釋迦牟尼佛開示「無我」教說主要是為教導眾生祛除對「自我」的妄見和 錯誤認同，以開啟無我無執的解脫智慧，而不是要否定「我」。然而佛教傳 統上往往把個人性的「自我」意識跟印度教的「阿特曼」（Atman）所意味的 「我」（梵我、自我真性、靈魂等本體概念）混為一談，把「無我」解釋為否 定永恆不滅的「梵我」或「靈魂」，致使佛陀所教示的「無我」正見和修證實 踐的意涵變質為形而上學的論斷和主張。本文從佛教心理學的觀點論證「自 我」意識的心理性質及其與印度教的「梵我」和「靈魂」的根本差異。人們把 「自我」視為獨立自存及與他者分離對立的實體妄見，乃是人類分別意識的必 然結果，跟古代印度宗教哲學的實體論思想並無關聯，實體論思想毋寧說是根 源於眾生共有的實體妄見，故佛教「無我」論所應破斥的主要對象是後者，而 不是前者。本文指出南北傳佛教界對於「無我」的若干論述不但偏離佛陀的本 意，而且造成佛學研究思路的混亂。最後論述佛陀對「我」和「無我」的如實 知見，以凸顯無我智慧對當今世界和個人的重要意涵。

The Buddha’s teaching of “no-self” (Anatman in Sanskrit) is originally aimed at eliminating the human delusion about “self” (or ego) and wrong identification therewith, so that the liberating wisdom of egolessness (or selflessnesss) can be attained. It is not intended to deny the reality of “self.” However, in the Buddhist tradition there is a tendency to confuse the individual ego-consciousness with the concept of Atman, which in Hindu scriptures actually means the essential Self, or the Soul of the universe that is identical with Brahma, the Absolute. As a consequence, “no-self” is often misinterpreted as a denial of the immortal Atman, or Soul, to the extent that the right view of “no-self” as taught by the Buddha, with its genuine implications for spiritual practice, has degenerated into mere metaphysical assertions. This article purports to elucidate, from the perspective of Buddhist psychology, the psychological nature of ego-consciousness and its fundamental differences from Atman, or Soul, in the Hindu context. It argues that the human propensity to regard “self” (or ego) as an independent “substantial entity” separate from other beings is a delusion that stems from the false consciousness of dualistic discrimination, and thus has nothing to do with the doctrine of substantialism in the ancient Hindu philosophy. On the contrary, the latter can be regarded as rooted in the false perception of “self” as an independent and separate “substantial entity” – a perception shared by humanity as a whole. Therefore, the Buddhist doctrine of “no-self” should address that human misperception rather than being directed against Atman. This article demonstrates that some assertions on “no-self” in both the Southern and Northern Schools of Buddhism not only deviate from the original teachings of the Buddha, but have also caused logical confusions in Buddhist studies. Lastly this article sheds light on the Buddha’s direct insights into “self” and “no-self,” so as to underline the important implications of the wisdom of egolessness for our contemporary world and individuals alike.