小乘實有論或大乘實相論--分析明末三大師的〈物不遷論〉 解釋立場=Hlnayana or Mahayana? Analyzing the interpretive positions of the three masters of the late Ming on Things Do Not Move
物不遷論=Things Do Not Move; 雲棲株宏=Yun-qi Zhu-hong; 紫柏真可=Zi-bo Zhen-ke; 憨山德清=Han-shan De-qing; 明末〈物不遷論〉的諍辯=Late Ming Dynasty debate regarding Things Do Not Move
摘要
僧肇受推崇為「秦人解空第一」，於般若性空之旨有深透的 領悟,《肇論》為其解空的經典之作. 其中 <物不遷論> 「物各性 住於一世」的論點，唐代澄觀曾言表層文義「濫同小乘」; 明末空 印鎮澄甚至批評其為外道思想; 多位現代學者也質疑此論不符空 宗義理. 本文分析明末雲棲株宏，紫柏真可，憨山德清三位大師解 釋 <物不遷論> 的立場，發現他們都能不拘泥於部份段落的文字 表達問題，從一個較全面的視角來理解 <物不遷論> 的內容，直 探撰述的根本精神. 蓮池大師強調此論乃順應世俗見解而發，非直 接開示性空的意旨，帶有方便引導的成分，閱讀上須配合《肇論》 的其他三篇. 紫柏大師認為當時參與辯駁的正反雙方人士，皆未具 深刻的體悟，以致諍辯的內容淪為戲論往還，主張透過實踐親證來體 貼前賢之言. 憨山大師直指諸法實相為本論的旨趣所在，並以此觀點 注解全篇. 三位大師的理解內容有其共通點，也各有獨到處，可收 相輔相成之效，對 <物不遷論> 的閱讀具提示作用. Seng-zhao has been honored as being the "best Chinese interpreter of wunyata" and having a profound understanding of prajba and emptiness, as shown in the Book of Zhao，which is his interpretation of the scriptures expounding emptiness. However，the T'ang Dynasty monk Cheng-guan criticized as "essentially Hinayanist" the viewpoint of Seng-zhao's essay Things Do Not Move that "the natures of things exist in a single moment". Kong-yin Zhen-cheng of the late Ming criticized it as a non-Buddhist heresy，and many contemporary scholars also doubt whether it matches the doctrine of emptiness. In this paper I will analyze the positions taken on Seng-zhao's Things Do Not Move by the "three masters of the late Ming," Yun-qi Zhu-hong，Zi-bo Zhen-ke， and Han-shan De-qing. I will show that they refrain from fixating on the phraseology of individual sections, but interpret the contents of Things Do Not Move from a relatively comprehensive perspective and with an eye to exploring the fundamental spirit of the text. Zhu-hong emphasized that the essay was written in response to conventional understandings of the Dharma, rather than as a direct manifestation of the meaning of emptiness, and thus embodies elements of skillful means. He felt that Things Do Not Move should be read in conjunction with the three other essays in the Book of Zhao. Zi-bo felt that contemporary figures on both sides of the dispute about Seng-zhao's interpretation lacked profound understanding，and he criticized their arguments as superficial，suggesting instead that one could only appreciate the Seng-zhao's inspired words through self- cultivation. Han-shan specifically pointed out that the ultimate truth of all the dharmas was the import not only of this one essay， but the Book of Zhao as a whole. The three masters' interpretations have points of commonality，yet each is unique and can be used to appreciate the differences of their approaches and the complexities of the original text.
