由「相互主體性」的立場論天台宗幾個基本關鍵觀念以及山家與山外之爭

筆者所謂「相互主體性」（試譯英文的＂Intersubjectivity＂），基本上是指兩個主體之間的彼此影響。若較徹底規定其含義以及理論前題，則可定義如下︰每一個主體的存在與內在構造，以及其所有特徵的發展，如何藉著與其它主體的關係而成，就是本文所謂的相互主體性。以人界來講，也就是所謂的人際關係。本文的要點在於探討此一問題在天台宗教義的重要性。筆者認為，此一問題，在早期印度佛教，並未有終極性的地位，而到了中國天台宗重新處理真諦與俗諦之間的關係，則難免也重新處理此一問題。原來，此一問題歸於俗諦的範圍。天台宗取消真、俗諦間優劣分別，則必然同時提高相互主體性的重要性。本文的目的正在於探討天台宗對此一問題的處理方法，以及此一問題之與該宗某些特別觀念的彼此關係。筆者認為，所謂山外諸師眼目中的天台傳統已多少失去此等意義與焦點。由此觀點來看山家、山外之爭，亦可有助於理解此一爭議的涵義。本文最後一段，即試作初步的探討。為了解析此一問題，本文先說明天台宗對於自行與化他之關係的看法，也就是自行與化他、權法與實法之不二關係。筆者以為，這種自他觀只是天台宗最基本原理（即空即假即中三諦圓融）的必然演變與發揮。既然可云無空而非假中，無假而非空中，無中而非空假，則當然亦得云無自行（空、中）而非化他（假），無化他而非自行。此後，本文則進一步談到感應道交的問題。依天台宗教義看，此一問題，亦必由不二、相即、整體論等觀點去了解。如此，則一一佛一一生皆即是整個三千，此感此應亦必遍一切處。一一念一一行無非感無非應。如此智者大師所言的任運無意，無作而未曾毫差之妙應才能講通。眾生感機既然即是與諸佛妙應同一個三千感應大法界，每一感即是每一應，則當然不必加意運作，而可當之無差。若不從相互主體性關係網等角度觀之，則現代人很難理解此等理。而若由此角度思之，萬疑頓化。由本文提出的相互主體性的情況思之，才可了解何以並不僅是客體（世界）可內在具足兩種相反價值（淨與穢），客體不二，而且，主體方面亦不落於二分法︰每一個主體亦淨亦染，可同時明同時無明。如此才成得了染淨不二、煩惱即菩提等義。本文談完上述諸義，重論山家山外所爭的幾個要點。由解析山家、山外著作，依上述諸義，說明雙方要點與差異之所在。如此，則發現，山家四明知禮的染淨互為因緣、淨必藉染而發等義，恰合上述即感即應、對話式融通兩種主體境界等義。

關鍵字

天台宗思想；價值論；相互主體性；感應；煩惱即是菩提

並列摘要

In the early Northern Song Dynasty, in the process of reconstructing the declining T,ien-t'ai tradition and adapting it to the new intellectual environment of the Buddhist world at this time, two different theoretical orientations came to be applied toward the interpretation of the writings of Chih-i（538～597）and Chan-jan（711～782）, the two defining sources of T'ien-t'ai doctrine, resulting in a lively schism between two groups of exegetes, retrospectively known as the Shan-chia and the Shan-wai. In this essay I argue that one especially useful way of coming to understand what was truly at stake in these debates is to pay special attention to the way in which these two opposed factions of Sung T'ien-t'ai treated the question of what I call ＂intersubjectivity,＂ by which I mean the impact of the existence of other consciousnesses upon the structure of any given consciousness. In particular, this essay demonstrates that the Shan-chia polemics, spearheaded by Ssu-ming Chih-li（960～1028）, can be profitably viewed to be in part an attempt to preserve an interpretive approach to Chih-i and Chan-jan that would maintain the centrality of a particular intersubjective vision. This vision is founded on the conception of the Bodhisattva or Buddha as a being whose enlightenment is radically and constitutively referential to the deluded state of all beings. The unique consequences of this approach can be analyzed by adding to the standard quasi - theistic deity／being I-Thou relation the three further T'ien-t'ai doctrines of 1) the mode of action of the enlightened beings, a non-intentional and all-pervasive Kan-ying or stimulus-responserelation; 2) the relation of ＂non-duality＂（also described, more emphatically, as identicalness, sameness ）（ chi ）） obtaining between provisional and ultimate truth （ch'uan and shih）; and 3) the relation of ＂non-duality＂ between subject and object, or between any living being and its environment, realized in the perceived world of the deity in question, predicated on the claim that both subject and object are themselves the whole dharma realm（i.e., the totality of all that exists）, that each part is equal to the entire whole. These doctrines imply a situation where self-praxis and the transformation of others are non-dual, where deluded stimulus and enlightened response are mutually inclusive, and where all beings are constantly playing both the role of enlightener and deluded being in need of enlightenment, in a ceaseless and constitutive intersubjectivity. In this essay I first locate the basis of this view in Chih-i and Chan-jan, and then the specific angle of interpretation from which Chih- li deployed the concepts, with a particular emphasis on its impact on his doctrine of the evil inherent in the Buddha-nature, and the non-duality of delusion and enlightenment.