しあわせになる英語 English for Happiness


「中村元 : 比較思想から見た仏教」 その2。「無我」: 仏教では「自己」は全く存在しない? “Hajime Nakamura : Buddhism in comparative light” No.2_”Non-ego” : Is there no “self” at all according to Buddhism?


“Non-ego” is the particularly famous teaching in Buddhism. However, there is said to be crucial misunderstanding――more to come both in English and in Japanese.



In early Buddhism those who got rid of the notion of “Ego” were highly praised. This kind of denial, however, does not mean nihilism or materialism. The Buddha clearly told us what the self is not, but he does not give any clear account of what it is. It is quite wrong to think that there is no self at all according to Buddhism. The Buddha was not a mere materialist.

初期の仏教では ”自我” の観念を離れた人々は高く賞賛された。しかしながら、この種の否定は虚無主義唯物論を意味しない。ブッダは何が自己でないかは明確に説いたが、何が自己であるかは明瞭に説明していない。仏教で自己を全く認めない、と考えるのは誤りである。ブッダは単なる唯物論者ではなかったのである。


“He among men, O Brahmin, who eschews

All claims of me and mine; he in whom thought

Rises in lonely calm, in pity rapt,

Loathing all foul things, dwelling in chastity――

Herein proficient, in such matters trained.

Mortal can reachth’ immortal heav’n of Brahma (Digha-Nikaya)







The Buddha did not as a rule dwell on illusion in general (maya) as most Hindu scholars do; he maintained no conceit of the illusion of the ego.



From the investigation we have made so far, it is clear that the assertion of the denial of the Ego appeared in a later period. The Buddha did not deny the soul, but was silent concerning it. Moreover, he seems to have acknowledged what might be called a “true self” which is to appear in our moral conduct conforming to universal norm. While he did not assume the existence of soul as a metaphysical substance, he admitted the function of the self as the subject of action in a practical and moral sense.

これまで検討してきたことから明らかなように、自我の否定の主張はのちの時代に現れたのであり、ブッダ自身は魂を否定せず、それについてはひたすら沈黙を守った。そればかりか、普遍的規範に合致するわれわれの道徳的行為において現れる “真実の自己” なるものは認めていたようである。つまり、ブッダ形而上学的実体としての魂の存在を想定することはなかったが、実践的で道徳的な意味における行為の主体としての自己の働きは認めていたのである。


Here again, it may be concluded, the Buddha was more concerned with the practical, ethical implications of the an-attā doctrine than with any metaphysical discussion of the subject――ethical implications which have been emphasized throughout Buddhist history. As we have observed, he was concerned to eschew, in this respect, “all claims of me and mine.”

ここで再び結論づければ、ブッダがより関心があったのは非我 (無我) の教説の実践的で道徳的な意義であり、それについての形而上学的な論議には関心が薄かった、ということになろう。そして、その道徳的な意義は全仏教史を通じて強調されてきたのである。上述のように、この点に関して、ブッダは “私および私のものという主張” をすべて慎もうと努めたのであった。


It might appear that in these two traditions, Buddhist and Christian we have two divergent valuations of man. It might therefore be asked how it is that, despite these different estimates of human nature, both Buddhism and Christianity have been universal in their appeal. But such a question arises from a misreading of the an-attā doctrine and what Buddhists conclude from it.



This an-attā doctrine has to be understood in the light of the Buddhist faith that all men have Mahayana Buddhists call the ‘Buddha nature.’ It is not that human personality is denied, but that theories of huma personality which encourage ego-centricity are denied as they hinder man from realizing his true self. Thus in both traditions we have teaching which responds to human aspiration and meets the deep, inner sense in all men that they are not, as yet, what they might be and many become.

この無我の教説は、あらゆる人間は大乗仏教でいう “仏性” を有する、という仏教的信仰の観点から理解されなければならない。そこで否定されているのは人間の個性そのものではなく、自己中心的な考えを促す諸理論が真実の自己を悟ることを妨げるもの、として否定されているのである。このように両方の伝統には、人間の切なる願いに呼応し、いまだ理想とすべきものにはなっていないが、そうなりうるという、すべての人間の深遠かつ精神的な観念にかなう教えが存するのである。



My THIRD anthology has been published.

Please  order it from Amazon if you are interested in.






Buddhism in Comparative Light

Buddhism in Comparative Light







Amazon.co.jp ヘルプ: Amazon.co.jp プライバシー規約