略评释印顺的「以佛法研究佛法」

Brief Comments on Shi Yinshun's A Study of Buddha Dharma Based on Buddha Dharma

游冥鸿(Ming-Hong Yu)

《正覺學報（簡體版）》 1期 (2009/07) Pp. 101-137

https://doi.org/10.29667/JTE.200907.0003

摘要

一实相印和三法印本来是用来检验是否为佛法的标准，释印顺却取来作为研究佛法的方法。他研究佛法的成果，最特别的是大乘三系佛法的判教，而中国传统以如来藏修证为中心的传统佛教，被他判为真常唯心系而说具有外道神我色彩的思想。释印顺之追随者，亦继承了他「以佛法研究佛法」的研究方法，和三系判教的研究成果。
然而「以佛法研究佛法」，实际上是陷入倒果为因的逻辑错误。释印顺过度低估了唯一实相和三法印的难度，以为是一经提示，即可轻易理解的佛法－这无疑是违反经教与事实的。实际上，他是以自己所错解的一实相印和三法印，来研究佛法，凡是与他的偏见不符合者，便打入外道、疑伪的一边。
释印顺的错误，还包括把不变易的佛法核心，也当成会变迁的世谛流布。对于世间文献学的「文字研究」，错误地推崇为可以亲证涅槃寂静的方法。唯识学主要是对于有情心识的现量事实的深入研究，他却把唯识学当做是演变中的思想，完全忽略有情心识功能亘古不变的事实。又主张「证法」不是吾人所应该要下工夫研究的对象，使他自己局限于「教法」的想象中，导致他不能亲证佛法。因此释印顺对于佛法的研究方法，流于自我主观的揣测与臆想中，而追随其主张者，亦将不能避免同样的过失。
经典当中，其实已经有研究佛法的方法，那就是所谓的「四依、四不依」及论藏三量所指向的亲证的方法。这四依与三量的原则，即使以现代学术的标准而言，也仍然正确无误，只要依照当代科学研究的精神，将四依加以解释运用，便足以适应学术的要求，不需做太大的调整。

關鍵字

研究方法 ； 方法论 ； 四依四不依 ； 论藏三量 ； 命题 ； 事实 ； 法则 ； 真理 ； 思想 ； 证法 ； 教法

並列摘要

The reality-seal and the three-dharma-seals are the principles originally used to examine whether a discourse is the Buddha dharma or not, but Shi Yinshun used them as the methods to study Buddha dharma instead. One of the outcomes of his research, most especially, is the classification of Buddha dharmas of the great-vehicle into three different categories. He classified the traditional Chinese Buddhism, which is centered on the practice and realization of Tathagatagarbha, into the category of true permanent mind-only and regarded the traditional Chinese Buddhism as having the Divine-self thought of non-Buddhism. The followers of Shi Yinshun also continue taking the same approach to ”studying Buddha dharma based on Buddha dharma” and accepting his research result of the three categories of Buddha dharmas.
However, ”studying Buddha dharma based on Buddha dharma” itself is in fact a logical mistake, which regards the result as the cause. Shi Yinshun underestimated too much the difficulty of the unique reality-seal and the three-dharma-seals, and thought them easy to understand once a hint was provided. No doubt his view violates the teaching of sutras and the fact. Actually, he took the incorrect understanding of the unique reality-seal and the three-dharma-seals to study Buddha dharma, and categorized every that did not agree with his personally prejudice into the non-Buddhist, questionable or false group.
Another mistake Shi Yinshun made was to consider the unchangeable Buddha dharma to be the changeable worldly truth. For the ”textual research” of worldly philology he wrongly praised it as the method that can be used to personally realize the tranquil nirvana. The consciousness-only theory is a deep research primarily on the fact that can be experienced by the mind consciousness of sentient beings. However, he considered the theory as an evolving thought and totally ignored the fact that the functions of the mind consciousness of sentient beings are not changed forever. Besides, he claimed that the ”realization methods” are not the objects that should be studied with efforts. With this view he was limited to the imagination of the ”teaching methods” and not able to personally realize the Buddha dharma. Therefore, his study of Buddha dharma becomes the self-subjective conjecture and illusion and his followers cannot avoid the same fault either.
In fact, in the Buddhist sutras, there are already a method of studying Buddha dharma, which is personal realization that ”the four kinds of reliance and the four kinds of non-reliance,” and the three-ways-of-knowing of the Buddhist treatises indicate. Even for the present academic standards, these principles, with the scientific spirit of research, are still correct and applicable to academic research without much adjustment.

並列關鍵字

research method ； methodology ； the four kinds of reliance and the four kinds of non-reliance ； the three-ways-of-knowing ； proposition ； fact ； principle ； truth ； thought ； realization method ； teaching method