從歷史與文化背景看佛教戒律在華消沈的原因

佛教戒律傳入華夏後所以終於消沈而為百丈清規所取代者，其原因約有如下六點：第一，中國沙門自視為大乘佛教中人，心中瞧不起僧團要自己遵守的小乘佛教底戒律。第二，歷來大部分中國沙門～尤其律師～是沒有到過印度或西域的。當一位律師要向寺眾講解戒律，或一位沙門想切實遵行戒規之時，緣於他們不了解制訂戒律所依的印度生活和文化背景，於是講律的律師既不能講個明白，而有意守戒的沙門也困惑於戒規中的某些原則，這樣，他們持守之時便發生困難。第三，古時中國寺院對前來出家的人～尤其兒童～是先問其人曾讀書否？若未讀過書，則寺院先授儒書，再教佛典。因此中土沙門都受過儒學薰陶。於是他們的思想中有強烈的華夏傳統觀念。在帝王時代的中國人自視為「天朝大國」之民，對外來事物多少有排斥心理，因此沙門也不願意完全過西方的寺院生活。加上古時戒律與僧制並行，僧制的實施鼓勵了沙門對戒律的微妙抗拒心理。第四，基於二與三的原因，中土沙門守戒之時往往「以意為之」，不肯切實遵從戒規條文所示，如本文所引北周釋靜藹與隋朝釋靈裕的故事，可為其例。第五，華夏沙門之有眼光者發現了上述諸問題，其中有些人便躬自跋涉往天竺求法，要親睹西方寺院如何在日常生活中實踐戒規。這些人之中，唐代的義淨三藏貢獻最大。淨公不特接引過一些禹域律師到西方學習，更就自己所見的印度和東南亞諸佛教國的寺院日常生活底規矩，寫成《南海寄歸內法傳》，以備中國僧伽作為依律過寺院生活的參考。孰知其書傳入此土之後，使華人明白了戒律原來僅合適熱帶地區的生活，反而促成了戒律的消沈！第六，在印度的佛教國家中，政府絕不干預僧團事務，沙門犯戒由寺院以戒律處分。而在中國，政府以王法管治僧尼。南北朝時期不論在黃河流域或抑長江流域，其政府都兼以俗世法律或佛門戒規來處分犯罪的出家人。降至唐代，朝廷更依國法，道教戒法和佛教的戒律、僧制編訂了「道僧格」，用正式立法方式來管理佛道二教的教士。在「道僧格」管理之下，倘使一位唐僧觸犯了一條已編入「格」的戒律之時，他便會被政府控告和以俗法處罰。

關鍵字

中印差異；大小乘矛盾；儒學「天朝大國」；律師與制戒背景；官府干涉寺院

並列摘要

Since different Vinayas were introduced intoChina, their rules were adopted by the ChineseBuddhist establishments of different areas forgoverning the conduct of monks and nuns from a longperiod of 3rd Century to 10th Century A.D. In thislong period, eminent Buddhist clerics who practisedthe Vinaya rules very faithfully are being recordedin the monastic histories. Unfortunately, Buddhistdisciplinary tradition under the Vinaya was finallydeclined and being replaced by thePo-chang Ch'ingKuei（百丈清規 or The Pure Rule by the Master ofPo-chang Shan) of Ch'an Buddhism. Why the Vinaya would have been declined inChina? Except from the reasons given in the author'spaper ＂The Conflict Between Vinaya and the ChineseMonastic Rule: The Dilemma of DisciplinarianVenerable Hung-i＂ that read in the last Conference,he should like to give some other reasons: Firstly, the Chinese clerics, whoever monks ornuns, recognizing that they are ＂Mahayanists＂,but the Vinaya rules are derived from differentHinayana Schools. Even though they were told toobserve the Hinayana silas by the Chinese MonasticOrder,they still felt contempt for the Vinaya intheir minds. Therefore, some of the clerics usedto say: ＂The infernal flames will not cremate a wiseman, while the caldron containing boiled water inthe hell is not prepared for cooking a person whohas Prajna (wisdom)＂. Or, they were condemned as＂Some of them observing one single percept onadultery say that they are free from sin, and do notat all care for the study of the Vinaya rules＂.Besides, the Chinese Buddhist hagiographies used totell that the monk-saints who strayed from Vinaya inone hand, but performed their supernatural powers onthe other hand. The above- mentioned examples indicating strongly thecontemptuous attitude of the Chinese Mahayanistclerics to the Vinaya. Secondly, all the Vinaya rules are legislatedaccording to the Indian tropical environment, theyare not so suitable for the monastic life of anation in the Northern Temperate Zone like China.Besides, in the long period that mentioned above,most of Chinese clerics, especially thedisciplinarians, had never made their pilgrimage toIndia. In these circumstances, a Chinesedisciplinarian would found it difficult to explainwhy a certain rule should have to observe and how toobserve, when he sermoning the disciplinary rules.For he did not really know the cultural andenviromental background of the Vinaya. So, even acleric who desired to observe the rules would alsofound his difficulty, as the instruction he receivedfrom the disciplinarian was not clear. Thirdly, in the same period, all the Chinesecleric had already received a good Confucianeducation. In case one who wish to devote intomonkhood or to lead a nun's career, the firstquestion by the Monastic Order would be:＂Have youever received a Confucian education?＂ If the answeris negative, the Order taught that person withConfucian classics before the Buddhist scriptures.Therefore, each clerics had already influencedstrongly by the Confucian tradition since enteredthe Order. In the imperial period, the Chineseseeing themselves an highest civilized people of a＂Celestial Dynasty.＂ They were taking as objectiveattitude towarded the introduced foreigncivilizations. Therefore, the Chinese Buddhistclerics were tolerantly to lead a monastic life inIndian style. Moreover, as the author's former paperhad already indicated, the Chinese Monastic Orderadopted two sets of contradictive monasticrules--the Vinaya and the Chinese Monastic Rule atthe same time to govern the conduct of their clericmembers. This disciplinary policy would spirituallybe encouraging the resistance of the monks and nunsto the Vinaya. Foruthly, based on the above given Second and Third reasons, the Chinese clerics employing arandom attitude when observing the Vinaya rules,regardless of the exact instruction of each rule.For instance, the Vinaya instructs that atransgressor who violated the rule of ＂No triflingor joking＂ only committed a pardonable sin ofPataka and would be forgiven after havingconfessed in an assembly, but Venerable Ching-ai （靜藹, 534-578) expelled his monk-disciple for this transgression. Even the later begged forforgiveness. Again, in accordance with the Vinaya,one who kills vegetable lives committed Pataka,and one who persuades the others to kill a livingbeing also involved in the transgression of killing.Besides, one who eats leek committed only Duskrta,a venial sin that would be forgiven after havingconfessed to another cleric only. And VenerableLing-yu （靈裕, 519-605) persuades a landlord todestroy the later's forty acre leek grove as a wayof advoiding Duskrta. After the numerous leeks inthe grove losed their lives,Ling-yus persuasion had already brought him tocommit the griveous sin of Pataka . Fifthly, after having grasped the problem, some of the clerics made their pilgrmages to go to the West in order to learn the Vinaya as well as to observe the daily life of the Monastic Order in the Tropical Zone. Among them, Tripitaka MasterI-ching （義淨, 635-713) played an important role in the promulgation of the Vinaya for the Chinese. Notonly he recruited some Chinese disciplinarians to goto the West to learn, but also he records theforeign monastic daily life in his workNan-haiChi-kuei Nei-fa Chuan （南海寄歸內法傳, or Record ofthe Inner Law sent home from Southern Sea', wellknown to the Western World asA Record of theBuddhist Religion as Practised in India and theMalay Archipelago) as a reference for guiding theChinese clerics how to observe the monastic life inaccordance with the Vinaya. Unfortunately, his workcontributed to the decline of the Vinaya in China.For it helped the clerics to understand that most ofthe Vinaya rules could only be practised in theTropical environment. Sixthly, the interference of the imperialgovernment towarded the monastic disciplinaryaffairs also played an important role to the declineof the Vinaya in China. In the Buddhist states ofIndia, monks and nuns submitted only to their ownVinaya, without ever troubling the public court whenthe clerical members who committed sometransgressions. In China, on the contrary, a clericwho committed even a religious transgression wouldsometimes be sending to the legal court and chargingby the secular law. Therefore, the authority of theVinaya has being demeaned.