2017年2月28日 星期二

Another Country (film)


昨天無意中看了此部電影。因為沒從頭看起,所以不知道此英國片片名。
今天憑著幾個英文字,找出Wikipedia 此片的說明

Another Country (film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_Country_(film),

看了其英、中、文版,很有意思:

英文版解釋片名出處最詳盡*,日文版次之,中文版沒解釋:同窗之愛》(英語:Another Country,可能是80年代電影上映之片名),此次電影片名改成8個字,難記。

Title[edit]

The title refers not only to Soviet Russia, which is the "other country" Bennett turns to in the end, but it can be seen to take on a number of different meanings and connotations. It could be a reference to the first line of the second (or third, depending on the version) stanza of the hymn I Vow to Thee, My Country, which is sung in both the play and film, as well as referring to the fact that English public school life in the 1930s was indeed very much like "another country". In the hymn, the other country referred to is Heaven (or the Kingdom of Heaven), although this allusion does not appear to relate to the film in any way.


アナザー・カントリー』(Another Country[1]は、1981年初演のジュリアン・ミッチェル英語版舞台劇およびそれを原作とする1984年イギリスのドラマ映画。1930年代イングランドの全寮制のパブリックスクールを舞台に、同性愛共産主義に傾倒していくエリート学生たちを描いている。主人公ガイ・ベネットは、実在のスパイ「ケンブリッジ・ファイヴ」のメンバーの1人だったガイ・バージェス英語版をモデルにしている[2]
第37回カンヌ国際映画祭芸術貢献賞受賞。



  1. ^ タイトルはイギリスの外交官セシル・スプリング・ライス英語版の詩「我は汝に誓う、我が祖国よ」の第3連「I Vow to Thee, My Country」から採られている。グスターヴ・ホルストの「「惑星」の「木星」」に合せて、この詩が歌われるイギリスの愛国歌の一つ。

中文版故事很詳細。可不懂得英國私校中House之意義,只翻譯成宿舍。對於兩位高年級特優生的God,翻譯成"舍神"。




2017年2月27日 星期一

'The Sound of the One Hand' 巴壺天著《禪骨詩心集》林義正編;童元方 《為彼此的鄉愁》引詩







'The Sound of the One Hand'
Ancient Mysteries (Sort of) Revealed

BY MEGAN VOLPERT


27 February 2017
CAN A RELIGIOUS TEXT BE REVOLUTIONARY IF IT'S ALSO INSCRUTABLE?


THE SOUND OF THE ONE HAND: 281 ZEN KOANS WITH ANSWERS
YOEL HOFFMANN
(NYRB CLASSICS)
US: DEC 2016


AMAZON


The Sound of the One Hand is a subversive book. Its very existence is controversial. If you want to become a Zen Buddhist monk, you’ve got to spend between one and five years in a monastery learning from the masters. The study of Zen is a highly complicated endeavor that for centuries has been accomplished solely through direct one-on-one conversation with one’s master. You can take notes, but these notes are extremely private and not to be shared.


In 1916, a student of Zen published a set of these notes, which represent basically the entire complicated curriculum map of Zen Buddhism. This process of how an aspiring monk would be questioned by an elder master through koans was a closely guarded secret; the nearest Western equivalent might be the release of the Church of Scientology’s byzantine map of all the requirements for its levels of spiritual ascendancy, although Scientology is a very young American cult compared to the thousand years that Buddhism has been in comparatively respectable circulation.
When the manuscript by an unknown authors was first published in Japan, it went by the title of A Critique of Present-day Pseudo-Zen, strong words from someone who had clearly graduated to the status of master but was simultaneously unsatisfied with the loose, more rock star, modern Zen pedagogies that began to proliferate in the early 20th century. This critic was hoping to restore a sense of accountability to 300 or more years prior, to the proper ancient way of educating subsequent generations of monks, and knew he would be considered a sort of whistleblower.
Of necessity then, the manuscript was published under a pseudonym, Hau Hoo. In English, that’s “The Arch-Destroyer of the Existent Order”, and indeed, that’s how the book was greeted. In the last hundred years or so, those interested in Judaism have often sought to augment their own spiritual practice with elements of Buddhism. In 1975, this yielded a Hebrew translation of The Sound of One Hand by Yoel Hoffman. In 2016, Hoffman additionally provided this English translation.
That alone is quite a bit to think about. But now, why might someone read this book? Without the aid of direct instruction from a master, there’s simply no way that the text itself contains enough wisdom to carry forward a novice’s quest to advance far along the path of Zen. If this book cannot produce a master of Zen, who else might want to read it or what else might it accomplish? This is where we must examine the contents of its four parts, which are each meant to serve a distinct purpose.
Part One contains two differing translations of the two most important koans, the sound of the one hand and the nature of mu. The sound of the one hand is essentially a proof of what Westerners might call transcendentalism, or the interconnectedness of all things. Mu is nothingness, or emptiness, or death. These are not one-question-one-answer koans, but an extended meditation that digs increasingly deeply on the concepts of the one hand and mu as the master proceeds.
The two slightly different but generally parallel methods of questioning come from the Inzan School and the Takuju School, which Westerners might think of along the lines of differing sects of Christianity, like Presbyterians and Baptists. Monks raised in one school do not necessarily agree with those of another school, and so examining the most essential two koans side by side from two schools may be valuable to get a feel for the concreteness of these differences.
For example, Inzan says, “It’s said that if one hears the sound of the one hand, one becomes a Buddha. Well then, how will you do it?” But Tajuku says, “If you’ve heard the sound of the one hand, can you be absolutely delivered from life and death, or can’t you?” These questions have the same answer, but their differences in tone and even in instructional content are hardly insignificant.
Part Two contains miscellaneous koans. Frankly, I found this part quite useless. Based on the half dozen Eastern philosophy courses I took as an undergrad and the half dozen books on Buddhism I’ve read since then, I was not able to make anything but the barest sense of the meanings behind these koans. Here are two random examples from page 45:
15. Master: Without using your hands, make this old monk get up.
Answer: “Ahhh.” With heavy sigh, the pupil imitates an old man getting up.
18. Master: In the middle of a duck egg, grind the tea mill.
Answer: The pupil walks in a circle around the room.
The idea of koan 15 is that the pupil and master are one, so making the master get up is free to mean that the pupil can get up. No hands are required. The idea behind koan 18 may be similar, in that the room is meant to be of one interchangeable piece with the tea mill and the duck egg, so grinding the tea mill is free to mean that the pupil can circle the room. No actual tea mill or duck egg is required.
But do the duck egg and the tea mill have a special significance? Why not a chicken egg? Why not a pepper mill? Can this lesson be given outdoors, or must it be contained within a room? I have no clue. I am untrained in the details and this book is not interested in providing commentary on the humor here, or the rules and procedures that govern these answers, or their cultural context. Does it matter when the master references Kyoto instead of some other city? Must the mountain always be Fuji? Western readers likely won’t have an instinctive connection to the symbolism or baggage of many specific references in these koans, which necessarily limits their instructive power.
Part Three contains 144 more well-known, standard koans. For example, the world is a grain of rice, the mind as it is, use the air as paper, and which one is real. These koans tend to be a little longer in form and somewhat more oriented toward story-telling in their scope. This section reads more like mythology, where the meanings may generally be discerned with more ease than in the second section.
Part Four provides notes and commentary on the previous three sections. Here are the notes on koans 15 through 18 from above:
The pupil disregards the condition of ‘not using hands’ and simply refers to his or the master’s ‘getting up.’ He disregards ‘Mt. Fuji’ and simply ‘walks’; he cannot ‘grind a mill in a duck egg’ but he can do the grinding. The four questions are of the same pattern—demanding an action yet posing an absurd condition. The pupil performs only the desired action. Through the immediacy of his response, he makes the absurdities vanish” (202).
What?! This explanation poses perhaps just as many questions as it answers. Monks may spend their entire lives in conversational contemplation of the wisdom contained within these 300 pages. Serious English-speaking practitioners in the West will no doubt be pleased by this written companion to their formal study. I found some value, some interest or insight, some Zen surrealism as I turned each page. The Sound of the One Hand is filled with answers—just not easy ones.

THE SOUND OF THE ONE HAND: 281 ZEN KOANS WITH ANSWERS




我的好友吳國精先生與童元方教授事舊識, 我很喜歡他輔仁大學註冊時,童元方代替感冒的妹妹來註冊.....好幾十年之後,吳先生在新竹請客:陳之藩和童元方。
2013年歲末,童教授的兒子要到我的住處附近的"女巫店"開唱,吳先生趁機來台北,請我們一群朋友大快朵頤;他知道我與東海的關係,託我辦事.......。
2016.12.3,我又有機會聽童元方教授主持的會議,共同參加大會的晚餐,她坐在我隔座,所以可以多談。
簡單地說說此次"會談"的部分故事:首先,談台中學者的交遊圈,必須包括孫立人將軍的部屬:東海的柳作梅教授、童元方的父親 (北京大學畢業) ......
童教授談與天下文化出版公司的緣分。
他也談五月初爾雅出版社的餐會:客人有白先勇和廖先生等。
他不認識的簡白兄邀她寫中國時報"三少四壯"專欄......
我與談談近日的開課和她的腰傷......
我在會議之後想起幾月前為了童元方 在《為彼此的鄉愁》引巴壺天的詩的"異文",忙了一陣,如今可以當面請教,她的答覆大出我意外
2016.12.3
鍾漢清: 請問童元方老師, 您在《為彼此的鄉愁》中引巴壺天的詩,根據的是哪一版本?

童元方 :這是陳之藩先生曾背給我聽的詩,我們都很喜歡。我請陳先生再背誦,我挑出"窗外薄陰非日暮,池邊吟詩與花開。"當《為彼此的鄉愁》的"部分"之引詩......。 (讀者或許知道童教授的第一本書:《一樣花開︰哈佛十年散記》,(台北:爾雅出版社,1996年);我認為這本書個章蘊釀久,都很可觀。同教授笑說:"你是說,我近年的書不夠好?",我說,冤枉啦,我迷信作家的第一本書!

!!!!!

2016.9.19
林老師:請問出處?
"窗外薄陰非日暮,池邊吟詩與花開。" --巴壺天的詩 出自童元方《為彼此的鄉愁》(香港:牛津,2005,頁126)。
~~~2016.9.19
林義正 此乃巴師早年詩稿《亦廬賸稿》中「辛卯上巳臺北賓館禊集得杯字」詩中的句子。原詩作於1951年,「萬變猶存此海隈,不然無地著吾哀;未孤氣類仍成世,已醉玄言那待杯;簾外輕陰非日暮,池邊吟思與花開;來年可有西流水,一為神州祓劫灰。」今收入《禪骨詩心集》(台北:東大1988.9 ),頁265。按童元方所引詩句與原稿有些出入,但「吟思」恐是「吟詩」之訛,出版時未校出,依詩意當作「吟詩」。
Hanching Chung 林老師,三民版《禪骨詩心集》只有181頁。何來265頁?......頁173找到!
林義正 我引用的是初版,直排大字版,全274頁。若橫排,則頁碼已改移了。
Hanching Chung 了解:還有薄陰與輕陰
林義正 簾外與窗外的差異。
Hanching Chung 童元方似乎特別注意"花開",他的第一本書書名似為"一樣花開"。


~~~~~

此次翻巴壺天著《禪骨詩心集》,注意到有《魯拜集》第29、第68兩首的翻譯和譯註 (略),頁175


XXIX 
Into this Universe, and Why not knowing 
Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing; 
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste, 
I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing. 

墜地如水流,自家主難作;未知何從來,亦未悉何故。去時如風吹,欲住不得住;吹過荒漠間,知復向甚處?

LXVIII 
We are no other than a moving row 
Of Magic Shadow-shapes that come and go 
Round with the Sun-illumined Lantern held 
In Midnight by the Master of the Show; 

宇宙魔燈耳,其焰為晴曦;吾儕僅一隊,燈上幻影兒,憧憧來與往,但繞燈焰馳;而燈復有主,中夜持戲之。

http://classics.mit.edu/Khayyam/rubaiyat.html
The Rubaiyat 
By Omar Khayyam



2016.7.23
林義正:"師常言作品問世,在精不必多......." (頁180)
讀東海時1971-75,聽過巴壺天 (1905-1987)老師名字,也知道他教禪學相關科目。
今天CBETA會後,從台北中山堂附近走往二二八公園,我提議到桃源街吃牛肉麵,台大退休的林義正老師說,要將胃口留給家人,所以我們邊走邊物色商家......過重慶南路,聊許多買書的經驗、故事,提到三民書店,他堅持要過去那兒,買一本他為恩師編的書《骨詩心集》送我: (我們登了4樓層,一些協商,才買到):
巴壺天著《禪骨詩心集》林義正編,台北:東大圖書公司, 1988,1990再刷,2004年2版
這本書有意思,林老師說,從直排改成橫排,他不知道,有點生氣。
最有意思的是,我發現書內一張貼紙,蓋印,文曰:
"本書中任何違反一個中國原則
 的立場和內容詞句一律不予承認"

我跟林老師說,此書可能從中國旅行歸來。
林老師再扉頁提了:"漢清同道存念。"  真的非常感謝。

傅成綸︰《禪宗話頭之邏輯的解柝》;THE SOUND OF THE ONE HAND: 281 ZEN KOANS WITH ANSWERS



'The Sound of the One Hand'

Ancient Mysteries (Sort of) Revealed

BY MEGAN VOLPERT

27 February 2017
CAN A RELIGIOUS TEXT BE REVOLUTIONARY IF IT'S ALSO INSCRUTABLE?


cover art

THE SOUND OF THE ONE HAND: 281 ZEN KOANS WITH ANSWERS

YOEL HOFFMANN

(NYRB CLASSICS)
US: DEC 2016

The Sound of the One Hand is a subversive book. Its very existence is controversial. If you want to become a Zen Buddhist monk, you’ve got to spend between one and five years in a monastery learning from the masters. The study of Zen is a highly complicated endeavor that for centuries has been accomplished solely through direct one-on-one conversation with one’s master. You can take notes, but these notes are extremely private and not to be shared.
In 1916, a student of Zen published a set of these notes, which represent basically the entire complicated curriculum map of Zen Buddhism. This process of how an aspiring monk would be questioned by an elder master through koans was a closely guarded secret; the nearest Western equivalent might be the release of the Church of Scientology’s byzantine map of all the requirements for its levels of spiritual ascendancy, although Scientology is a very young American cult compared to the thousand years that Buddhism has been in comparatively respectable circulation.
When the manuscript by an unknown authors was first published in Japan, it went by the title of A Critique of Present-day Pseudo-Zen, strong words from someone who had clearly graduated to the status of master but was simultaneously unsatisfied with the loose, more rock star, modern Zen pedagogies that began to proliferate in the early 20th century. This critic was hoping to restore a sense of accountability to 300 or more years prior, to the proper ancient way of educating subsequent generations of monks, and knew he would be considered a sort of whistleblower.
Of necessity then, the manuscript was published under a pseudonym, Hau Hoo. In English, that’s “The Arch-Destroyer of the Existent Order”, and indeed, that’s how the book was greeted. In the last hundred years or so, those interested in Judaism have often sought to augment their own spiritual practice with elements of Buddhism. In 1975, this yielded a Hebrew translation of The Sound of One Hand by Yoel Hoffman. In 2016, Hoffman additionally provided this English translation.
That alone is quite a bit to think about. But now, why might someone read this book? Without the aid of direct instruction from a master, there’s simply no way that the text itself contains enough wisdom to carry forward a novice’s quest to advance far along the path of Zen. If this book cannot produce a master of Zen, who else might want to read it or what else might it accomplish? This is where we must examine the contents of its four parts, which are each meant to serve a distinct purpose.
Part One contains two differing translations of the two most important koans, the sound of the one hand and the nature of mu. The sound of the one hand is essentially a proof of what Westerners might call transcendentalism, or the interconnectedness of all things. Mu is nothingness, or emptiness, or death. These are not one-question-one-answer koans, but an extended meditation that digs increasingly deeply on the concepts of the one hand and mu as the master proceeds.
The two slightly different but generally parallel methods of questioning come from the Inzan School and the Takuju School, which Westerners might think of along the lines of differing sects of Christianity, like Presbyterians and Baptists. Monks raised in one school do not necessarily agree with those of another school, and so examining the most essential two koans side by side from two schools may be valuable to get a feel for the concreteness of these differences.
For example, Inzan says, “It’s said that if one hears the sound of the one hand, one becomes a Buddha. Well then, how will you do it?” But Tajuku says, “If you’ve heard the sound of the one hand, can you be absolutely delivered from life and death, or can’t you?” These questions have the same answer, but their differences in tone and even in instructional content are hardly insignificant.
Part Two contains miscellaneous koans. Frankly, I found this part quite useless. Based on the half dozen Eastern philosophy courses I took as an undergrad and the half dozen books on Buddhism I’ve read since then, I was not able to make anything but the barest sense of the meanings behind these koans. Here are two random examples from page 45:
15. Master: Without using your hands, make this old monk get up.
Answer: “Ahhh.” With heavy sigh, the pupil imitates an old man getting up.
18. Master: In the middle of a duck egg, grind the tea mill.
Answer: The pupil walks in a circle around the room.
The idea of koan 15 is that the pupil and master are one, so making the master get up is free to mean that the pupil can get up. No hands are required. The idea behind koan 18 may be similar, in that the room is meant to be of one interchangeable piece with the tea mill and the duck egg, so grinding the tea mill is free to mean that the pupil can circle the room. No actual tea mill or duck egg is required.
But do the duck egg and the tea mill have a special significance? Why not a chicken egg? Why not a pepper mill? Can this lesson be given outdoors, or must it be contained within a room? I have no clue. I am untrained in the details and this book is not interested in providing commentary on the humor here, or the rules and procedures that govern these answers, or their cultural context. Does it matter when the master references Kyoto instead of some other city? Must the mountain always be Fuji? Western readers likely won’t have an instinctive connection to the symbolism or baggage of many specific references in these koans, which necessarily limits their instructive power.
Part Three contains 144 more well-known, standard koans. For example, the world is a grain of rice, the mind as it is, use the air as paper, and which one is real. These koans tend to be a little longer in form and somewhat more oriented toward story-telling in their scope. This section reads more like mythology, where the meanings may generally be discerned with more ease than in the second section.
Part Four provides notes and commentary on the previous three sections. Here are the notes on koans 15 through 18 from above:
The pupil disregards the condition of ‘not using hands’ and simply refers to his or the master’s ‘getting up.’ He disregards ‘Mt. Fuji’ and simply ‘walks’; he cannot ‘grind a mill in a duck egg’ but he can do the grinding. The four questions are of the same pattern—demanding an action yet posing an absurd condition. The pupil performs only the desired action. Through the immediacy of his response, he makes the absurdities vanish” (202).
What?! This explanation poses perhaps just as many questions as it answers. Monks may spend their entire lives in conversational contemplation of the wisdom contained within these 300 pages. Serious English-speaking practitioners in the West will no doubt be pleased by this written companion to their formal study. I found some value, some interest or insight, some Zen surrealism as I turned each page. The Sound of the One Hand is filled with answers—just not easy ones.

THE SOUND OF THE ONE HAND: 281 ZEN KOANS WITH ANSWERS





傅成綸︰《禪宗話頭之邏輯的解柝》    〔牟宗三︰傅成綸從予遊。稟質渾樸﹐才氣浩瀚﹐精思名理。其所成非吾所能及。數年前﹐彼撰成此文。吾發表於《理想歷史文化》第二期。民三十八年﹐予來台﹐彼不得出。音信渺隔﹐不知彼之造詣又如何。此文目的即在從邏輯上解析禪宗方法之理路。吾人由之可知其必然含有一「辨證的遮撥發展」在內。故附錄於此以饗讀者。以下便是傅君原文。問有不明處﹐稍加疏導。     第一節  對答底三種方式  有問「達摩東來意」,曰︰「鎮州蘿蔔重八斤」。  這類型式的對答,在禪宗是很普遍的,也就是所謂用以參悟禪機的當頭棒喝。在此,單從邏輯的解析上來追索這個對答的內涵意義。  這種既經獲得真實成立的單純的對答型式,可從下列三類命題來想︰          (1) 有意義的命題。(2) 含有絕對性的有意義的命題。    (3) 無意義的命題  I. 若是第一類的命題,則答語總是緊扣在問語之上的。問語之獲建立與否,即以答語之如何斷定為決定因︰答語斷之為是,問語之內函即獲建立;反之,為否﹐不獲建立。或者是︰問語之內函之獲建立乃以答語之內函為其充足因。即是,問語之內函之所以為如此者即由於答語之內函之為如何之故。如此,答語為真,問語必真︰答語真而問語假,是不可能的。問語與答語連結成一整體,而為一個完整的落實性的概念。這一種對答式之獲成立,必須是緊扣住問答兩端的。單是孤離地取其一端,即無完整的意義可言。至於這一個對答中的答案語,︰「鎮州蘿蔔重八斤」,顯然不是論斷問語「達摩東來意」為是為否的決定因。而且答語之內函亦並非是問語之內函之所以獲得成立之充足因。 「達摩東來意」決不能與「鎮州蘿蔔重八斤」接連成一個整體。就是鎮州蘿蔔重不重八斤﹐與達摩東來意是了不相干的。依此﹐這一個對答不會是屬於有意義的命題的。  II. 第二類命題與第一類命題的相同點是答語均可成為一個落實的概念。不同點是在︰第一類命題的答語必須與問語連結成一整體而為落實的概念。如此,第二類型命題的答語既不能是斷定問語之為是為非的決定因,亦不能是問語之內函之所以成立的充足因,而是窮盡問語之內函之相反建立的涵蓋因,或是透示問語之內函之自性展現的綜攝因。這樣型式的對答之獲得真實成立是僅係於答語這一端,至於問語的一端是附帶地掛塔在那裡的,是不足輕重的,所以稱之為含有絕對性的有意義的命題。在此,這一個答語「鎮州蘿蔔重八斤」卻是不能有這樣的性能。既不是窮盡「達摩東來意」的相反建立的涵蓋因﹐亦不是透示「達摩東來意」的自性展現的綜攝因。因為在「鎮州蘿蔔重八斤」的函義上既是解析不出「達摩東來意」與「非達摩東來意」的成分來,而且亦無關於「達摩東來意」的自性的正面展現。以此,這一個對答當亦不是這一類型的命題。 【案︰此段所述是以代值學中︰「任何類a含在l中」(aCl) 為根據的,或者是以路易士嚴格函蘊系統中︰「一必然真的命題為任何命題所函」(~◇~p.pq.pp) 為根劇的。 「l」(全類) 或「必然真的命題」就是傅君所說「含有絕對性的有意義的命題」。關此,細讀(注︰《理則學》)第二部第九章即可明白。   III. 第三類命題與前二類命題迥然有別的地方,就在它根本不承認問語是能站得住的,不承認問語是有真實成立的可能,即是不承認問語之內函是可以成為一個落實的概念的。至於答語,那完全是隨意性的。愛怎麼樣答,就怎麼樣答。既可以如此說,又可以如彼說。就是問答語之間是兩不相涉,毫不相干。這樣的一個答語既不能如第一類型的答語之為問語之決定因或充足因,亦不能如第二類型的答語之為問語之涵蓋因或綜攝因,而只表示一個莫名其妙,一個使問語無從掛搭起的莫名其妙,一個對於問語之向外落實的企圖加以封閉的莫名其妙。這一個答語來得如此突兀,莫名其妙與無理可喻,即為反顯所扣的問語是一句站不住的絕對假話。 【案︰此有類於代值學中︰「零含在任何類中」(0Cl) ,或嚴格函蘊系統中︰「一不可能的命題函任何命題」 (~◇~p.pp.pq )。 】在問語自身卻是無任何正面的意義可說。是以問語之為絕對假亦並不能以答語之內函為其決定因,而只在其自身之中。如此,為這樣一個莫名其妙的答語所扣的問語既不能向外落實而獲確主,亦不能向外尋求其所以為假的根由︰所有的向外落實的路全遭封閉,只有從自家身上來找尋自家的病痛。要是這一種對答之獲真實成立就僅係於問語一端之為絕對假,而答語是不足輕重的,則此答語即只是表示問語之為絕對假的顯因。在此,「鎮州蘿蔔重八斤」這一個對答正是屬於這一類命題的型式。因為在叩詢「達摩東來意」之後,會扣上這樣一句沒頭沒腦的話,鎮州蘿蔔之重不重八斤與「達摩東來意」究有什麼相干呢? 這一個答語既不是斷定「達摩東來意」之為真為假的決定因,又不是它之所以如此的充足因,亦不是窮盡其一切意義的相反建立的涵蓋因,更不是透示它的自性展現的綜攝因。以此,答語之所以如此,豈不是就表示一個莫名其妙,無理可喻,用以反顯出所扣的問語是一個大渾沌,是一句站不住的糊塗話,是決無真實可能的絕對假。倘若問者未能因此而覺察他的問語上出了大問題,還「自以為是」地去玩弄「鎮州蘿蔔重八斤」的象徵意義,那就得給他當頭一棒。棒頭之為莫名其妙,無理可喻,豈不是較之話頭來得直截了當。如果還有把住棒頭癡想的呆漢子,那就無怪禪宗大師一時性起,打他一個頭青皮黑,遍體鱗傷,教他曉得個厲害,趕緊迴轉頭去,尋找自家病痛所在。  第二節達摩東來意-問語表意方式上之自相矛盾  叩詢「達摩東來意」這一問語之為大渾沌﹐之為站不住的糊塗話﹐之為絕對性的假﹐這些都是描述詞。至於要推究這一個問語之所以能接受這些描述詞而無異議之故﹐那一定是由於其自身犯了自相矛盾的錯。因為不然的話﹐這一個問語明明白白地已經問了出來﹐那在事實上是確實地真了。這樣﹐至少在事實上不得名之為假﹐似乎它不應該再接受那些絕對假﹐大渾沌等的描述詞。所以唯有在「即因其自身之為真之中恰恰可以牽引出一個正適足以否定其自身﹐使自身為假」的情形下﹐才得成就其為大渾沌﹐大糊塗﹐絕對性的假【案此即︰「一命題如函其自身之假﹐則它是假的」(pp~pp ~p) 此假即是絕對的假﹐因自相矛盾而假。 如此﹐這一個問語之所以為大渾沌﹐絕對性的假之唯一的根本因是在自相矛盾﹐已歸確定。那末﹐進一步就得問在這一個叩詢「達摩東來意」的話頭裡作麼會形成自相矛盾呢? 這上面的可能性﹐單就一般性的對答情形而論﹐是相當多的。有的只繫於問話人的態度上的﹐譬如︰(1) 問話人辭氣不遜︰叩詢達摩東來意是從師求道的一等大事﹐態度倨傲者絕不足以承當此事。如此求道﹐適足以見其無求道之誠意。這種態度豈不是與求道之本心相違背? 就是說﹐這樣的一個問題﹐而在這樣的一個人用這樣的態度問來﹐顯得是自相矛盾。於是﹐這一個問語就含有自相矛盾的屬性。再或者是由於︰    (2) 越次而問﹐    (3) 率然而問﹐了不經心﹐    (4) 挾能相詢﹐    (5) 諂媚以從﹐    (6) 前語未了﹐更番轉詢﹐    (7) 歸而不思﹐  等等緣故的任何一種。這些都是由於問話人個人態度上而引起的糾纏﹐有的是關係於問話的人的學識能力上的﹐譬如︰   (8) 問話人學力未達﹐尚差一間︰其自身就蘊藏了不少麻煩的葛藤﹐任你怎樣明白地告訴他一個正確的答案﹐他總會把它想走了樣﹐心不由主地亦把這一個答案連人帶馬捲進葛藤中去。如此﹐這一個答案雖有客觀的明確性﹐可是遇到聽話人的主觀的了解力上﹐就轉成了一個因附於無數葛藤的上的新葛藤。這樣﹐未可與言而與之言﹐但落得一個貶損了「言」自身的價值性﹐而助長了對方以葛藤逞能的猖獗性。以此﹐但有求道之心﹐而無求道的根底﹐亦是落歸於自相矛盾。再不然﹐就由於︰(9) 問話人的根器太薄﹐能小知﹐不足以大受﹐任你如何不憚煩地詳為解說﹐他總矇矇然茫茫然不能了徹箇中密意。如此求道﹐亦是自相矛盾。亦可能是由於︰  (10) 這一個問題自身無價值︰求真理而來問一個全無價值的問題﹐這又是自相矛盾。自當不屑以答。又可能是由於︰  (11) 這句話自身的表意方式上有問題︰就是說﹐這一個問語的內函確是有價值的﹐可是它之所以為有價值就在破除純綷從這一種問語的表意方式上所透出的一種屬性。如是﹐既來求「此」﹐又沾染了「非此」﹐這亦是自相矛盾。  雖然構成一個問答中的問語之為自相矛盾的原因之可能性合這麼多﹐​​可是﹐統括說來﹐要不出以下三類︰  I.   關於問話人個人的態度﹐學力﹐根器上的問題。II.   關於這句問語自身的含義與價值上的問題。III.   關於這句問語所用以表意的方式上的問題。  現在就得討論這個特殊的問答中的問語之為自相矛盾究竟是屬於那一類型的問題。  假使是第一類型下的任何一項情形﹐那末禪宗大師之如此地扣了一句荒謬話﹐只表示否定了這一個參禪人的這樣的一種求道態度﹐或者否定了這一個參禪人現有的學識﹐或者是否定了這一個參禪人內具的根器。假使這個參禪人善自反省﹐能因此而痛改前非﹐則這一個對行之價值是在教好了一個參禪人的求道態度﹐使其勤勉好學﹐與發心向道﹐卻決不能說直接地參悟了禪機。因為這些只是求道﹐求達摩東來意的「質料因」﹐並非是「形式因」。換言之﹐這一些求道態度﹐學力﹐根器等﹐只是求道的必要條件﹐並非是充足條件︰沒有它們是決不成的﹐有了它們還是未必成。因此﹐具備了這些﹐還是不能與徹悟禪機同一化。這樣﹐這一個對答決不可能成為參悟禪機的大話頭。這與原意不合。所以我們敢斷定這一個對答是不會屬於第一類型下的任何一項情形。  如果是第二類型下的情形﹐那末禪宗大師對這問話如此地扣了﹐就表示否定了這一句問話「達摩東來意」自身的函義與價值。連求「達摩東來意」之自身函義與價值都遭否定了﹐那還談什麼參悟禪機。因為從外來的知識上﹐我們已經知道求「達摩東來意」與「參悟禪機」是同一的。依此﹐求達摩東來意之自身函義與價值既遭否定﹐那末參悟禪機又安能為確實地真? 如此﹐這一個對答之為參悟禪機的大話頭又從何談起呢? 所以這一個對答亦決不會是屬於這一類型下的情形。  假如以上的解析是沒有錯誤的話﹐那末這一個問語之為自相矛盾﹐必然地屬於第三類型下的情形。因為這一個答語之自身既為參悟禪機的大話頭﹐就應該不會在參禪人個人的態度上學力上根器上出問題﹐而應該承認這樣的一個人﹐這樣的態度﹐來問這樣的一個問題﹐那是站得住的。惟是求達摩東來意這一句話之函義所屬與價值所在﹐即在於破除這一句問話的表意方式。因此﹐求這一個「達摩東來意」﹐而出之以為這一個「達摩東來意」所必須否定之表意的方式﹐是為自相矛盾。這亦就是這一個求達摩東來意求的問語之所以為大渾沌﹐大糊塗﹐絕對的假的唯一根本因。若然﹐問話人因答話人之如此扣而能覺察個中病痛所在﹐否定其所以必須不否定者﹐則其自身豁然而契。這就是參禪機而透悟了禪機﹐求達摩東來意﹐而確實地獲得了達摩東來意。惟有如此﹐這一個對答才得稱之為徹悟禪機的大話頭。    第三節其所以為自相矛盾由於其向外執著的關連性  純粹從這句問語的表意方式上說﹐這句問語之出現﹐隱然間預先肯定了一種「向外執著」的關連性。因為﹐既如此問﹐就希望有一個明確的答案。這答案之為明確的﹐就在於確實地透現出一個或多個外在落實概念﹐好讓問話人有力地把捉住﹐從中探索與訪問達摩東來意的蹤跡。如此這一個或這一些外在的落實概與問話人之求達摩東來意的那一副願望之間﹐豈不是構成了一種對待性的關連? 至於就問話人企望那一種慨念之應願出現﹐而可以勇往直前地去把捉它﹐去推敲它的情形上所構成的閞連性說﹐那一定是向外的﹐是沾滯於落實的概念上的。在佛家﹐就稱這種關連性為「向外執著」﹐或是向外捕捉。如此﹐既如此問﹐就得肯定這種向外執著的關連性。亦可以說﹐這一個向外執著的關連性就是這種問語​​的表意方式之自性﹐而且是唯一的自性。依此﹐所謂這句問語之內函意義與問語的表意方式二者之間之為相互矛盾者﹐實就是在求達摩東來意與向外執著的關連性二者之間是相互矛盾的因此﹐這一個參禪人既來叩求「達摩東來意」﹐而卻出之以「這一種含有向外執著的關連性」的表意方式﹐豈不是說的糊塗話? 無怪乎禪宗大師要給他扣上一句乖謬話。驟然一看﹐以為來得突兀﹐細加分析﹐實是理所當然。一套上禪宗思路﹐是必然要如此扣的。這裡的意思當然不是說﹐在叩詢「達摩東來意」之後﹐必須如此這般地扣上這麼一句「鎮州蘿蔔重八斤」﹐禪宗大師也儘可以隨意地答﹐「問取露柱」﹐「庭前柏樹子」﹐「後園羊吃草」﹐等等﹐乃至於其他任何一句乖謬話﹐甚至是把塵尾抬一下﹐當頭給他一棒﹐臨面喝他一聲﹐以及其他任何一種乖謬動作﹐只要能表示出一個用以反顯出所扣的問語是自相矛盾的話即得。是以禪宗大師對付來問﹐是靈活異常﹐隨機應變。乍見是神妙莫測﹐實底是萬變不離其宗。任他答得怎樣出奇﹐總不外是透示一個莫名其妙與無理可喻而已。此所以參禪人一旦心靈竅開﹐覷破個中玄機奧﹐這些話頭就得盡行刊落。收拾頭面﹐重見大師。相對一笑﹐共證禪悅。要是參禪人如此地來叩求「達摩東來意」﹐禪宗大師不如此扣﹐卻扣上一句有意義的話﹐那末就無異於承認這個問語是站得住的。非但這個問語的內函意義是站得住的﹐而且這個問語的表意方式亦是站得住的。而且內函意義與表意方式之間至少是相一致的﹐不至於起衝突。然而事實上並不如此。由此可以斷定﹐求「達摩東來意」與「向外執著的關連性」二者的之間是必然地相互矛盾的。而且它不只與如此這般的一個向外執著相矛盾﹐而是遍與任何向外執著相矛盾﹐亦即與向外執著之自性相矛盾。  既然求達摩東來意是與向外執著之自性相矛盾﹐是以破除執著﹐東來意即獲呈現﹐留下執著﹐東來意湮沒難彰。同樣﹐否定東來意﹐向外執著之自性即告建立﹐肯定東來意﹐向外執著之自性乃遭幻滅。這種相互矛盾﹐通常有兩種可能。一種是非絕對性的相反建立﹐另一是絕對性的相反建立。前一種的相互矛盾式是說︰二者同樣地有是真是假的可能﹐只是二者既不能同真又不能同假而已。後一種相互矛盾式是說︰二者中任何一個都只能有一個屬性﹐是真的﹐就不可能再為假﹐是假的﹐亦不可能再為真。就是說﹐兩個中有了一個是真﹐另一個就是絕對假﹐有了一個是假﹐另一個就是絕對的真。不能說兩個中任何一個是會有真假兩屬性的可能性。求達摩東來意與向外執著二者間的矛盾﹐突竟是屬於那一種呢? 若是前者﹐則求東來意與向外執著二者當該是等量齊觀的﹐彼此均有真實的可能。既可以掃蕩著以顯東來意﹐亦可以拉掉東來意以成就執著。這樣﹐佛家又何必厚此薄彼﹐對「東來意」志求必伸﹐對「執著」力加破除呢? 因為孰為必真﹐孰為必假﹐亦無從斷定。這一個答亦不能妄自尊大地稱為參悟禪機的大話頭。這顯然與禪宗的思路不合。是以﹐二者之為矛盾﹐必是絕對性的相反建立。又因為這一個對答是參悟禪機的大話頭﹐所以求達摩東來意是絕對的真實﹐向外執著之自性是絕對的虛妄。      第四節 無意義的對答是必然的  以上的解析﹐是從這一個叩詢「達摩東來意」的對答之為參悟禪機的大話頭上﹐來剖示禪宗大師之所以作如此的話頭﹐在思想進路上所必須函具的幾個重要論斷。而這些論斷統括說來﹐就是  (1) 禪宗大師之所以會在叩詢「達摩東來意」的問語之後﹐如此沒有頭沒腦地扣上一句莫名其妙的話頭者﹐只是表示用以反顯出所扣的這一個問語是一個站不住的糊塗話  (2) 這一個問語之所以會站不住的糊塗話者﹐只因為這句問語的內函﹐求東來意﹐與這句問語的表意方式所透示的向外執著的關連性是絕對地相互矛盾的。而且求東來意是絕對地真實﹐是以求東來意之道﹐並不在遠﹐即在破除這一種向外執著的閞連性。執著一經破除﹐東來意立獲全體呈現。  假設這兩個論斷無錯誤﹐而且即以這兩個論斷為首出概念﹐那末我們往往很容易作如此想︰參禪人既如此地來問了﹐禪宗大師又何苦故弄玄虛﹐如此地採用無意義的命題來答話呢? 答上一句悠天勿地的乖謬話﹐害得參禪人一時摸不著頭腦﹐四面碰壁﹐多走不少黑巷子路。為什麼不直接明白告訴他︰(1) 這一句問語是一個站不住的糊塗話﹔或者是說(2) 達摩東來意即在掃蕩執著上才獲透路。這樣﹐對於東來意之闡揚﹐豈不是更直接而確當嗎? 實際上﹐大謬不然。這兩種答法貌似直接而確當﹐實是既不必要又不可能的答法。其理由如下述。  假使改用上述第一種答法﹐即﹐明白地告訴參禪人這一句問語是一句站不住的糊塗話﹐那末﹐這一句問語之為糊塗話的決定因即掛搭在這一個如此答法的答語之上。如是﹐這一個參禪人必是緊隨不捨地進一步來盤問這一個問語之所以為糊塗話之故。禪宗大師當不憚煩地再與他說。可是任憑說得如何明白詳盡﹐參禪人總是還可以無饜地問下去的。因為參禪人之來叩問「達摩東來意」的願望是在求道成佛﹐是在覿體承當﹐全是工夫中事。非可如我輩局外人只著眼於理論上的探討﹐拘拘於以辨解鋪隅為事。在他們﹐不歸到身心上﹐他們的求東來意的問題總是放不下來的。唯有掃盡言詮﹐歸於身證﹐才能平實地全體放下。因之﹐禪宗大師任如何說﹐總是隔﹐總是不能了結叩詢「達摩東來意」這個公案﹐而是徒然增添了一些終究須遭遮撥的法執。以此﹐禪宗大師之如此樣答法﹐是不必要的。非但此也﹐這種答法的毛病不僅是白繞圈子而已﹐而且是牴觸了佛家的宗趣。蓋如此樣答了﹐就形成為有意義命題的對答。問語之為假﹐是由一答語之如此樣斷定。而這一個答語之所以如此樣斷定者又是由於另一個或另一些如何如何的緣故。而這一些如何如何的緣故之所以為如何如何者﹐又是由於另一個或另一些如何如何的緣故。依此類推﹐乃至無窮。這樣﹐就無異承認這一句問語的表意方式是站得住的﹐是可以與「東來意」相一致的。依照禪宗的思想進路上說﹐這豈不是大矛盾? 是以﹐如此答來﹐但為多添幾句糊塗話﹐是與叩詢「達摩東來意」這一個問語載在同一條般上的糊塗話。未能自了﹐焉能了他。就其為破妄顯真透示東來意的立場說﹐這是不可能的。同樣﹐改用上述第二種答法的結局﹐亦歸如此。就是正面地告訴參禪人﹐東來意之呈現即在破除執著。如此﹐這一個答語是自足無待地真﹐絕對地真。至於問語之為如何﹐對於這一個答語之為真﹐是並無絲毫影響的。這樣的對答就歸屬於含有絕對性的有意義命題類型的對答。可是這種答案亦同樣地只能滿足局外人的辨解上的要求﹐而不能滿足個中參禪人參禪證道的願望。因為它終究只是一種言詮而已。以此﹐亦只是一個多餘的須被割除的贅疣﹐不必要的法執。再者﹐禪宗大師如此說了﹐就無異承認東來意是可以向外落實的﹐是可以整個地轉成為外在的落實的概念﹐而與參禪人之求東來意的那一副意望之間是可以構成對待性的關連的。這樣﹐向外執著的關連性﹐豈不是又可以站得住了? 從禪宗的思想進路上說﹐這樣的答法亦是一句自相矛盾的糊塗話。既是糊塗話﹐怎麼會可以承當破妄顯真的大事? 以此﹐這種答法非但不必要﹐而亦是不可能。  至於就無意義命題的方式來應答﹐在叩詢「東來意」之後﹐給他扣上一句乖謬話。如此﹐向外執著之念一起﹐即遭打掉﹐再起再撥﹐終至於向外奔竄的路全遭封閉。求東來意﹐在外既是全無掛搭處﹐是以只有打自家身心上來﹐細下體認﹐一旦豁然開朗﹐立地肉身成佛。非如是﹐不足以了斷向外執著的糾纏﹐非如此﹐不足以啟示反身自證的密意。此所以禪宗自稱「不立文字﹐不著言詮﹐密意難宣﹐但憑心傳」。而我們亦敢依此斷定禪宗的棒喝是闡揚「東來意」最直接最當的大手法。  最後﹐我們還有一點須待交代明白﹐就是禪宗既不許立文字著言詮﹐而我們卻說瞭如許話語﹐這豈是禪宗所能認許的? 誠然﹐在禪宗當是作如是觀。可是我們如此樣說﹐並不是為了參禪證佛﹐而是只負責以邏輯性的辨解來剖示禪宗的參禪證佛的​​思想進路。即是﹐我們的話並不是套在禪宗的參禪證佛的​​思想路數中說的﹐而是禪宗的思想路數套在我們的話中說的。以此﹐在他固然是不許我如此說﹐在我卻可以如此地說他。我們之所以如此說者﹐即在﹐我們是以邏輯的辨解為首先建立的概念﹐並不是以成佛證禪悅為首出的概念。至於邏輯性的辨解究竟是否可以先成佛證譕禪悅的概念而建立﹐對於這問題﹐茲姑不論。  牟宗三《理則學》,正中書局,中華民國84年10月初版12刷,中華民國60年12月台初版

True Believer (1951) 群眾運動 Eric Hoffer: an American odyssey 賀佛爾傳

Eric Hoffer: an American odyssey (1968)

http://archive.org/details/erichofferameric00tomk
Author: Tomkins, Calvin, 1925-
Subject: Hoffer, Eric; Hoffer, Eric (1902-1983); Aphorisms and apothegms; Aphorismes et apophtegmes
Publisher: New York, Dutton
 此書賀佛爾傳True Believer (1951) 群眾運動---香港的今日世界有合訂本.1972第2刷



Eric Hoffer: an American odyssey (1968)一開始就講那場1967年的訪談
"Eric Hoffer: The Passionate State of Mind" with Eric Sevareid, September 19, 1967 (rebroadcast on November 14, due to popular demand).
2011年有人將它放到You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcv4HyEY3w

那些為我們所獨有的,使我們
         覺得自己有價值的感覺,
               常只是電光石火的
       一瞬。要是我們不懂得如何
              抓住和品嚐這一瞬,
                     我們便沒有
               生長,也沒有興奮。

"Eric Hoffer: The Passionate State of Mind" with Eric Sevareid, September 19, 1967 (rebroadcast on November 14, due to popular demand).








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer
Eric Hoffer (July 25, 1902 – May 21, 1983) was an American social writer. He was the author of ten books and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in February 1983. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic, receiving critical acclaim from both scholars and laymen,[1] although Hoffer believed that his book The Ordeal of Change was his finest work.[2] In 2001, the Eric Hoffer Award was established in his honor with permission granted by the Eric Hoffer Estate in 2005.

On the nature and origins of mass movements

Hoffer believed that self-esteem was of central importance to psychological well-being. He focused on what he viewed as the consequences of a lack of self-esteem. Concerned about the rise of totalitarian governments, especially those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, he tried to find the roots of these "madhouses" in human psychology. He postulated that fanaticism and self-righteousness are rooted in self-hatred, self-doubt, and insecurity. In The True Believer (1951) he claimed that a passionate obsession with the outside world or the private lives of others was an attempt to compensate for a lack of meaning in one's own life. The book discusses religious and political mass movements, and extensive discussions of Islam and Christianity. A core principle in the book is Hoffer's assertion that mass movements are interchangeable: fanatical Nazis became fanatical Communists, fanatical Communists became fanatical anti-Communists, and Saul, persecutor of Christians, became Paul, a fanatical Christian. For the "true believer", substance is less important than being part of a movement.
Hoffer's work was non-Freudian, at a time when much of American psychology was informed by the Freudian paradigm. Hoffer appeared on public television in 1964 and then in two one-hour conversations on CBS with Eric Sevareid in the late 1960s.


「現在我們知道,夢想一旦成真,可能會轉成惡夢。矛盾的是:我們知道故事的結局,但對未來卻全被蒙蔽。字跡就在牆上,人人可看,但沒有人找到解讀之鑰。」
賀佛爾(Eric Hoffer,1902-1982)講的一段話。這位當代哲人,一輩子自食其力,當過散工、淘金工人、伐木工人,最後在舊金山碼頭,出賣自己的勞力過活。他沒上過學,一切知識靠自學、思考而得。一輩子愛讀書,就連租房子也要選在圖書館附近。他的《群眾運動》(The True Believer,或譯為《真實信徒》、《狂熱份子》)堪稱政治思想名著。這段話,出自他的另一本小書《人生反思錄》。
這一夜,讀到這段話,想到「228」,60餘年家國。「看到鼠輩依然橫行,可見船還沒沈,倒也可喜。」賀佛爾另一句讓人苦笑的名言,一時只好如此阿Q自解,卻無論如何,心知事情還沒了結——有些事不是立塊碑、蓋個紀念館,用錢就可以補償解決的!

傅月庵 補充一下:The True Believer出版於1951年。在台灣至少有三個譯本。水牛版的《真實信徒》,1960年代由早夭的王尚義譯成;今日世界版《群眾運動》,由且文翻譯,1970年代與《賀佛爾傳》同刊,當是流傳最廣的版本;新世紀2005年立緒版的《狂熱份子》,由梁永安翻譯,則是相對完整的譯本。




Adolphe(1816) by Benjamin Constant;アドルフ;《阿道爾夫》


Adolphe is a classic French novel by Benjamin Constant, first published in 1816.


Adolphe : Benjamin Constant : Free Download & Streaming : Internet ...

https://archive.org/details/adolphe00consgoog

Jun 2, 2008 - by Benjamin Constant. Published 1877 ... Language English Digitizing ... Adolphe: anecdote trouvée dans les papiers d'un inconnu. Jul 14 ...

牛津大學出版社Oxford World's Classics、企鵝文庫等有英譯本









アドルフ






著者 コンスタン 著 , 大塚 幸男
通し番号 赤525-1
ジャンル 書籍 > 岩波文庫
日本十進分類 > 文学

刊行日 1935/04/15
ISBN 9784003252512
Cコード 0197
体裁 文庫
定価 本体480円+税


~~~
《卞之琳譯文集(上) ・ 阿道爾夫・ 譯者序》寫於1944年7月2日。附記說,是1937年春假在李健吾的家中譯成。1940年在上海的《西洋文學》發表......





翻譯偵探事務所: 卞之琳變楊小琳: 正文版的阿道爾夫tysharon.blogspot.com/2013/04/blog-post_3813.html卞之琳在1948年翻譯的《阿道爾夫》(Adolphe)譯者序中說: 中國的大病一字即足以道盡:假。 可惜這句話在1968年正文版中被刪掉了。正文這個版本 ...

「單由此種種,介紹這本小經典到社會上理由也顯得夠充分了。今日社會的一般男女別以為早已把十九世紀的阿道爾夫和愛蕾諾拋落得遠遠了,事實上也許還得趕一程,甚至一長程,才及得上他們。時至今日,社會大體上也都有的是『色鬼』而已,如果我們可以稱阿道爾夫為『情魔』。今日上流社會歷來的假借名義也已經夠多了。一切輕浮穢褻的醜事都已經雅極的託諸『風月』,再新就託諸西洋的『浪漫』,正如更新就託諸『自由戀愛』,…這本小書的介紹過來」(4-5)

網誌存檔