論佛教受中土道教的影響及佛經真偽

世人大都認為佛教影響道教；而佛教是否曾受道教及中土文化影響，及佛經是否存在著真偽的問題，則是長期來較被忽略，甚至是被否定的。其實我們翻查佛藏，常會看到佛典中，雜有道教術儀，甚至符錄；因而佛教是否曾受道教影響，應不難辨識。兩教的交流是雙向的，而不是單向的。我們由經籍文獻來看，佛教受道教影響者，如密宗金胎兩界曼荼羅，仿自中土帝王郊天祭壇及道教九宮神壇；而《佛說安宅神咒經》、《佛說北斗七星延命經》等，係由中土宅葬之說及道教南北斗主掌人間生死壽命說而來；又《佛說七千佛神符益算經》則是抄襲道教《太上老君說益算妙經》、《佛說三廚經》抄自道教《老子說五廚經》等等；至如思想上的，則道生、僧肇雜有老莊思想，《起信論》有莊子道體說的影子，唐代宗密用道教太極圖來解說唯識，清代行策以太極圖來論述禪門曹洞宗風等。至於佛經的真偽問題，世人所謂的真偽，從明‧宋濂《諸子辨》起，至民‧張心澂《偽書通考》止，諸家所說的真偽，乃是指該書是否為他本人親手所寫成的而言。如以此角度言，佛經都以「如是我聞」做開始，便無真經。且大乘和密教典籍成書更晚，亦無須爭真偽。而世人誤以印度人寫的為真，中土僧侶寫的為偽；或以有梵本為真，無梵本為偽；及先撰為真，後撰為偽；以及誤信經書詳本略本是同時存在等；都應與事實有別。其實，經書只應分好壞，不必執著真偽梵漢；爭論經書真偽，反不如去探討它的撰寫年代，及其對後世的影響與貢獻，來得有意義。

關鍵字

佛教；道教；佛經真偽

並列摘要

People always believe that Buddhism exerts influence on Taoism. However, the question that whether Buddhism had ever been influenced by Taoism and Chinese culture as well as whether there exists the problem of authenticity of Buddhist sutras remains neglected or even denied for a logn thime. In fact, we often see that Buddhist sutras contain Taoist liturgy, ritual and even talismans. Therefore, it is not difficult to determine whether Buddhism had ever been influenced by Taoism. The exchange of the two religions is two-way, not oneway. From Buddhist literature, we can find that some Buddhist sutras took elements of Taoism. As to philosophic thought, Tao-sheng and Shen-chao had the imprint of Lao-tze and Chuang-tze ; the Mahayana Sraddhotpada Sastra has the image of Chuang-tze's theory of the easence of path; Chung-mi of T'ang Dynasty applied the Taichi Diagram of Taoism to elucidate the theory of mindonly; Hsion t'se of Ch'ing Dynasty also used Taichi Diagram to describe the characters of the Ch'ao Tung Ch'an School. As to the authenticity of Buddhist sutras, people always make judgement on the basis that whether a book is written by the author. From this angle, there would be no genuine Buddhist sutras since all Buddhist sutras start with the words ＂Thus 1 have heard＂. Besides, the Mahayana and Tantric sutras were written much later. There would be no need to debate their authenticity. People mistake that only the sutras written by Indian people are genuine while those sutras by Chinese monks are not; only the sutras which have Sanskrit version are genuine while those sutras which have no Sanskrit version are not; only the sutras written earlier are genuine while those sutras written in later age are not; that complete version and short version exist in the same time. These arguments are not in agreement with fact. In fact, we need only to judge whether a sutra is good or bad. We don't need to attach to the problem of authenticity. It is more meaningful to investigate when a sutra was written and what are its influence on and contribution to later age than to debate the authenticity of sutras.