《阿含經》十四難有記無記之再議－兼論文獻證據等效原則

A Further Discussion on the Fourteen Questions of Identification in The Agama Sutras-Also on the Principle of Equal Effectiveness for Documental Evidence

林偉仁(Wei-Zen Lin)

《正覺學報（繁體版）》 1期 (2007/12) Pp. 49-100

https://doi.org/10.29668/JTE.200712.0002

摘要

本文探討記別的意義、記別的種類以及佛陀爲何能夠作種種記別，而佛教以外皆無此記別能力的原因。以此作爲探討十四難到底是有記、或是無記的基礎。本文發現佛陀具有記別能力的原因，在於實證永恆存在的如來藏。由於有如來藏真實存在的事實，使得佛陀具有記別能力，同時使得二乘解脫不落入斷滅空，更使得眾生可以流轉生死而成立因果的報償。
因緣法是佛教的基本教義，中華佛學研究所主張「此緣起性」是真理而永恆存在，是因緣法流轉的力量，是附屬於因緣法本身，不必另外有不生不滅法的存在。本文根據經典發現，「此緣起性」與「此還滅性」固然都是永恆存在，但都是附屬於有生有滅的蘊處界法才能存在及顯示；若無生滅性的蘊處界等法，即無緣起性與還滅性可說、可證；而緣起性及還滅性的蘊處界則是附屬於如來藏本體的種種自性之一，非屬於因緣法本身所能具有。因此不生不滅的如來藏真實存在，才是因緣法成立的基石，才是緣起性空觀的基石。
十四難是佛教建立前便存在的難解命題。佛陀對於十四難所指向「如來藏真實存在」的命題是沒有能力回答，才說爲無記？還是有能力回答，而爲有記？本文發現六十二外道見是網羅一切外道論的天羅地網，十四難命題則是此天羅地網的綱目。十四難可以是有記或者無記，其關鍵在於提問者本身是否具有實證的科學精神，以及對於「如來藏真實存在」的正確瞭解。
本文亦發現佛學學術研究中，正確解讀經文以獲得正確結論的先決條件，在於對文獻的採用應該遵守文獻證據等效的原則。若是不遵守文獻證據等效原則而進行研究者，其結論多數可能無效。

關鍵字

十四難 ； 有記 ； 無記 ； 捨置記 ； 存有論ontology ； 文獻證據等效原則 ； 全等命題

並列摘要

This article discusses the meaning of identification, the categories of identification, the reason why Buddha had the capability of various identifications, and the reason why other religions have no capability of identification. Based on these discussions, this article further investigates the fourteen questions of identification. It is found that the reason why Buddha had the capability of identification is that Buddha personally realized the permanent existing Tathagatagarbha. Due to the fact of the real existence of Tathagatagarbha, Buddha had the capability of identification, the liberation of the two-vehicles does not fall into nihilism, and the cycling of life and death of sentient beings can thus be in effect and conforms to the retribution of cause-and-effect.
The conditioned dharma is the fundamental Buddhist doctrine. The Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies claims that idappaccayata ”the nature of dependent-arising” is the truth and exists permanently, is the power for the conditioned dharma to work, pertains to the conditioned dharma, and does not need the existence of another neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma. But this article finds out from the Buddhist sutras that even though ”the nature of dependent-arising' and ”the nature of regressive-ceasing” exist permanently, they must depend on the aggregates, fields, and divisions, which have the nature of arising-and-ceasing, to exist and manifest themselves. Without the dharmas of arising-and-ceasing aggregates, fields, and divisions, both ”the nature of dependent-arising” and ”the nature of regressive-ceasing” will not be able to exist or be realized. The aggregates, fields, and divisions with the natures of dependent-arising and regressive-ceasing are only some of the intrinsic-natures of Tathagatagarbha, and do not belong to the conditioned dharma itself. Therefore, the real existence of neither-arising-nor-ceasing Tathagatagarbha is indeed the foundation for the conditioned dharma to exist and also the root of the theory of ”the empty nature of dependent-arising.”
The fourteen questions are tough to solve and had been in existence before the Buddhism was established. Is it unidentifiable because Buddha could not answer the question about ”the real existence of Tathagatagarbha” that the fourteen questions lead to? Or is it identifiable because Buddha could answer it? Besides, it is concluded in this article that the sixty-two non-Buddhist views include all non-Buddhist views and that the fourteen questions are the outline of the sixty-two views. The key point of whether the fourteen questions are identifiable or unidentifiable depends on if the questioner has the scientific spirit of positivism and the correct understanding of the ”real existence of Tathagatagarbha.”
It is also found that, in the Buddhist research academia, the prerequisite for precisely understanding Buddhist sutras and obtaining correct results is to comply with the principle of equal effectiveness for documental evidence when citing references. Without following this principle, most of the research results may not be valid.

並列關鍵字

the fourteen questions ； identification ； ontology ； the principle of equal effectiveness for documental evidence ； congruent proposition