宗教交談=inter-religious dialogue; 佛教=Buddhism; 天台=Tiān Tái(Wade-Giles: T’ien T’ai); 交談理論=theory of dialogue; 不二=non-duality; 中道思想=the idea of Middle-way
摘要
宗教交談是當前宗教面對全球化趨勢所作出的回應之一，更是各種宗教避免自身落入意識型態的一帖良藥，可以為人類帶來和平與希望。目前西方宗教哲學對於宗教交談此一議題，已有諸多基礎性的理論研究，但佛教及其他東方宗教則鮮有從自身宗教義理出發，對此論題予以回應。西方的宗教交談理論研究雖能從各自的立場，多元闡述宗教交談的可能性與限制性，然大多不出西方哲學歷來所重視的「真理觀」（the theory of truth）、「認識論」（epistemology）以及「人觀」（anthropology）等三個面向。我們若在宗教交談脈絡下，繼續深究此三個面向的可能議題，則會觸碰到「平等性」與「差異性」等哲學問題，而此問題更是任何脈絡下的交談都必須面對的。論及宗教交談，我們自然想到必須要在平等的基礎上來進行交談，但若視現象全然平等，只是本質上絕對的「一」的外顯，將差異化約為等同，又何需交談？另一方面，若只是注重全然的差異性，而成為散落的「多」，彼此之間毫無關連，又從何交談？由此筆者不禁想問，以中道為實踐準則的佛教，如何處理不落一多兩邊，並且兼容平等差異？佛學義理若能回應這些具有弔詭性的問題，或許能夠從中道的理路，為當前宗教交談理論提出可行的建議。 若我們說佛教是一個提升生命境界的宗教，而哲學是追求人生崇高智慧的學問，兩者之間自然有許多相應的基本理念。因此，佛教信仰者或佛學研究者，若能夠從當前西方宗教哲學，論及宗教交談時所設立的框架下，作出反思及回應，一方面能夠展現佛學思想的柔韌性與方便性；更重要的是，在另一方面能夠有限度地與西方哲學，在宗教交談的論題上有所會通。職是之故，本論文以中國佛教天台宗「諸法實相」、「圓頓止觀」及「性具思想」等幾個重要的基本義理學說為基礎，探索其中能與西方哲學「真理觀」、「認識論」及「人觀」會通的宗教交談意識。為了避免強加比附，甚至落入錯誤解讀佛學義理的窠臼，因此在第一章「諸法實相」、第二章「圓頓止觀」以及第三章「性具思想」等三章的前兩節，均致力於佛學義理的理解與詮釋；繼而，在充分理解以及闡明確立自身宗教義理哲思的基礎上，於各章最後一節與西方哲學思維對比思考：第一章「真理觀」層面，以潘尼卡（Raimon Panikkar, 1918-）不二元的（non-dual）極性（polarity）真理為例；第二章「認識論」層面，以西方哲學「符應」（correspondence）、「連關」（coherence）、「開顯」（alétheia）與「後現代」（post-modern）等四種不同認識進路所可能引發的交談模式為例；第三章「人觀」層面，則以拉內（Karl Rahner, 1904-1984）的超驗神學人學（transcendental theological anthropology）為例，從而呈現天台佛學於各層面所具有的「不二中道」宗教交談意識，即「諸法實相」是兼具平等與差異的中道真理觀，「圓頓止觀」是全面觀照平等與差異的中道認識論，「性具思想」則是兼顧交談主體平等與差異的中道人觀。最後，本論文由天台佛學的立場提出反思，認為佛教信仰者可視宗教交談為深化自身信仰的實踐場域，然而，如果宗教交談也不幸成為一種至高無上的僵化意識型態，那麼當然也應該予以對治，這才契合佛法不落兩邊的中道意旨，以及宗教交談拒絕固化的基本義涵。
To bring peace and hope to humankind, inter-religious dialogue among religions in the present days, has not only been a response to the globalization, but also a solution to help them liberate from various rigid ideologies. To make inter-religious dialogue possible, both “equality” and “diversity” play important roles. While establishing the platform of equality for inter-religious dialogue, we should not ignore the differences among the diverse religions in the world; if religions are identical, dialogue will be unnecessary. Conversely, while distinguishing the diversity of religions for inter-religious dialogue, we should not avoid the common ground among religions in the inter-dependent world; if religions are isolated, dialogue will be impossible. Therefore, we can see that religions cannot have dialogue on a common ground without equality, but without diversity religions will probably lose their uniqueness. Here is the question: How can Buddhism face such kind of paradoxes: convergence (diversity in equality) vs. divergence (equality in diversity). Buddhism, a religion practicing the philosophy of Middle-way, might be able to offer substantial opinions to the current studies of inter-religious dialogue. However, Buddhism has seldom studied this issue on the basis of its religious philosophies, though there have been a number of theoretical studies of inter-religious dialogue from the perspective of western philosophies. Western theoretical studies have approached inter-religious dialogue by focusing their studies on the three aspects “the theory of truth,” “epistemology,” and “anthropology.” Therefore, the Buddhist practitioners and researchers can respond to the inter-religious dialogue, within the frames mentioned by western philosophers. Moreover, this can manifest the flexibility of Buddhism and also initiate an inter-religious dialogue between the Buddhist and the western religious philosophies. This thesis intends to explore the non-dual consciousness of inter-religious dialogue within the philosophies of Chinese Tiān Tái Buddhism, by a comparative reading of different paradigms between the Buddhist and the western philosophies, especially in the third section of each chapter. Chapter one, regarding the theory of truth, compares Zhū-fă-shí-xiàng (諸法實相) with Raimon Panikkar’s (1918-) non-dual truth. Chapter two, regarding epistemology, compares Yuán-dùn-zhĭ-guān (圓頓止觀) with four possible models of inter-religious dialogue derived from different epistemological approaches. Chapter three, regarding anthropology, compares Xìng-jù (性具) with the Karl Rahne
