阿含=Āgama; 般若=Prājna; 中觀=Mādhyamika; 印順法師=YinShun; 通教=TongJiao; 詮釋循環=Hermeneutic Circle
摘要
龍樹的《中論》在佛教思想史上有著重要地位，傳統以來雖詮解不一，但始終視為是般若的論書，近來卻有學者指出《中論》更貼近於聲聞教法而非大乘。本文接受另一調和性觀點，認為《中論》緊密關乎阿含與般若，乃以般若思想通論阿含，目的是為了開演般若，進而貫通阿含與般若之間。本文除緒論和結論外，首先簡介R. H. Robinson和印順法師的觀點；其次對比「以阿含術語展示般若思想」與「以般若思想通論阿含深義」之各自說法；再而指出兩者同大於異，所謂的阿含術語亦不離阿含義理，《中論》以阿含展示般若，背後所預設的正是般若思想，因此完整的說是以般若通論阿含術語和法義，進而闡揚般若空性思想，如是構成一「詮釋循環」；最後認為以《中論》為「通教」的法義定位，有助於正確而深刻地掌握中觀學精義。
Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā has an important place in the history of Buddhist philosophy. Although traditionally interpreted differently, it has always been regarded as an interpretation of the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras. Recently, some scholars have pointed out that Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is more closely related to the teaching of Śrāvaka than Mahayana. This paper accepts another conciliatory point of view. It is believed that Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is both connected to Āgama and Prājna. It is an elaboration of Āgama based on Prājna, and the purpose is to illustrate the Prajña teachings and make a tight union between Āgama and Prājna. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper first presents the views of R. H. Robinson and Master YinShun, and then compares the respective statements of ＂presenting the thought of Prājna with the Āgama terms＂ and ＂applying the Prājna thought to discuss the philosophies of Āgama,＂ suggesting that the two are more alike than different. The usage of Āgama terminologies does not deviate from the philosophies of Āgama, and presenting Prājna thought in Āgama terms is exactly presupposing the Prājna philosophies. The more complete understanding, therefore, would be Nāgārjuna elaborates Āgama based on Prājna, and then illustrates the philosophies of Prājna, thus constituting a form of ＂hermeneutic circle.＂ Finally, I further examine and discuss YinShun's views, concluding that his interpretation of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā as a type of ＂General Teachings＂ (TongJiao) of Buddhism is conducive to accessing the cores of Mādhyamika more accurately and profoundly.
