佛學研究與歷史想像－以阿含部諸經略評呂凱文〈從兩類《央掘魔羅經》探討聲聞經大乘化的詮釋學策略〉

釋迦牟尼佛出現在歷史上而創建佛教，是一項歷史事實。然而，這樣的歷史事實具有什麼樣的歷史意義，則是少有人知，乃至學術界的佛學研究者亦不能知。佛學研究者從歷史、文學、藝術等等不同的角度論述佛教。然而，對於佛教的認識，若是不能以實證的方法，從佛教的義理著手，則對於佛教歷史與文學的認識，必然不能產生穩固的見解。本文以佛教的基本歷史事實，所賦予的歷史意義，對呂凱文之論文中有關佛教歷史與文學所提出種種錯誤的主張，進行評論。呂凱文主張釋迦牟尼佛首先宣說的聲聞法代表的「聲聞佛教」是「舊佛教」，而部派佛教之後的大乘是「大乘佛教」是「新佛教」。這項主張並不符合歷史事實，表示呂凱文對於釋迦牟尼佛成佛的歷史意義並不瞭解。釋迦牟尼佛成佛本身所代表的正是大乘佛教，釋迦牟尼佛是大乘佛教最主要而具體的代表；因此，釋迦牟尼佛成佛時，就已經成立大乘佛教。所以，佛教沒有新舊佛教之分，更不存在歷史想像的「聲聞佛教」、「舊佛教」、「新佛教」、「聲聞典範」與典範轉移。呂凱文對於經典進行分類的標準，亦導因於錯誤的歷史想像，也使得其經典的分類充滿邏輯的不一致性而矛盾百出。本文在呂凱文的論文僅擇數項議題進行評論，以顯示真正的佛學研究，不應該陷入歷史的想像中：一、新舊佛教，二、共不共量性，三、分類定義，四、隱匿文獻證據，五、畏懼佛教義理，六、以基督教釋經學解構佛教，七、錯解格式塔圖，八、生物擬態。呂凱文種種錯誤的主張，正是代表學術界的佛學研究，對於釋迦牟尼佛本身出現於歷史上所代表的歷史意義缺乏瞭解；往往忽視釋迦牟尼佛存在的歷史意義，而提出種種論述。因此，學術界的佛學研究者，若要能夠對佛教歷史與文學有正確的解讀，其最急需者則為對於釋迦牟尼佛的正確認識。本文即是以種種歷史事實，提出其歷史意義，以分辨真正的佛學研究與歷史想像的不同。

關鍵字

大乘非佛說；不可共量性；聲聞典範；大乘典範；格式塔Gestalt圖；生物擬態；新佛教；舊佛教；宗教種姓制度；央掘魔羅

並列摘要

It is a fact that Buddha Sakyamuni appeared in history and founded Buddhism. However, very few people know the historical meaning of this fact; even the Buddhist researchers of the academia are ignorant about it. The Buddhist researchers discuss Buddhism from the different aspects of history, literature, art, etc. Nevertheless, if one cannot start from the Buddhist doctrine with the method of actual realization, he will be unable to have a solid view on the history and literature of Buddhism. Based on the historical meanings given by the basic facts of Buddhist history, this article discusses Kevin Lu's many wrong claims about Buddhist history and literature in his paper. For example, Lu claims that ”Sravaka Buddhism,” which represents Buddha Sakyamuni's initial teachings, is the ”old Buddhism” and ”Mahayana Buddhism,” which appeared after Sectarian Buddhism, is the ”new Buddhism.” This claim does not conform to the historical fact and reveals that Lu does not understand the historical meaning of Buddha Sakyamuni becoming a Buddha. The fact that Buddha Sakyamuni became a Buddha exactly represents Mahayana Buddhism by itself; Buddha Sakyamuni is the most important and real representative of Mahayana Buddhism. When Buddha Sakyamuni became a Buddha, Mahayana Buddhism was founded at the same time. Therefore, Buddhism neither has the difference of new and old nor exists the historical imagination on ”Sravaka Buddhism,” ”old Buddhism,” ”new Buddhism,” ”Sravaka model” or paradigm shift. Lu's standard of categorization on sutras, based on his historical imagination too, is full of inconsistency of logic and conflicts with each other. In order to manifest that the real Buddhist research should not fall into the historical imagination, this article makes comments on a few selected topics in Lu's paper as follows: 1. New and old Buddhism, 2. Commensurability and Incommensurability, 3. Definition of categorization, 4. Hidden documental evidence, 5. Fearing Buddhist doctrine, 6. Analyzing Buddhism based on Christian hermeneutics, 7. Misunderstanding the Gestalt paradigm, 8. Biological mimicry. Lu's several kinds of wrong claims exactly represent the fact that the Buddhist research of the academia is lack of the understanding on the historical meaning about Buddha Sakyamuni's appearance in the history; they bring up several discourses but ignoring the historical meaning of Buddha Sakyamuni's existence. Consequently, the most important thing for the Buddhist researchers of the academia is to understand Buddha Sakyamuni correctly if they want to have a precise interpretation on the Buddhist history and literature. Based on several historical facts, this article brings up their historical meanings to identify the difference between the real Buddhist research and the historical imagination.

並列關鍵字

Mahayana being not the Buddha's teachings ； incommensurability ； Sravaka model ； Mahayana model ； Gestalt paradigm ； biological mimicry ； new Buddhism ； old Buddhism ； religious caste system ； Angulimāla

國際替代計量

佛學研究與歷史想像－以阿含部諸經略評呂凱文〈從兩類《央掘魔羅經》探討聲聞經大乘化的詮釋學策略〉

全文下載

主題瀏覽