|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
飲水由波 紫柏真可的禪教觀與兩種歷史解釋進路的方法論難題=Drink Water from Wave: Zibo Zhenke’s (1543-1604) Perspective on the Relationship between Chan and Doctrine and the Problems of Two Approaches of Historical Explanation |
|
|
|
| Author |
林悟石 (著)=Lin, Wu-shi (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
2021 第八屆漢傳佛教與聖嚴思想國際學術研討會
|
|---|
| Date | 2021.06.30 |
|---|
| Publisher | 財團法人聖嚴教育基金會 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://www.shengyen.org.tw/index.aspx?lang=cht
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北, 臺灣 [Taipei, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 會議論文=Proceeding Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 紫柏真可=Zibo Zhenke; 禪教關係= the Relationship between Chan and Doctrine; 脈絡化=Contextualization; 本質主義=Essentialism; 宗教經驗=Religious Experience |
|---|
| Table of contents | 紫柏真可（1543–1604），被後世追為萬曆三高僧之一。大力宣揚文字禪與經教之重要性的紫柏，將自身的禪教觀念連結並遙寄於覺範惠洪（1071–1128）。然而，紫柏的禪教觀不但異於宋代主流的「教外別傳」立場，甚至也與其自身所推崇的惠洪有著相當的差異――紫柏宣稱禪與教是如水與波般、不可分割的一體兩面，就如我們無法不透過波去飲水，不能繞過教去契及禪。我們如何理解與解釋紫柏的這個主張及其與九世紀以降禪門主流的「教外別傳」的「差異」？對此，筆者粗略地將對該問題的可能回應粗分為兩種進路，一是脈絡化進路，二是本質主義進路：前者旨在將紫柏的禪教觀脈絡化處理，而歸因於外在環境的影響，但這帶來了可能的化約論嫌疑，並將其視為一種因應時事的「權宜說法」；後者似乎能夠解決部分問題，但卻訴諸某種無法言說的經驗作為本質，如紫柏的「禪」與鈴木大拙的「禪本身」。這也因此帶來更多的問題，諸如禪悟經驗在定義上無法或拒絕被理性檢證，而這將會導致在面對不同的宗教傳統時，不得不在「無法區分異同」與長青主義式（perennialist）的「宗教多元主義」（religious pluralism）中擇一的兩難。另外，紫柏與鈴木大拙在解釋進路上的相似之處，或許也表明我們不能簡單地將「經驗修辭」視為一個現代主義下的產物。
Zibo Zhenke (紫柏真可, 1543-1604), who is regarded as one of three eminent monks during Wanli (萬曆) period in Ming Dynasty. Zibo very emphasized the importance of Chan (禪) and doctrine (教) both, and tried to claimed his view on the relationship between these is from Juefan Huihong (覺範惠洪, 1071-1128). However, Zibo’s view is not only different from the mainstream’s standpoint of Chan community in Song Dynasty, but also distinct from Huihong who was admired by him –one of metaphors Zibo used a to explain the relationship between Chan and doctrine is “water and wave.” That means, they are same one but in different aspects. He also mentioned that we cannot drink water without wave, such as it’s impassable to reach Chan without doctrine.
How do we understand and explain Zibo’s perspective and its difference from the mainstream’s standpoint of Chan community, that is “Chan is another tradition which is separate from doctrine (in sūtra)” (教外別傳), since 9th century? In this paper, I will distinguish and classify the answers into two approaches, one is contextualization, another is essentialism. The former tends to attribute Zibo’s perspective to context and environment, but this way also leads to the suspicion of reductionism and assumption Zibo’s perspective as an expediency preach. The later seems to be able to avoid of some above problems, but it appeals to an ineffable experience which is regard as the essence usually, such as “Chan / Zen” said by Zibo and D. T. Suzuki (鈴木大拙). In fact, essentialist assumptions will bring about more problems. For example, if someone (just as Zibo and Suzuki) defines Chan experience as something cannot be understood nor verified by rationale, it will lead to the dilemma between position of that “we cannot distinguish” and perennialist religious pluralism when facing various religious tradition. Besides, the similarity between Zibo and Suzuki maybe a case to show that we should not simply regard the rhetoric of experience as a product by modernism.
|
|---|
| Hits | 531 |
|---|
| Created date | 2022.06.14 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
