《阿含經》對存有之定義

The Definition of Being in The Agama Sutras

蔡禮政(Li-Chen Tsai)

《正覺學報（繁體版）》 1期 (2007/12) Pp. 23-48

https://doi.org/10.29668/JTE.200712.0001

摘要

本文綜觀東西方宗教、哲學中，西方哲學、京都學派、梵我思想及道教，與佛教對存有的定義，有極大的差別。其中最關鍵的差異在於：佛教是以經驗主義的實證精神作爲定義之核心，而東西方其他所有的宗教、哲學體系則皆主張存有是不可知、不可證的。 根據《阿含經》佛陀所定義的存有，具有宇宙及生命根源的意義，並且是以人人皆可實證生命本原而定義。佛教此種特有的存有定義，在佛教經典中不是一個孤證，是符合佛教的緣起教義。本文分析此種實證意義的存有定義，有三個成立要件，並且引申出三個具操作性意義的判斷原則，對於想要實證生命本來面目的人，提供判斷是否親證生命本原之依據，是極具啟發性的判斷原則。 對於關鍵論點－實證的可能性，本文對於哲學史上主張存有是不可知、不可證的理由中，歸納出三種重要的量由： 1、人類的生命、能力僅具有限性，故無法實證具無限性的宇宙根源。 2、具有無限性者必是宇宙的根源。 3、康德的先驗哲學認爲道德公設足以作為實踐理性宗教的充分理由，不必以事實驗證論證的前提。 上述三種理由錯誤的原因，皆是忽視實證的重要性所致。《阿含經》中提出實證主義的存有定義，主張將一切哲學理論回歸事實的檢驗，對於宗教及哲學注入突飛猛進的契機。

關鍵字

存有 ； 本體論ontology ； 梵我不二 ； 京都學派 ； 先驗哲學 ； 二律背反antinomy

並列摘要

This article studies the definitions of ”being” in both Eastern and Western, religious and philosophic worlds, including Western philosophy, the Kyoto School, the theory of Brahma-atma-aikya, Taoism and Buddhism, and also explores the crucial differences among them. Among these differences, the most critical one is, ”Buddhism takes positivism (positivus) of empiricism as its kernel of definition. However, all other religions and philosophic systems claim that being cannot be recognized and realized.”
According to Buddha's definition of being in The Agama Sutras, being has the meaning of the origin of the universe and life, and it is personally realizable for everybody. This kind of unique definition in Buddhism has lots of evidence in the Buddhist sutras and conforms to the Buddhist dependent-arising doctrine. This article concludes that the definition of being, which is personally realizable, has three necessary conditions. This paper also proposes three judging rules that can be really operated and provide the criteria to ascertain if someone personally realizes the origin of life or not. For those who want to personally realize the origin of life, these rules are very inspirational.
Regarding the key argument, the possibility of personally realizing the origin of life, this article outlines three important reasons to explain why philosophic scholars claim that being cannot be recognized and realized. Those reasons are,
1. The origin of the universe, which has the unlimitedness property, cannot be realized because the life and capability of human beings have their limitations.
2. The one that possesses the property of unlimitedness must be the origin of the universe.
3. Kant's transcendental philosophy claimed that moral postulates themselves were enough to be the reasons to achieve rational religions, not necessarily based on the verification of facts.
The above three reasons are wrong because they all neglect the importance of the personal realization. The Agama Sutras bring up the definition of being from positivism and claim that all philosophic theories should return to the inspection by facts. This key subject will speed up the progress of the research in the religious and philosophic worlds.

並列關鍵字

being ； ontology ； Brahma-atma-aikya ； Kyoto School ； transcendental philosophy ； antinomy