|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
有關「惡」之形上論述的比較 -- 西方哲學、神學與佛教哲學論「惡」之問題=A Comparison in Metaphysics on the Problem of Evil : arguments Between Western Philosophy, Theology and Buddhism Philosophy |
|
|
|
| Author |
釋性廣 (著)=Shih, Shing-kuang (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
玄奘佛學研究=Hsuan Chuang Journal of Buddhism Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.2 |
|---|
| Date | 2005.01.01 |
|---|
| Pages | 237 - 265 |
|---|
| Publisher | 玄奘大學 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://ird.hcu.edu.tw/front/bin/home.phtml
|
|---|
| Location | 新竹市, 臺灣 [Hsinchu shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 作者為玄奘大學暨東吳大學兼任講師=Sessional Instructor of Hsuan Chuang University & Soochow University |
|---|
| Keyword | 形上惡=Metaphysical evil; 道德惡=Moral evil; 生理惡=Physical evil; 自然惡=Natural Evil; 惡的問題=Problem of evil kleca; 煩惱; 惡業=Akucala-karma; 有覆無記=Nivrtavyakrta; 無覆無記=Snivrtavyakrta; 如來藏=Tathagata-garbha |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文從形上學的角度，討論東西方宗教與哲學對於「惡」（evil）的本質、根源或起始等問題之不同觀點與相關爭議。西方哲學與神學中的「惡」（evil），與「缺乏」（privation）之概念有關；存有者（事物或人）若未符合完滿的狀態或特質，就是缺乏──惡。依此，將「惡」分類為：「形上惡」、「道德惡」、「生理惡」與「自然惡」等四種。中國哲學對於「惡」的討論，多論究「倫理惡」，對於「惡」的根源，直從人性而作探索，重視揚善去惡的實踐方法。而西方神學與哲學，因為追究「惡」的起始，故產生了「形上惡」與（本諸上帝信仰而有的）種種「惡的問題」之豐富論述。佛家哲學論「惡」，也以「倫理惡」為主。煩惱與惡業都是惡法，更在善與惡的範疇之外，建立非善非惡的「無記」法。善、惡因可導致樂、苦果；心理與行為有善、惡、無記之三類，果報則唯屬無記。西哲將「道德惡」所造成的惡劣後果視同為惡──「生理惡」與「自然惡」，佛家則將其歸屬於「無記」，不名為「惡」而但名為「苦」。欲離苦必須除惡，故惡與苦依然有密切關聯。佛法重視經驗法則，故教人於現實狀況中，對「惡」加以觀察，並斷除之，因此沒有「形上惡」（惡之起始）方面的揣想與論述。較為特殊的是如來藏學說，因其安立原初內在之淨性（形上之善），故於惡之起源，則歸諸時間上「無始」
之無明，以及外染的「客塵」煩惱。
In this article, I compare different opinions and controversies between Eastern
and Western religions and their philosophies on both the essence and the origin of evil.
In western philosophy and theology, evil is regarded as being related to the
concept privation. They declare that its existence (either something or somebody) is privative when not perfect. Accordingly, it divides evil into four groups: metaphysical evil, moral evil, physical evil and natural evil.
On the other hand, Chinese philosophers are more concerned with ethical evil.
Since they explore the origin of evil directly from humanity, they pay much attention to a practical method about how to propagate good and discard evil. In Western theology and philosophy, the search to find the origin of evil implies that there exists metaphysical evil. Meanwhile, with faith in God, many arguments arise regarding the problem of evil.
In Buddhist philosophy, whenever speaking of evil, they also give emphasis to
ethical evil. Both kleca and akucala-karma are evil. Besides good and evil, they establish avyāk?ta, which is neither good nor evil. Good deeds lead to happiness; evil deeds lead to torture. The causes (mental and physical deeds) are divided into three groups: good, evil and avyāk?ta. Yet, the effect belongs to avyāk?ta only.
Moreover, western philosophers regard bad effects arising from moral evil as evil (physical evil and natural evil), but Buddhists regard them as avyāk?ta, not evil, but torture. If we want to get away from torture, we have to discard evil deeds. In this sense, evil and torture are still closely related.
Buddhists emphasize the Experience Principle. They observe evil deeds during
practical life, and then discard them. Accordingly, they have no imagination or
arguments about metaphysical evil (the origin of evil). But the Tathagata-garbha School is unique. It is convinced that there exists an original inner pure essence (the metaphysical good), so it regards the origin of evil as the unenlightenment, with no primal ignorance, and as the foreign atom kleca. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、緒論 240
（一）「惡」之定義及其範疇
（二）惡之本質及其種類
二、西方神學與哲學對「惡」的討論 245
（一）有關「惡的存在」之陳述
（二）對「惡的問題」（the problem of evil）的詰難
（三）神學對惡的闡釋
（四）哲學家對惡的討論
三、佛教哲學對「惡」的討論 257
（一）「惡」、「染」與「苦」之區別
（二）「惡」的根源問題
四、結論 262 |
|---|
| ISSN | 18133649 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 1153 |
|---|
| Created date | 2010.09.10 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.12.01 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
