 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
天台宗的可說與不可說--天台宗的語言用法及其對語言界限的觀點=The Expressible and Inexpressible in Tiantai Buddhism--Usage of Language in Tiantai Buddhisn and Its Viewpoint about Limits of Verbal Articulation |
|
|
|
| Author |
漢斯魯道夫康特 (著)=Kantor, Hans-Rudolf (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
正觀雜誌=Satyabhisamaya: A Buddhist Studies Quarterly
|
|---|
| Volume | n.27 |
|---|
| Date | 2003.12.25 |
|---|
| Pages | 13 - 84 |
|---|
| Publisher | 正觀雜誌社 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.tt034.org.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 南投縣, 臺灣 [Nantou hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 1.作者為華梵大學東研所助理教授=Assistant professor，Haufan-University，Gruate College of East Asian Humanities 2.本文為漢斯‧康特、郭朝順、米建國三位共同發表之論文《東西哲學對話：語言的界限》之一，其他尚有郭朝順著的《華嚴宗的可說與不可說》，及米建國著的《維根斯坦的可說與不可說》兩篇相關論文. |
|---|
| Keyword | 語言學=Linguistics; 聖凡不二=exculsive reference between the sacred and the profane; 意向性的語言用法=intentional usage of language; 實用性的語言用法=pragmatic usage of language; 倒映形態=inversion; 弔詭表態=paradoxical articulation; 辯證法=dialectics; 空性=Emptiness=Sunyata=Sunnata; 中道=the Middle Way; 三諦=threefold truth; 天台宗=Tien-tai Buddhism=Tendaishu； |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文旨在，分析出與天台宗之救度學義相關的語言用法，以及天台宗對語言界限上的觀點. 天台宗將[度一切眾生] 視為其救度學理想，就其理論性的根據而言，天台宗不得不預設 [聖凡不二] 之教義. 智顗認為，基於此一教義才能顯示出，天台宗[轉識成智] 的教化方式所以完整[度一切眾生] 的理想. 但是依大乘佛教而觀，佛法之聖賢義為不可說，故一切文字表達只能代表一種世俗義.
筆者認為，依天台宗而言，世俗義之 [可說] 與聖賢義之 [不可說] 兩個領域間的界線可以被理解為 [意向性的語言用法] 間的轉變點. 意向性的語言用法指是，語言表達在一切意識活動的認識以及意志趨向上所指涉的名義；實用性的語言用法指的是，語言表達在佛法救度的功夫上的手段義. 天台宗認為前者所成立者為虛假，但是它含有其價值引導；在其暫時性的型態中，意向性的語言用法發揮文字表達的實用涵義. 後者依其暫時性之實用涵義來展現佛法之終極意義. 因此兩種語言用法之差別在一種 [執著] 及 [無執著] 之不同. [可說] 之詞義關涉到一種既虛假也限定的對象界，[不可說] 體現為一種多重涵義的終極實在本身；然終極實不得不倒映於與其相反的虛假型態而呈現，而虛假的領域仍需依于一終極實在的根源；是故舉其一端必具另外一端，是故[可說] 與 [不可說] 間，乃是實在與虛假之 [敵對相即] 或 [同體不異] .
因此，天台宗並不將 [可說] 與 [不可說] 構思為兩種彼此排斥的領域；依天台宗的辯證法而言，世俗性之 [可說] 與聖賢義之 [不可說] 雖互為獨立，其卻交互指涉. 因此其交互指涉亦對應到天台宗 [聖凡不二] 的救度依據. 天台宗借用[三諦] 的中國佛學術語來展現其語言哲學義. 本文專就與天台宗 [三諦] 觀相關聯的語言哲學義加以探討.
The paper attempts to clarify the interdependence between usage of language and soteriological conception in Tiantai Buddhism. Closely associated with this issue is the question of the limits of verbal expression raised by speculative reflections on language in this Buddhist school. According to the Tiantai Buddhist version of soteriology，the limit between the expressible and the inexpressible could be described as the turning point from intentional usage of language into its pragmatic mode.
International usage of language includes that kind of verbal articulation，which expresses cognitional and volitional contents of consciousness. Pragmatic usage of language refers to verbal articulation，which functions as means of expediency within a soteriological context. Taintai Buddhism regards verbal meanings construed by intentional usage of language as ultimately unreal，and all entities identified with these meanings are considered as illusory. Existing things are believed to be devoid of any substantial reality in itself；but recognized as discrete entities corresponding to verbal meanings, their original non-abidingness is inverted into an abiding substance，which is regarded as illusory.
However，this illusory state of inversion caused through intentional usage of language includes an instructional value，because it inversely refers back to what is real. The pragmatic relevance of this instructional value is signified，then，as provisional mode in verbal articulation. Pragmatic usage of language emphasizes the provisional character of verbal meaning by means of paradoxical articulation. As soon as some soteriological meaning is verbalized，it must be denied，to signify its provisional character. Pragmatic usage of language maintains its reference to the soteriological meaning of “non-attachment” by means of paradoxical articulation. It constructs and simultaneously restricts meaning to its provisional significance through the deconstructive function of paradoxical articulation. Intentional usage turns into pragmatic usage of language，and the latter is supposed to be capable of embodying the Buddha-dharma’s ultimate meaning. Consequently，the difference between the two modes pf using language consists of a difference between the attitude of “ attachment” and “non-attachment” to verbal meaning.
In Taintai Buddhism the verbalized represents the illusive realm；the inexpressible represents ultimate reality. On the other hand，ultimate reality cannot but be manifested through this inverse mode of illusory meaning in verbal articulation；and the illusory realm cannot but be based on ultimate reality. As soon as one of the two is taken into account，the other cannot be neglected either. If the inexpressible were completely devoid of any reference to linguistic articulation，it would be finally meaningless, which entails nihilism；even its soteriological meaning would be baseless. Conversely，the verbalized inversely hints at what is ultimately real – the inexpressible.
Essentially，the verbalized is then the inexpressible in its mode of illusive inversion. Taintai Buddhist soteriology claims paradoxical identity of its version would be nothingness. Its inversion into |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、導言 15
(一) 有關西方傳統以「語言」視為哲學主題的簡述 15
(二) 大乘佛教的救度學依據 18
(三) 大乘佛教生死觀與「不可說」之間的關係 19
(四) 救度學義及弔詭表述 21
(五) 語言用法與語言界限 25
(六) 弔詭表述與存有學義 26
(七) 有關天台宗與維根斯坦在語言界限上的對比 29
二、評論有關天台宗對語言用法上的研究 30
(一) 有關天台宗與華嚴宗在語言界限上的對比 30
(二) 有關日本佛學對天臺宗的語言用法上的觀點 32
(三) 有關中國佛學對天臺宗的語言用法上的觀點 32
(四) 有關西方佛學對天臺宗的語言用法上的觀點 38
三、大乘教化真理之二重層 39
四、文字表達之虛假性 48
五、智顗之辯證法及其語言哲學義 63
參考書目 76
|
|---|
| ISSN | 16099575 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 1154 |
|---|
| Created date | 2004.02.13 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2019.10.04 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
