初期佛教經典《念處經》所說的「於外隨觀」(以下簡稱「外觀」)是佛禪修一個具爭議性的問題。大多後期的注釋文獻，無論是巴利的注釋傳統或保存於漢譯的阿毘達磨傳統，皆含有將「外觀」理解成「觀他人身心現象」的解釋。如此的解釋引申出實踐上的一些問題：禪修者在念處禪修時應如何觀人？如何不靠猜測、推論而直接地觀察他人的心理現象？ 關於「外觀」的意涵，二十世紀緬甸的毗婆舍那修行傳統曾提出不同的詮釋。代表二十世紀緬甸主流毗婆舍那修行傳統的馬哈希禪師(1904-1982)與葛印卡(1924-)，認為修行毗婆舍那之時，以親見的方式觀察自己的身、心現象便已足夠，且認為以親見的方式觀察他人，若非是不必要的便是不合理的。相反地，帕奧禪師(1935-)則主張，若未以親見的方式若他人身心現象，便不能證悟；如此，帕奧禪師和二十世紀緬甸主流的毗婆舍那傳統之間產生了某種諍論。 本文討論毗婆舍那傳統用以支持自身詮釋的文獻依據並根據對巴利聖典與注釋文獻的研究，提出自己對此問題的看法。筆者認為，雖然帕奧傳統與主流毗婆舍那傳統皆能夠從巴利與聖典與注釋文獻尋得用以支持自己對「外觀」的詮釋之文證，然而主流派的詮釋，似乎更合理且可行。無論如何，當諸如「外觀」等關於禪修的諍論生起，且無法取得令眾人滿意的妥協之時，佛弟子各自建立自身的修行傳統，便是無可避免的了。

“Contemplating Externally” mentioned in the early Buddhist meditative text, Satipa□□h□na Sutta, is a contentious subject with regard to Buddhist meditation. The later Buddhist exegetical texts, including the P□li commentarial literature and the Abhidharma works preserved in Chinese translation, offered an interpretation of “contemplating externally” as “contemplating other person’s metal and physical phenomena.” This incurs some practical questions: How can a mediator contemplate other persons during satipa□□h□na meditation? How could one observe through direct experience, not by conjecture and inference, other person’s mental phenomena? Different interpretations have been given by viapassan□ traditions of the 20th century Burma as to the meaning of “contemplating externally.” Mahasi Say□daw (1904-1982) and S. N. Goenka (1924-), which represent the mainstream of vipassan□ traditions in the 20th Burma, both hold that in vipassan□ meditation it is sufficient to contemplate one’s own mental and physical phenomena by direct experience, and that contemplating others by direct experience is either unnecessary or unreasonable. On the contrary, Pa-Auk Say□daw (1935-) argues that one cannot attain enlightenment without contemplating by direct experience other’s mental and physical phenomena, and therefore raises a debate against the mainstream vipassan□ traditions of the 20th century Burma. This article discusses the textual evidences given by these modern vipassan□ traditions for their own explanations, and offers my own solution to this debate based on my study of the P□li Canon and commentarial literature. I suggest that to find out textual support form the P□ali canon and exegetical literature for their own interpretation of “contemplating externally,” the mainstream’s interpretation seems more reasonable and practicable. Nevertheless, it is unavoidable for Buddhist followers to set up their own traditions when debate on meditative methods such as “contemplating externally” have been raised and no satisfactory compromise could be found.