Wushi Lin | Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts (original) (raw)
Papers by Wushi Lin
法鼓佛學學報, 2022
紫柏真可（1543-1604）被後世追為明代萬曆三高僧之一，藉由主張禪與教之間是不可分割的體用關係如水與波般，因此我們無法不透過波去飲水，不能繞過教去契及禪，以在禪門內大力宣揚經教的重要性。本文... more 紫柏真可（1543-1604）被後世追為明代萬曆三高僧之一，藉由主張禪與教之間是不可分割的體用關係如水與波般，因此我們無法不透過波去飲水，不能繞過教去契及禪，以在禪門內大力宣揚經教的重要性。本文的主要問題是紫柏採用了何種的詮釋學策略，以合法化其不同於9世紀以來的主流「教外別傳」之禪教觀，以及現代學人如何解釋紫柏為何強調經教。本文將針對該問題的回應分為兩進路：脈絡化進路與文化本質主義進路。脈絡化進路旨在將所解釋的對象予以脈絡化處理而歸因於外在環境的影響，但也帶來了「一切皆為權宜說法」且相反於本質主義傾向的建構論難題。紫柏則與鈴木大拙都採用了同種形式的文化本質主義進路，即訴諸某種無法言說的經驗或精神境界作為本質，如「悟／心／禪本身」。就此而言，儘管Robert H. Sharf認為「宗教經驗修辭」很大程度是「現代」產物，但這兩位禪宗門人在解釋進路上的相似處的背後，仍或多或少地隱伏著某些來自「前現代」的遺贈，如將開悟界定為一種非智識可契及之經驗的知識論立場。最後，本文試圖指出這種本質主義解釋進路，在導向長青主義式（perennialist）的「宗教多元主義」（religious pluralism）的同時，也展現了宗教傳統的同一性意欲，並恰好契合了紫柏思想的存有論基礎，亦即佛性學說。
Zibo Zhenke (紫柏真可, 1543-1604) is regarded as one of the three eminent monks during the Wanli (萬曆) era in the Ming Dynasty. Zibo promoted the importance of doctrine in the Chan community by claiming that the relationship between Chan and doctrine is inseparable like essence and function, like “water and waves.” As one can only “drink water from waves,” one can only attain Chan enlightenment through the doctrine. The main questions addressed in this paper are what hermeneutic strategy Zibo adopted to legitimize his perspective on “Chan and doctrine” which is different from “a separate transmission apart from the doctrine” (教外別傳), the mainstream view of the Chan community since the 9th century, and how modern scholars explain why Zibo emphasized doctrine.
I will categorize these responses into two approaches; one being the contextualization approach, and the other being the cultural essentialism approach. The former approach aims to contextualize the object to be explained and attribute it to the influence of the external environment. This way, however, also leads to the problem of constructionism against essentialism. Zibo and D. T. Suzuki adopted the same form of cultural essentialism approach, which appeals to an ineffable and spiritual experience regarded as the essence, such as “enlightenment,” “mind” or “Chan/Zen itself.”
In this regard, despite Robert H. Sharf’s view that “the Rhetoric of Religious Experience” is largely a “modern” product, there are still vestiges of the “premodern” behind the similarities of Zibo’s and Suzuki’s approaches, such as the epistemological position that defines enlightenment as an experience that is not accessible to the intellect. Finally, this paper attempts to point out that this essentialist approach, while leading to perennialist “religious pluralism”, also shows the will to identity of religious tradition, which is in accordance with the ontological basis of Zibo’s thought, that is, the doctrine of buddha nature (佛性).
臺大佛學研究, 2021
在禪宗史中時不時地浮現的禪、教爭議，其中一個關鍵即 是「教外別傳，不立文字」的不同立場，亦即「經教」在禪宗的 解脫論中具有何種功能——或不具功能。與此同時，經教作為 「智識」的理解對象，也代表了... more 在禪宗史中時不時地浮現的禪、教爭議，其中一個關鍵即 是「教外別傳，不立文字」的不同立場，亦即「經教」在禪宗的 解脫論中具有何種功能——或不具功能。與此同時，經教作為 「智識」的理解對象，也代表了禪、教爭議的背後正是禪門對於「智識」的不同觀點。禪宗社群中強調經教的重要性者，往往肯認「智識」在修證過程中具有積極意義，進而需要以智識的方式來解釋智識之於契及禪悟的重要性，甚至是必要性。明代被視為禪門「尊宿」的紫柏真可（1543-1604），就曾嘗試理論性地解釋「非智識的禪悟與智識之間的關係為何」與「為何非智識的禪悟可由智識去契及」，並譬喻「禪如春也，文字則花也。春在於花，全花是春；花在於春，全春是花」的禪教不二立場。然而， 當取法唯識學及其量論時，紫柏所立足的《楞嚴經》與《大乘起信論》的心意識理論，卻讓他重新回到了「不立文字」的反智識主義立場——紫柏認為第六意識已落比量，只能變帶地緣取真如假境，僅有第六識未起前的清淨真心才能挾帶地、現量地親緣真如。但是，這就重新陷入了一個難題：如若第六識與經教在理論上無關於修行者對真如的契悟，到底要如何說明經教之於禪悟是重要的？——經教到底是翳眼的金屑，抑或與春意體一不二的繁花？
The debate on the relationship between Chan and do ctrine appears from time to time in the history of the Chan community. One of critical points is their diff erent positions on “a separate transmission apart from the doctrine” (教外別傳) and “not setting up language and letter,” (不立文字) that is, the core of the problem is to determine what role “doctrine” (經教) plays in me ditation and the experience of Chan enlightenment, or if “doctrine” does not play any role.
However, if we examine th is issue deeper, then we will find that the Chan patriarchs’ positions on this debate showed their ra tionale. The Chan patriarchs who emphasized the importance of doctrine also preferred to agree that rationale can or must have a positive position in Chan practice. But because of their emphasis on to logic and atypical position from the mainstream, they need to explain intellectually how doctrine is necessary and why it will infl uence Chan meditation.
Zibo Zhenke (紫柏真可, 1543-1604) who is regarded as a Noble Master (尊宿) in the Ming Chan community, highly stressed the importance of literary Chan (文字禪) and doctrine by claiming that the relation between Chan and doctrine is nondualistic with a metaphor: Chan is the spring, literature (including doctrine) is the flowers. However, when Zibo tried to interpret the theories of consciousness, direct perception (pratyakṣa, 現量) and logical inference (anumāna, 比量) from Yogācāra Chinese texts, his preunderstanding which is based on *Śūraṅgama Sūtra (楞嚴經) and Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (大乘起信論) made him return to the anti-intellectualist position of “not setting up language and letter” and debasing rationale. Zibo argued that the sixth consciousness already fell into logical inference, and only the pure mind, which is something before the arising of sixth consciousness, is able to perceive tathatā (真如) in direct perception way. However, this contradiction makes the problem emerge again: theoretically, if doctrine plays no role in perceiving tathatā, why and how is doctrine important for getting enlightenment? Is doctrine gold dust as film in the eyes or the flowers as spring?
漢學研究, 2020
從敦煌文獻的重新發現以來，吾人可以發現歷史文獻學進路的禪宗研究，對於追尋文本的真實「作者」有著相當的熱情，比方《壇經》與六祖慧能之間的文獻考據問題。然而，卻鮮少人去考察「作者」在禪宗文本中到底是... more 從敦煌文獻的重新發現以來，吾人可以發現歷史文獻學進路的禪宗研究，對於追尋文本的真實「作者」有著相當的熱情，比方《壇經》與六祖慧能之間的文獻考據問題。然而，卻鮮少人去考察「作者」在禪宗文本中到底是何種概念，相關的問題包括「作者」為何重要、「作者」與文本的關係、「作者」與知識權威的關聯等等。實則，若考察從8到12世紀禪宗的代表性文本，如《楞伽師資記》、《絕觀論》、《祖堂集》、《景德傳燈錄》與《碧巖錄》，就可以發現背後關涉了「作者」所扮演的角色、知識權威的象徵、文本意義的生成與閱讀機制等等議題，並在禪宗發展的不同階段中有著微妙的變化。並且，這些既是禪宗文本在解讀上的方法論議題，亦是禪修者的修道論與詮釋學問題――而這不僅牽涉到作為讀者的古代禪門弟子如何看待這些文本，以及如何藉著這些文本參悟某種悟境，其實也關乎同時是讀者的研究者（亦即吾人），要如何處理自身與這些禪宗文本間的關係。而在上述文獻中都曾顯露蹤影的「無情教義」――筆者對草木、瓦石等無情物具有佛性、可成佛（或已經成佛）或可以說法等三個概念的總稱――，其內容、形式、旨趣以及不同的展演方式，似乎對此提供了一個可參考的線索。
Since the finding of Dunhuang manuscripts, numbers of scholars have possessed quite enthusiasms on figuring out some text’s real “author”, for example, the philological problems between the Platform Sutra (壇經) and Huineng (慧能), regarded as the Sixth Patriarch of Chan linage. However, there just are a little of people who tried to survey the concept of “author” in the Chan text’s context, such as why and how “author” is important? What is the relevance between “author”, text and authority of knowledge? In fact, we can find the role of “author”, the symbolic of authority of knowledge, the produce of the significance in text, the mechanism of reading and understanding, and so on, and their interesting changes and differences in each stage, as long as we investigate the representative Chan texts from 8th to 12th century, for example: the Record of the Masters and Disciples of the Laṅkāvatāra (楞伽師資記), the Treatise on the Transcendence of Cognition (絕觀論), the Patriarchs’ Hall Anthology (祖堂集), the Record of the Transmission of the Lamp [Compiled During the] Jingde [Period] (景德傳燈錄) and the Blue-Cliff Records (碧巖錄). Moreover, they are not only methodological issues, but also having relations with Chan meditators’ monasticism and hermeneutics. It also concerns how ancient Chan disciples read these texts and derived significance or even enlightenment therefrom, as well as how researchers (i.e., ourselves) to deal with the relations between them and ourselves as readers. The Doctrine of Insentient Beings, a term I used to refer to three notions: insentient beings possess Buddha-nature, being able to reach Buddhahood, and being capable of preaching Dharma, emerged in the Chan texts I mentioned above. In addition, its content, form and performance seem to provide some clues for this a series of issues.
中華佛學研究, 2013
本文旨在回顧近80年來，胡適所揭起的禪史敘事及其方法論的論辯──一場擴及中、日、臺、歐、美以及臺灣教界的論辯。隨著一系列的論爭逐漸醞釀，以日本學界為交界而分成兩大支線，一線是東亞，一線是歐、美、... more 本文旨在回顧近80年來，胡適所揭起的禪史敘事及其方法論的論辯──一場擴及中、日、臺、歐、美以及臺灣教界的論辯。隨著一系列的論爭逐漸醞釀，以日本學界為交界而分成兩大支線，一線是東亞，一線是歐、美、日。東亞方面，中、臺、港三地的教、學兩界皆投入其中，在1969年代激盪出一場盛況空前的筆戰與論辯。這場辯論大會，最後以1971年印順法師的禪史巨作──《中國禪宗史》──作結。歐、美、日方面，1953年以胡適與鈴木大拙的辯論為導火線，引發西方學界對禪宗研究的方法論問題的注意並全面性的展開重新檢討。尤其是John R. McRae與Bernard Faure開展柳田聖山的進路，而有了更進一步的成果。
從這其中，對教界而言可視為一個現代化的過渡，對學界而言則是一個禪學學術史的進程。從更大的脈絡來看，是現代主義對傳統宗教的衝擊之縮影，以及後現代主義的一個研究轉向的一個案例。
另外，以後殖民主義的角度審視之，自印順法師後，漢語學界的禪學研究長期孤立於歐、美、日國際學界之外。目前中國大陸學界已然正視此問題，臺灣是否也跟進此趨勢，將為臺灣的禪學研究之未來帶來重大的影響。而跟進的同時，其實也伴隨著一些困局與隱憂。因此，如何建立漢語學界的本土性、主體性的禪學研究進路或成果，將是一大課題。
This paper focus on the debates over narratives and methodologies within Chan history caused by Hushi (1891-1962) from eighty years ago and extended to China, Japan, Taiwan, Europe and the U.S.. This issue separates them into two sides for argumentation. In one side there was East Asian; the other side included Japan, Europe and the U.S., and Japanese scholars were the demarcation. At first, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong’s scholarly and religious societies both joined this issue, and inspired a very grant discussion. It ended in 1971, because of the publishing of History of Chinese Chan School written by Ven. Yinshun. Then the argument between Hushi and D. T. Suzuki (1870-1966) were triggered. Their discussion caused attentions among western scholars and made for the introspection about the problem of methodology of Chan Studies. Furthermore, John R. McRae and Bernard Faure developed Yanagida Seizan’s (1922-2006) approach and got some more achievements.
It was a process of modernization for Buddhist societies, and an academic history for scholarly societies. Contextually, it was an epitome of impact between modernism and traditional religion, and a case of post-modernism shift.
Form the viewpoint of post-colonialism, moreover, after Ven. Yinshun, Chinese scholarly societies had found themselves in an isolated position, being secluded from international research. China have faced and tried to deal with this problem. How about Taiwan? Furthermore, when we follow this trend, certain concerns and worries accompany as well. Therefore, it will be a very important question : how to establish Chinese scholarly societies’ localized and subjectivistic approach or achievements?
正觀雜誌, 2014
漢傳佛教之禪宗，向來被視為是佛教中國化的一個代表性指標。而在過去主流的傳統禪宗史觀中，牛頭禪是被視為一個從禪宗正系四祖道信（580-651）分出的旁支。但自胡適、宇井伯壽、關口真大與柳田聖山等學... more 漢傳佛教之禪宗，向來被視為是佛教中國化的一個代表性指標。而在過去主流的傳統禪宗史觀中，牛頭禪是被視為一個從禪宗正系四祖道信（580-651）分出的旁支。但自胡適、宇井伯壽、關口真大與柳田聖山等學者對牛頭禪的重新研究與梳理後，印順法師更提出牛頭開祖法融（594-657）才是中國禪的真正奠立者，是禪宗「中國化」的關鍵，並提及嘉祥吉藏（549-623）學說與牛頭法融的一脈相承，後來不乏學者繼之投入此議題。但以上研究，並未深入探究「吉藏『草木有性』到法融『無情合道』」中的思想學說之變化與轉向，並且多著墨於其中的中國文化所造成的影響，尤其是道家元素，因而忽略了佛教思想內部的變化邏輯。以本文之研究，發現從這段思想史的變遷中，可以指出三論教學之吉藏對於法融之牛頭禪的影響：(1)從「有情成佛」到「無情成佛」的成佛主體之變化，以及(2)教學重心從「哲學主張」到法融著重的「實踐導向」。這個思想脈絡，相對於初祖菩提達摩（5th-6th）到六祖惠能（638-713）的「正面」，可以視為一個禪宗形成的「側面」。並且，在研究取向上，筆者反思佛教中國化研究進路的侷限，並嘗試跳脫以上大多落於佛教中國化的視角與研究觀點的禪宗史建構，重新發掘佛教思想變遷中的內部理路的其他可能性。
Chinese Chan Buddhism is usually regarded as one of the most representative example of the sinification of Buddhism. Moreover, in the traditional view on the history of the Chinese Chan schools, The Oxhead school was considered to originate from the orthodox lineage of the fourth patriarch Daoxin (580-651), as Kaiten Nukariya and D. T. Suzuki suggested. However, following the studies on the Oxhead school led by Hu Shi, Ui Hakuju, Sekiguchi Shindai and Yanagida Seizan, the aforementioned view evolved over time, and the historical position of the Oxhead school was reexamined. Later still, Yin Shun deemed that Farong (594-657), founder of patriarch Chan, was the real founder of Chinese Chan and the pivot for the sinification of Chan. In addition to this, he also held that Jicang’s (549-623) and Farong’s thought were derived from the same origin. There are quite a few scholars who have investigated this issue. For the most part, these researches focused on Chinese culture, especially Taoist elements, neglecting the internal dynamics at work within the Buddhist intellectual discussions of that time. In my view, the transmission and transformation of ideas from Jicang’s “plants possess Buddha nature” to Farong’s “non-sentient beings conform with Dao”, which hasn’t been deeply explored by these research, can specifically show former’s influence on latter’s Oxhead Chan: (1) The subject of accomplishing-Buddhahood was shifted from “sentient beings’ accomplishing-Buddhahood” to “non-sentient beings’ accomplishing-Buddhahood”. (2) The nature of the doctrinal teachings also shifted from “philosophical arguments” to “practically oriented guidance”. In my investigating these issues, I found notion of sinification which has become central to the research of many in this field, fail to account for this ideological shift. Using the approach of constructive interpretation, I try to reconstruct the inner dynamics that have informed the development of Buddhist thought over this period. In contrast to the main historical thread linking Bodhidharma(5th-6th) to Huineng(638-713), the evolution that I wish to highlight here may be considered as an “alternative aspect of Chan’s formation”; that is, “how Jicang’s thought of the Three Treatise evolved into a practical doctrine and teaching of the Chan school”. Finally, I also tried to argue and avoid the approach which stressed the sinification and influence of Chinese culture excessively and then led to ignore the inner development in Buddhist thought and limit the probability of other interpretations about this topic.
法鼓佛學學報, 2022
紫柏真可（1543-1604）被後世追為明代萬曆三高僧之一，藉由主張禪與教之間是不可分割的體用關係如水與波般，因此我們無法不透過波去飲水，不能繞過教去契及禪，以在禪門內大力宣揚經教的重要性。本文... more 紫柏真可（1543-1604）被後世追為明代萬曆三高僧之一，藉由主張禪與教之間是不可分割的體用關係如水與波般，因此我們無法不透過波去飲水，不能繞過教去契及禪，以在禪門內大力宣揚經教的重要性。本文的主要問題是紫柏採用了何種的詮釋學策略，以合法化其不同於9世紀以來的主流「教外別傳」之禪教觀，以及現代學人如何解釋紫柏為何強調經教。本文將針對該問題的回應分為兩進路：脈絡化進路與文化本質主義進路。脈絡化進路旨在將所解釋的對象予以脈絡化處理而歸因於外在環境的影響，但也帶來了「一切皆為權宜說法」且相反於本質主義傾向的建構論難題。紫柏則與鈴木大拙都採用了同種形式的文化本質主義進路，即訴諸某種無法言說的經驗或精神境界作為本質，如「悟／心／禪本身」。就此而言，儘管Robert H. Sharf認為「宗教經驗修辭」很大程度是「現代」產物，但這兩位禪宗門人在解釋進路上的相似處的背後，仍或多或少地隱伏著某些來自「前現代」的遺贈，如將開悟界定為一種非智識可契及之經驗的知識論立場。最後，本文試圖指出這種本質主義解釋進路，在導向長青主義式（perennialist）的「宗教多元主義」（religious pluralism）的同時，也展現了宗教傳統的同一性意欲，並恰好契合了紫柏思想的存有論基礎，亦即佛性學說。
Zibo Zhenke (紫柏真可, 1543-1604) is regarded as one of the three eminent monks during the Wanli (萬曆) era in the Ming Dynasty. Zibo promoted the importance of doctrine in the Chan community by claiming that the relationship between Chan and doctrine is inseparable like essence and function, like “water and waves.” As one can only “drink water from waves,” one can only attain Chan enlightenment through the doctrine. The main questions addressed in this paper are what hermeneutic strategy Zibo adopted to legitimize his perspective on “Chan and doctrine” which is different from “a separate transmission apart from the doctrine” (教外別傳), the mainstream view of the Chan community since the 9th century, and how modern scholars explain why Zibo emphasized doctrine.
I will categorize these responses into two approaches; one being the contextualization approach, and the other being the cultural essentialism approach. The former approach aims to contextualize the object to be explained and attribute it to the influence of the external environment. This way, however, also leads to the problem of constructionism against essentialism. Zibo and D. T. Suzuki adopted the same form of cultural essentialism approach, which appeals to an ineffable and spiritual experience regarded as the essence, such as “enlightenment,” “mind” or “Chan/Zen itself.”
In this regard, despite Robert H. Sharf’s view that “the Rhetoric of Religious Experience” is largely a “modern” product, there are still vestiges of the “premodern” behind the similarities of Zibo’s and Suzuki’s approaches, such as the epistemological position that defines enlightenment as an experience that is not accessible to the intellect. Finally, this paper attempts to point out that this essentialist approach, while leading to perennialist “religious pluralism”, also shows the will to identity of religious tradition, which is in accordance with the ontological basis of Zibo’s thought, that is, the doctrine of buddha nature (佛性).
臺大佛學研究, 2021
在禪宗史中時不時地浮現的禪、教爭議，其中一個關鍵即 是「教外別傳，不立文字」的不同立場，亦即「經教」在禪宗的 解脫論中具有何種功能——或不具功能。與此同時，經教作為 「智識」的理解對象，也代表了... more 在禪宗史中時不時地浮現的禪、教爭議，其中一個關鍵即 是「教外別傳，不立文字」的不同立場，亦即「經教」在禪宗的 解脫論中具有何種功能——或不具功能。與此同時，經教作為 「智識」的理解對象，也代表了禪、教爭議的背後正是禪門對於「智識」的不同觀點。禪宗社群中強調經教的重要性者，往往肯認「智識」在修證過程中具有積極意義，進而需要以智識的方式來解釋智識之於契及禪悟的重要性，甚至是必要性。明代被視為禪門「尊宿」的紫柏真可（1543-1604），就曾嘗試理論性地解釋「非智識的禪悟與智識之間的關係為何」與「為何非智識的禪悟可由智識去契及」，並譬喻「禪如春也，文字則花也。春在於花，全花是春；花在於春，全春是花」的禪教不二立場。然而， 當取法唯識學及其量論時，紫柏所立足的《楞嚴經》與《大乘起信論》的心意識理論，卻讓他重新回到了「不立文字」的反智識主義立場——紫柏認為第六意識已落比量，只能變帶地緣取真如假境，僅有第六識未起前的清淨真心才能挾帶地、現量地親緣真如。但是，這就重新陷入了一個難題：如若第六識與經教在理論上無關於修行者對真如的契悟，到底要如何說明經教之於禪悟是重要的？——經教到底是翳眼的金屑，抑或與春意體一不二的繁花？
The debate on the relationship between Chan and do ctrine appears from time to time in the history of the Chan community. One of critical points is their diff erent positions on “a separate transmission apart from the doctrine” (教外別傳) and “not setting up language and letter,” (不立文字) that is, the core of the problem is to determine what role “doctrine” (經教) plays in me ditation and the experience of Chan enlightenment, or if “doctrine” does not play any role.
However, if we examine th is issue deeper, then we will find that the Chan patriarchs’ positions on this debate showed their ra tionale. The Chan patriarchs who emphasized the importance of doctrine also preferred to agree that rationale can or must have a positive position in Chan practice. But because of their emphasis on to logic and atypical position from the mainstream, they need to explain intellectually how doctrine is necessary and why it will infl uence Chan meditation.
Zibo Zhenke (紫柏真可, 1543-1604) who is regarded as a Noble Master (尊宿) in the Ming Chan community, highly stressed the importance of literary Chan (文字禪) and doctrine by claiming that the relation between Chan and doctrine is nondualistic with a metaphor: Chan is the spring, literature (including doctrine) is the flowers. However, when Zibo tried to interpret the theories of consciousness, direct perception (pratyakṣa, 現量) and logical inference (anumāna, 比量) from Yogācāra Chinese texts, his preunderstanding which is based on *Śūraṅgama Sūtra (楞嚴經) and Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (大乘起信論) made him return to the anti-intellectualist position of “not setting up language and letter” and debasing rationale. Zibo argued that the sixth consciousness already fell into logical inference, and only the pure mind, which is something before the arising of sixth consciousness, is able to perceive tathatā (真如) in direct perception way. However, this contradiction makes the problem emerge again: theoretically, if doctrine plays no role in perceiving tathatā, why and how is doctrine important for getting enlightenment? Is doctrine gold dust as film in the eyes or the flowers as spring?
漢學研究, 2020
從敦煌文獻的重新發現以來，吾人可以發現歷史文獻學進路的禪宗研究，對於追尋文本的真實「作者」有著相當的熱情，比方《壇經》與六祖慧能之間的文獻考據問題。然而，卻鮮少人去考察「作者」在禪宗文本中到底是... more 從敦煌文獻的重新發現以來，吾人可以發現歷史文獻學進路的禪宗研究，對於追尋文本的真實「作者」有著相當的熱情，比方《壇經》與六祖慧能之間的文獻考據問題。然而，卻鮮少人去考察「作者」在禪宗文本中到底是何種概念，相關的問題包括「作者」為何重要、「作者」與文本的關係、「作者」與知識權威的關聯等等。實則，若考察從8到12世紀禪宗的代表性文本，如《楞伽師資記》、《絕觀論》、《祖堂集》、《景德傳燈錄》與《碧巖錄》，就可以發現背後關涉了「作者」所扮演的角色、知識權威的象徵、文本意義的生成與閱讀機制等等議題，並在禪宗發展的不同階段中有著微妙的變化。並且，這些既是禪宗文本在解讀上的方法論議題，亦是禪修者的修道論與詮釋學問題――而這不僅牽涉到作為讀者的古代禪門弟子如何看待這些文本，以及如何藉著這些文本參悟某種悟境，其實也關乎同時是讀者的研究者（亦即吾人），要如何處理自身與這些禪宗文本間的關係。而在上述文獻中都曾顯露蹤影的「無情教義」――筆者對草木、瓦石等無情物具有佛性、可成佛（或已經成佛）或可以說法等三個概念的總稱――，其內容、形式、旨趣以及不同的展演方式，似乎對此提供了一個可參考的線索。
Since the finding of Dunhuang manuscripts, numbers of scholars have possessed quite enthusiasms on figuring out some text’s real “author”, for example, the philological problems between the Platform Sutra (壇經) and Huineng (慧能), regarded as the Sixth Patriarch of Chan linage. However, there just are a little of people who tried to survey the concept of “author” in the Chan text’s context, such as why and how “author” is important? What is the relevance between “author”, text and authority of knowledge? In fact, we can find the role of “author”, the symbolic of authority of knowledge, the produce of the significance in text, the mechanism of reading and understanding, and so on, and their interesting changes and differences in each stage, as long as we investigate the representative Chan texts from 8th to 12th century, for example: the Record of the Masters and Disciples of the Laṅkāvatāra (楞伽師資記), the Treatise on the Transcendence of Cognition (絕觀論), the Patriarchs’ Hall Anthology (祖堂集), the Record of the Transmission of the Lamp [Compiled During the] Jingde [Period] (景德傳燈錄) and the Blue-Cliff Records (碧巖錄). Moreover, they are not only methodological issues, but also having relations with Chan meditators’ monasticism and hermeneutics. It also concerns how ancient Chan disciples read these texts and derived significance or even enlightenment therefrom, as well as how researchers (i.e., ourselves) to deal with the relations between them and ourselves as readers. The Doctrine of Insentient Beings, a term I used to refer to three notions: insentient beings possess Buddha-nature, being able to reach Buddhahood, and being capable of preaching Dharma, emerged in the Chan texts I mentioned above. In addition, its content, form and performance seem to provide some clues for this a series of issues.
中華佛學研究, 2013
本文旨在回顧近80年來，胡適所揭起的禪史敘事及其方法論的論辯──一場擴及中、日、臺、歐、美以及臺灣教界的論辯。隨著一系列的論爭逐漸醞釀，以日本學界為交界而分成兩大支線，一線是東亞，一線是歐、美、... more 本文旨在回顧近80年來，胡適所揭起的禪史敘事及其方法論的論辯──一場擴及中、日、臺、歐、美以及臺灣教界的論辯。隨著一系列的論爭逐漸醞釀，以日本學界為交界而分成兩大支線，一線是東亞，一線是歐、美、日。東亞方面，中、臺、港三地的教、學兩界皆投入其中，在1969年代激盪出一場盛況空前的筆戰與論辯。這場辯論大會，最後以1971年印順法師的禪史巨作──《中國禪宗史》──作結。歐、美、日方面，1953年以胡適與鈴木大拙的辯論為導火線，引發西方學界對禪宗研究的方法論問題的注意並全面性的展開重新檢討。尤其是John R. McRae與Bernard Faure開展柳田聖山的進路，而有了更進一步的成果。
從這其中，對教界而言可視為一個現代化的過渡，對學界而言則是一個禪學學術史的進程。從更大的脈絡來看，是現代主義對傳統宗教的衝擊之縮影，以及後現代主義的一個研究轉向的一個案例。
另外，以後殖民主義的角度審視之，自印順法師後，漢語學界的禪學研究長期孤立於歐、美、日國際學界之外。目前中國大陸學界已然正視此問題，臺灣是否也跟進此趨勢，將為臺灣的禪學研究之未來帶來重大的影響。而跟進的同時，其實也伴隨著一些困局與隱憂。因此，如何建立漢語學界的本土性、主體性的禪學研究進路或成果，將是一大課題。
This paper focus on the debates over narratives and methodologies within Chan history caused by Hushi (1891-1962) from eighty years ago and extended to China, Japan, Taiwan, Europe and the U.S.. This issue separates them into two sides for argumentation. In one side there was East Asian; the other side included Japan, Europe and the U.S., and Japanese scholars were the demarcation. At first, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong’s scholarly and religious societies both joined this issue, and inspired a very grant discussion. It ended in 1971, because of the publishing of History of Chinese Chan School written by Ven. Yinshun. Then the argument between Hushi and D. T. Suzuki (1870-1966) were triggered. Their discussion caused attentions among western scholars and made for the introspection about the problem of methodology of Chan Studies. Furthermore, John R. McRae and Bernard Faure developed Yanagida Seizan’s (1922-2006) approach and got some more achievements.
It was a process of modernization for Buddhist societies, and an academic history for scholarly societies. Contextually, it was an epitome of impact between modernism and traditional religion, and a case of post-modernism shift.
Form the viewpoint of post-colonialism, moreover, after Ven. Yinshun, Chinese scholarly societies had found themselves in an isolated position, being secluded from international research. China have faced and tried to deal with this problem. How about Taiwan? Furthermore, when we follow this trend, certain concerns and worries accompany as well. Therefore, it will be a very important question : how to establish Chinese scholarly societies’ localized and subjectivistic approach or achievements?
正觀雜誌, 2014
漢傳佛教之禪宗，向來被視為是佛教中國化的一個代表性指標。而在過去主流的傳統禪宗史觀中，牛頭禪是被視為一個從禪宗正系四祖道信（580-651）分出的旁支。但自胡適、宇井伯壽、關口真大與柳田聖山等學... more 漢傳佛教之禪宗，向來被視為是佛教中國化的一個代表性指標。而在過去主流的傳統禪宗史觀中，牛頭禪是被視為一個從禪宗正系四祖道信（580-651）分出的旁支。但自胡適、宇井伯壽、關口真大與柳田聖山等學者對牛頭禪的重新研究與梳理後，印順法師更提出牛頭開祖法融（594-657）才是中國禪的真正奠立者，是禪宗「中國化」的關鍵，並提及嘉祥吉藏（549-623）學說與牛頭法融的一脈相承，後來不乏學者繼之投入此議題。但以上研究，並未深入探究「吉藏『草木有性』到法融『無情合道』」中的思想學說之變化與轉向，並且多著墨於其中的中國文化所造成的影響，尤其是道家元素，因而忽略了佛教思想內部的變化邏輯。以本文之研究，發現從這段思想史的變遷中，可以指出三論教學之吉藏對於法融之牛頭禪的影響：(1)從「有情成佛」到「無情成佛」的成佛主體之變化，以及(2)教學重心從「哲學主張」到法融著重的「實踐導向」。這個思想脈絡，相對於初祖菩提達摩（5th-6th）到六祖惠能（638-713）的「正面」，可以視為一個禪宗形成的「側面」。並且，在研究取向上，筆者反思佛教中國化研究進路的侷限，並嘗試跳脫以上大多落於佛教中國化的視角與研究觀點的禪宗史建構，重新發掘佛教思想變遷中的內部理路的其他可能性。
Chinese Chan Buddhism is usually regarded as one of the most representative example of the sinification of Buddhism. Moreover, in the traditional view on the history of the Chinese Chan schools, The Oxhead school was considered to originate from the orthodox lineage of the fourth patriarch Daoxin (580-651), as Kaiten Nukariya and D. T. Suzuki suggested. However, following the studies on the Oxhead school led by Hu Shi, Ui Hakuju, Sekiguchi Shindai and Yanagida Seizan, the aforementioned view evolved over time, and the historical position of the Oxhead school was reexamined. Later still, Yin Shun deemed that Farong (594-657), founder of patriarch Chan, was the real founder of Chinese Chan and the pivot for the sinification of Chan. In addition to this, he also held that Jicang’s (549-623) and Farong’s thought were derived from the same origin. There are quite a few scholars who have investigated this issue. For the most part, these researches focused on Chinese culture, especially Taoist elements, neglecting the internal dynamics at work within the Buddhist intellectual discussions of that time. In my view, the transmission and transformation of ideas from Jicang’s “plants possess Buddha nature” to Farong’s “non-sentient beings conform with Dao”, which hasn’t been deeply explored by these research, can specifically show former’s influence on latter’s Oxhead Chan: (1) The subject of accomplishing-Buddhahood was shifted from “sentient beings’ accomplishing-Buddhahood” to “non-sentient beings’ accomplishing-Buddhahood”. (2) The nature of the doctrinal teachings also shifted from “philosophical arguments” to “practically oriented guidance”. In my investigating these issues, I found notion of sinification which has become central to the research of many in this field, fail to account for this ideological shift. Using the approach of constructive interpretation, I try to reconstruct the inner dynamics that have informed the development of Buddhist thought over this period. In contrast to the main historical thread linking Bodhidharma(5th-6th) to Huineng(638-713), the evolution that I wish to highlight here may be considered as an “alternative aspect of Chan’s formation”; that is, “how Jicang’s thought of the Three Treatise evolved into a practical doctrine and teaching of the Chan school”. Finally, I also tried to argue and avoid the approach which stressed the sinification and influence of Chinese culture excessively and then led to ignore the inner development in Buddhist thought and limit the probability of other interpretations about this topic.