Something for Nothing: Cognitive Metaphors for Emptiness in the *Upadesa (Dàzhìdù lùn)

以有為無－《大智度論》之空性認知隱喻

歐慧峰(Matthew Orsborn)

《中華佛學學報》 31期 (2018/07) Pp. 171-222

摘要

While the *Mahāprajñāparamitā upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù lùn), the extensive commentary of the Pañcavimsatisāhasrikā sutra and traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna, is encyclopedic in its scope, it is perhaps the teachings on emptiness (śunyatā) that have been most commonly seen as its philosophical focal point. The accurate presentation of this core doctrine is fraught with the perils of the audience falling to the two extremes of eternalism and annihilism, as has been the case since the formation of the Buddha's own teachings on not self (anātman). The author of the *Upadeśa, following the Sutra itself, thus chooses the rhetorical strategy of exegesis through metaphor, arguing that: ＂Although all dharmas are empty, there are distinctions between emptiness which is difficult to comprehend and emptiness which is easy to comprehend. We now use easily comprehended emptiness metaphors [to comprehend] difficultly comprehended emptiness.＂ The Sutra and *Upadeśa give ten metaphors for emptiness: illusion, mirage, moon [reflected] in the water, empty space, echo, city of the gandharvas, dream, shadow, image in a mirror, and magical creation. In the *Upadeśa, each metaphor is explicated and tailored into its general interpretative strategy of applying Madhyamaka dialectic to interpret and defend the Prajñāparamitā against all manner of Abhidharmika (generic ＂Hinayāna＂) and non-Buddhist views of realism and nihilism. A deeper examination of not only the metaphors so employed, but also how metaphors function in general, reveals that the matter is perhaps not quite so ＂easily＂ resolved. I will draw upon theories of ＂cognitive metaphor＂ from modern philosophy of language, in particular from Kittay's acclaimed Cognitive Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Lakoff and Johnson's Metaphors We Live By, Ricoeur's classic The Rule of Metaphor (La Métaphore Vive), and other writings. Kittay's ＂perspectival＂ approach utilizes analysis of both the semantic fields and syntagmatic structures of the two sides of metaphor, i.e. the topic (or tenor) and vehicle, to reveal that ＂the critical feature of metaphor can be seen as a process in which the structure of one semantic field induces a structure on another content domain.＂ With respect to syntagmatic analysis, due attention will be given to the fact that our present text of the *Upadeśa is a Chinese translation of the original Sanskrit, two languages having radically different grammatical syntax. The ＂cognitive＂ or ＂conceptual＂ approach is the most appropriate theory of metaphor for our study here, because this is exactly what the author of the *Upadeśa claims when explaining the use of easy vehicle metaphors to ＂comprehend＂ the difficult topic content of emptiness. A syntagmatic analysis of the *Upadeśa's metaphors enables us to group the text's ten metaphors in several ways, as it appears that several of the metaphors are possibly merely sub-categories of another metaphor, thus providing little new conceptual comprehension of the topic of emptiness. Furthermore, more thorough analysis reveals that all ten can be divided into quite distinctive categories, distinctions which may have serious implications for the *Upadeśa's interpretation of emptiness of which the author himself was perhaps unaware. One distinction concerns the issue of external agency, as some metaphors have structures involving active intentional agency, whereas others lack this. A second distinction relates to the presence or absence of an underlying ultimate real beyond the empty in the metaphor in question. Both agency and real ultimates are key issues for the *Upadeśa's Madhyamaka methodology and interpretative standpoint. While such critical distinctions may possibly be discovered through a very thorough reading of the *Upadeśa itself, Kittay and others' analytic and synthetic methods for the understanding of cognitive metaphors allow us to very quickly and clearly make such issues both apparent and accessible for critical interpretation. Final reflections will be made on the matter of applying kataphatic metaphor vehicles for apophatic empty topics, i.e. how to make nothing out of something.

關鍵字

Prajñaparamita ； Mahaprajñaparamita upadeśa ； emptiness ； cognitive metaphor ； metaphor

並列摘要

傳統中，龍樹為詮釋《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》所撰寫的《大智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa），雖然有廣博的範疇，然而一般是以其有關空性（śunyatā）的教義作為哲學上的焦點。當準確地展現此核心教法時，聽聞者卻會有落入恆常與斷滅二邊極端的風險，就如佛陀教授的無我（anātman）教法也是如此。《論》的作者順著經文本身採取了十則隱喻來解經的修辭策略，認為：「諸法雖空而有分別，有難解空，有易解空。今以易解空喻難解空。」《經》與《論》列出十種空性的隱喻：「解了諸法：如幻、如焰、如水中月、如虛空、如響、如犍闥婆城、如夢、如影、如鏡中像、如化。」在《論》當中，每則隱喻被闡明與運用到其通用的解釋策略，就是運用中觀辯證方式來解釋與捍衛《般若波羅蜜經》，反對阿毗達摩系統（所謂的「小乘」）與非佛教的實有與斷滅論說。透過隱喻以及隱喻作用的深入研究，會發現這個議題可能不是那麼「容易」解決的。本文透過現代語言哲學的「認知隱喻」（cognitive metaphor）理論，以Kittay的Cognitive Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure、Lakoff與Johnson的Metaphor's We Live By、Ricoeur的經典The Rule of Metaphor（原法文La Métaphore Vive）和其他著作來探究《論》的十則隱喻。Kittay的「視角」（perspectival）方法是運用隱喻之「喻體」（topic）和「喻依」（vehicle），進行兩種分析，即語義場（semantic field）和語言結構（syntagmatic structure）分析，揭示「可以看到隱喻的關鍵特徵是一個過程，一個語義場的結構會導致另一個現實域的結構」。在句法結構分析方面，須注意到並且克服的是：現存《論》的文本原是由梵文翻成中文，此兩種語言有著截然不同的文法與句法。「認知」或「理解」方法是最適合本研究的隱喻理論，正如《論》的作者所言，用簡易的隱喻喻依來「理解」難懂的空性内容。透過《論》的隱喻句型分析，可將文中的十則隱喻分成幾組，因為有些隱喻似乎只是另一個隱喻的子類型，對空性議題幾乎沒有提供新的概念性理解。此外，更徹底的分析顯示，十個隱喻皆可分成許多獨特的類型，這些類型對空性的理解，產生出《論》的作者本身未曾想到的重大義含。其中一個類型涉及到外在造作者的問題，因為一些隱喻含有造作者的結構，而其他的則缺乏此類結構。第二個類型是有關該隱喻中是否存在著某種「空」以外的實體。對於《論》使用的中觀方法和解釋立場來說，造作者與實體現象都是關鍵議題。雖然或許此批判性的類型可以通過深入閱讀《論》本身而發現，不過Kittay和其他學者對理解認知隱喻的分析和綜合方法，可使我們更迅速且明確地檢視這些問題，也更易於達到批判性解釋。最後是省思關於應用「肯定式」（kataphatic）隱喻喻依在「否定式」（apophatic）空性喻體上，即是如何「以有為無」的探討。

並列關鍵字

《般若經》 ； 《大智度論》 ； 空性 ； 認知隱喻 ； 隱喻

參考文獻

Dàzhìdù lùn 大智度論 (*Mahāprajñāpāramitā upadeśa), translated by Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什. T 1509, 25. Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association (CBETA) 中華電子佛典協會, 2014.

Jīn’gāng bānruò jīng 金剛般若波羅蜜經(*Vajracchedikā-prajñāpā ramitā sūtra), translated by Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什. T 235, 8. Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association (CBETA) 中華電子佛典協會, 2014.

Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 7th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1999.

Black, Max. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1962.

Boys-Stones, G. R. Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.