計,讓學童不容易輕鬆坐穩,反而會導致下背不舒服、腰酸背痛。參見Guardian 對事件的報導:Is your child sitting uncomfortably? Then we’ll begin。也可以參考亞歷山大技巧老師所關於此事所發起的連署說明

真正的聆聽

我常常聽演講。不是那種大型活動中心、會議室型態的演講,而是網路上下載來,用手機播放出來聽的,很簡單的談話。有時候是自己靜坐之前聽,聽個十來分鐘半小時,然後就繼續靜靜坐下去。談話的老師講些簡單或者深奧的道理,或者關於靜坐的技巧、法門,或者一些生活上相關的瑣事。

最難之處不在於語言文字術語的掌握,不在於道理的理解,而在於「聽」這件事本身。

靜靜地聽,仔細地聽,每一個字接著每一個字聽,不要穿插進任何一個字,任何一個自己的字,就像專心觀察自己吸氣吐氣完整的過程,不讓身體或腦子裡其他的狀況來干擾呼吸。專注地聽,只是聽。

只是聽,至少在人家講完話之前,只是聽。真的非常非常非常難。

不論對方是誰,一個句子才剛進自己的耳朵,腦子就開始迅速拆解、分析,進入資料庫搜尋比對,找到以前的印象,以前的記憶,曾經喜歡或者厭惡的情緒,聯繫到這件事那件事這個人那個人,或者擊掌歡呼讚嘆,或者面紅脖子粗反駁,繼續推理,繼續聯想,故事從這一幕自動演到下一幕,這一齣演到下一齣。

真的也才一個句子進來而已。

甚至不見得需要有「對方」。自己也可以和自己說話,自己也可以和自己吵架。(像是武俠小說裡說的,周伯通的左右互搏?)情況都一樣。才剛剛開始要「聽」,「聽」的這個行動就受到干擾、破壞、阻礙。「聽」就中斷了。表面上彷彿可以有熱鬧的對話進行下去,但不過是各說各話,沒有交集。

如果我能發現自己根本沒有在聽,我才能拉自己回來。我得全神貫注(但又不能緊繃),才能真正聽得進去。或者說,不只是「全神」,而是整個人,真的就是整副身軀加上全然的注意力、意識,全面地參與、浸淫在「聽」這個行動過程。這樣,「聽」這件事情才真的算數,也才可能有理解,吸收,接受,以及(如果需要的話)對話或是回應。

像是影片裡的音樂家一樣,以整個身體去感受,用全身聆聽。理解會從這個過程中誕生,還有情感,音樂。

或者像是這一段影片所描述的盲人聆聽雨點擊落在周遭環境與身上的感受。(請真的專注觀看、專注聆聽這段影片。)

前兩天在靜坐前又播放了一段談話,才聽個兩三分鐘,午後雷陣雨就落下來了。在雨點的聲響敲擊伴奏音樂中,我聽見老師又在念著,「給自己一次舒服的呼吸,整個身體……」。


* Evelyn Glennie 十二歲起「幾乎完全喪失聽力」。她用雙手聆聽,她用肚子聆聽,她用胸膛聆聽,她用整個身體聆聽。她改變了整個英國音樂學院的入學標準。她是一位充滿自信的打擊樂家。(可以參凌威的介紹文章
* 皮膚、觸覺、聽覺之間的關連,有非常多研究、報導,例如:Humans ‘hear’ through their skinPeople Hear with Their Skin as well as Their EarsMusic for Your Skin。 * 另一件相關的概念是「聯覺」(synesthesia),特別是聽覺→觸覺聯覺
* 第二段影片的故事主角 John Hull,著有 Touching the Rock: An experience of blindness,紀錄他自己逐漸失去視力的過程。參見 ‘Notes on Blindness’
* 十來年前的舊文:每一吋皮膚都是接受器,牽動每一根神經