|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
「性起」的本意與比附 -- 「靈性起心」與「體性起用」=The Original Meanings and the Analogical Interpretations of "Xing Qi"-"Intersubjective Awakening" and "Essence-Function" |
|
|
|
| Author |
張蘭石 (著)=Chang, Nam-sat (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
玄奘佛學研究=Hsuan Chuang Journal of Buddhism Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.19 |
|---|
| Date | 2013.03.01 |
|---|
| Pages | 75 - 111 |
|---|
| 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; 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | 作者為新加坡佛學院助理教授=Assistant Professor, Buddhist College of Singapore |
|---|
| Keyword | 如來性起=intersubjective awakening; 唯心=mind only; 持業釋=descriptive determinative compound; 體用=essence-function |
|---|
| Abstract | 華嚴思想在當代備受重視卻缺少省思：「性起」之說是否偏離緣起（pratītya-samutpāda）之教而聯繫了世俗「體－用」概念？在古代，華嚴宗師智儼、法藏利用東亞固有的「體－用」概念來比附詮釋漢譯華嚴中的「性起」一詞。後來，失去革命精神的「性起」成了世俗人所沉迷的戲論，猶如創生一元本質論或含混玄理泛神論。難怪松本史朗認為華嚴思想非佛教。以是故，本文對「性起」本意的大膽假設、小心求證－依據《華嚴經．如來性起品》梵文標題（高崎直道所回譯）的詞義，以月稱對華嚴「唯心」的詮釋為判準來重新梳理智儼、法藏對「性起」的注疏，吾人可嘗試從注疏中分辨「方便比附」與「經文本意」而重組「性起」之本意。法藏弟子慧苑提到，「如來性起」一詞兼有持業釋（視為同格限定複合詞）與依主釋（視為格限定複合詞）。漢傳佛教學者們採依主釋所作的詮釋已傾於「體－用」概念，故本文假設「性起」的持業釋而嘗試另闢蹊徑。觀察華嚴宗師們在其華嚴注疏中所並陳的緣起觀與體用論之後，作者結論：（1）覺賢的「如來性起」一譯，「性」字雖是「義加」，卻比竺法護所譯「如來興顯」更保有持業釋的形態。「如來性」一詞可以是「起」這動作名詞的形容，全詞蘊涵對動作主體的教導－教導人們去「如去如來地起心，如來性起心」。然而，「如來」與「興顯」卻像兩個獨立名詞，唯有依主釋，闡釋出的是本體論、認識論。可惜，「如來性起」被簡寫為「性起」之後，「性」字成了指陳「空性」甚至「殊勝種性」的名詞而被執實，於是「性起」一詞仍舊淪於「體性－起用」（體－用）架構－含雜無盡流弊的本體論、泛神論。（2）華嚴宗師雖援用「體－用」概念作為方便法來解釋現象界與「性起」，其觀念卻仍指向緣起。因此，在華嚴宗師們的詮釋中，有「性起」本意的線索。（3）《華嚴經．如來性起品》經文是描述「成等正覺」與「菩薩對佛的覺知」，而非如來物質身的出生與出現，對應著這些經文，華嚴宗師詮釋「性起」時也大多談「起在菩提心」。顯然，「如來性起」中的「起」是教導能修持的主體心而非玄談客體現象。華嚴宗師對「性起」的理解，呼應了月稱對「唯心」的理解，都指向「心」的「主體性」。（4）「如來性起正法」關乎心靈修持而非本體論或認識論。在「如來性起」這組合詞的持業釋中，前面的「如來性」是限定「起」的形容詞，而非混淆於「常我」、「作者」的名詞。迷執於宗師們的方便法的人，將誤以為「性起」對立於「緣起」。如今，爲了釐清迷執，「性起」一詞當可平實地語譯為「靈性起心」：超越妄識制約念念相續而靈應共感於法界諸佛眾生，如此地生起心智。
Hua-yen thought attracts great attention of the modern time but lacks reflection: Have the interpretations of "xing qi" (性起) deviated from the doctrine of Interdependent Co-arising (pratītya-samutpāda) and connected to the secular concepts of essence-function (體用)? In ancient times, the Hua-yen Patriarchs Zhiyan (智儼) and Fazang (法藏) adopted the indigenous East Asian concept of essence-function to analogically explain the term "ru lai xing qi" (如來性起) quoted from the Chinese translation of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. After that, "xing qi" deprived of revolutionary spirit became sophistry like essentialism or pantheism in which laymen indulged. No wonder Matumoto Shiro considers the Hua-yen thought not Buddhist. Therefore, this article applies a bold hypothesis with careful verification on the interpretation of "xing qi": according to the linguistic meanings of the sanskrit title "tathāgata-utpatti-saṃbhava" (reconstructed on the basis of the Tibetan title by TAKASAKI Jikidō) of the Ru-lai-xing-qi chapter of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, by taking Candrakīrti's viewpoint for the meanings of "cittamatra" (mind only) in Avatamsaka as the criterion for judging Zhiyan's and Fazang's interpretations of "xing qi," we can tell the "original meanings of scriptures" from the "analogical interpretations by Skilful Means" and reorganize the meanings of "xing qi." Fazang's disciple Huiyuan (慧苑) mentioned that "ru lai xing qi" can be a Karmadhāraya (descriptive determinative compound) as well as Tatpuruṣa (dependent determinative compound). The Chinese Buddhist scholars' interpretations of "xing qi" as a Tatpuruṣa favor the concepts of essence-function, hence this article attempts to make a train of thought by using Karmadhāraya interpretation. After understanding the synchronously presented concepts of Interdependent Co-arising and essence-function in Hua-yen patriarchs' commentaries on Avatamsaka, the author concludes: (1) Though Hua-yen patriarchs utilized the essence-function concept as Skilful Means to explicate the phenomenal realm and "xing qi," their ideas were still pointing to the doctrine of Interdependent Co-arising. Hence, there are traces of the original meanings of "xing qi" in the interpretation by Hua-yen patriarchs. (2) The contents of the Ru-lai-xing-qi chapter of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra are mainly describing "Buddha's awakening" and "Bodhisattva's awareness of Buddha" instead of the manifestation of Buddha's physical body, and, correspondingly, Hua-yen Patriarchs' interpretations of "xing qi" are mostly talking about "rising of the awakened mind." It is thus clear that the word "qi" (which literally means rising) in "ru lai xing qi" should be pointing to the "subject" (mind) instead of the "object" (phenomenon). Hua-yen Patriarchs' realization for "xing qi" is in concert with Candrakīrti's for "cittamatra", pointing to the "subjectivity" of "mind". (3) The "ru lai xing qi" teaching is about spiritua |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、「性起」的原詞意義 79
（一）「性起」詞義之寓於「如來性起」全詞
（二）「如來性起」全詞之其他漢譯語詞
（三）「如來性起」全詞之漢譯詞意比對
（四）「如來性起」全詞之梵本原詞構擬
（五）「如來性起」一詞之依主釋與持業釋
（六）「如來性起」一詞中「如來」與「性起」之對仗
（七）「如來性起」一詞中「起」兩字之動作主體性
（八）「如來性起」持業釋中「如來性」所形容的「共主體性」
（九）「如來性起」持業釋中的「起心」義──智儼、法藏注疏中的線索
（十）「如來性起」持業釋中的「主體性」精神──此品經文的宗旨
二、「性起」的釋義揀擇 100
（一）中觀見──在華嚴注疏中分辨方便比附與經文本意的判準
（二）「如來性起」中「性」字的獨立概念化：種性義的假立與執實
（三）華嚴成等正覺之法與本質論、泛神論
（四）華嚴「唯心」主體性精神的淪喪：「一元本質與玄理泛神→專制物用與表相唯物」
（五）「如來性起」中「性」字的方便比附：「體用」哲學，本體論或認識論
（六）泛神論？本質論？
三、結論 108 |
|---|
| ISSN | 18133649 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 752 |
|---|
| Created date | 2013.07.29 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.12.08 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
