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
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.
目次
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
