從《達磨與陽明》看忽滑谷快天的批判禪學之特色

本文以日本近代學者忽滑谷快天（Nukariya Kaiten, 1867-1934）在戰前所著的代表作品《達磨と陽明》一書，連結「陽明學」與「達磨禪」兩項具有儒佛會通的性質，以探索該書出現的時代背景及其意義，一窺忽滑谷快天企圖回歸達磨禪的原始宗風之本意，及其批判禪學之特色與問題。本文從外部脈絡及內在理路，印證《達磨と陽明》是一部呼應當代社會實踐的作品。就脈絡而論，此書與1900年代間流行的陽明學風潮及明治時代佛教因「廢佛毀釋」所受的刺激息息相關。就理路而言，忽滑谷快天想回到漸修布道的「達磨宗風」，但對照曹洞宗「不近王臣」之宗風，卻不免弔詭，使其批判禪學論缺乏與「國家政權」保持適當的距離，呼應了當時帝國日本的「精神進化論」，故其批判禪學論傾向批判內部禪門；至於對外部權威的批判則失其力道，甚至有迎合的傾向，最終僅成為一種跛腳式的、未完成的批判禪學論。如此看來，「達磨」與「陽明」本無緣結為合成體，唯近代日本知識分子提倡陽明學或達磨禪，都與明治政府的國體論有著千絲萬縷的關係，故在忽滑谷快天的撮合下「自然」合體，這不僅是日本近代儒佛會通的特例，同時藉由忽滑谷快天的禪學態度，亦能了解日本近代宗教發展的特色與問題。

關鍵字

忽滑谷快天；達摩；陽明學；禪學；儒佛會通

並列摘要

The present study examines ”Daruma to Yōmei” (達磨與陽明 Daruma and Wang Yangming), a major work by Japanese scholar Nukariya Kaiten 忽滑谷快天 (1867-1934) published in 1908 that demonstrates the connections between the philosophical system of Wang Yangming 王陽明 and the Japanese Zen Buddhist tradition (founded by Daruma), both of which possess a mixture of Confucian and Buddhist influences. This study explores the historical background to the book's composition and its significance, examines Nukariya's desire to return to the original religious roots of Zen Buddhism, and seeks to identify the key features of his critique of Zen Buddhism and the issues relating to this critique. This study uses both external and internal evidence to demonstrate that Nukariya's ”Daruma to Yōmei” was written in response to the circumstances of his times. As regards the external evidence, the book is closely linked to the upsurge in interest in the philosophy of Wang Yangming that swept Japan in the first decade of the twentieth century, and to the impact that the anti-Buddhist movement of the Meiji 明治 era had on Buddhism in Japan during this period. Regarding the internal evidence, the study shows Nukariya's desire to return to what he saw as the original, uncorrupted form of Daruma's teaching, with an emphasis on preaching and the gradual attainment of enlightenment. However, unlike the Cao Dongzong 曹洞宗 school of Buddhism, with its rejection of close ties to earthly rulers, Nukariya's doctrine fails to maintain a suitable distance between religion and state power. Influenced by the calls for ”spiritual evolution” that were being made in Imperial Japan, Nukariya restricts his criticism of Zen Buddhism to the internal aspects of Zen Buddhism, somewhat less effectively addressing the impact of external authority; in fact, he shows a tendency to submit to this authority. Nukariya's critique of Zen Buddhism is thus very much a partial one. On the face of it then, Daruma and Wang Yangming's ideas are seemingly incompatible. However, there are close links between Japanese intellectuals' advocacy of the philosophy of Wang Yangming and the Buddhist teachings of Daruma and the state ideology of the Meiji regime that make it possible for Nukariya to reconcile them into a natural, unified whole. In doing so, he created one of the most distinctive examples of the trend in modern Japan for dialogue between Confucianism and Buddhism; at the same time, Nukariya's attitude towards Zen Buddhism also helps us to understand some of the key features and problems of the evolution of religion in modern Japan.