宗教治理與文化創新：台灣人間佛教的現代性

本論文試圖探討在邁向現代性發展的台灣社會中，一套新的人間佛教論述和實踐是如何藉由人間佛教團的組織運作過程而被建立起來？透過對佛光山、慈濟、法鼓山三個人間佛教教團的個案比較分析，探究其如何重新詮釋佛教修行觀的現代意涵，建構現代性的人間佛教修行實踐，從治理性與文化創新的面向，定義出「新佛教徒」的實踐途徑。在論述層面，包括星雲法師、聖嚴法師、證嚴法師，皆沿續太虛大師到印順導師把佛教帶回「人間」的現代性論述轉譯，星雲法師提倡佛陀在人間，以人為本，回歸佛陀本懷，倡導人間佛教的現代化與生活化；聖嚴法師強調淨土在人間，從回應多元文化脈絡中，轉譯禪修的現代詮釋，側重提升人的品質，建設人間淨土。證嚴法師則是特別重視菩薩在人間，強調現代性苦難論述，主張要從慈善救濟行菩薩道，從人間菩薩落實現代救贖。在空間生產層面，三個人間佛教教團皆重視現代性的空間佈署，以開山建寺與建設大型宗教園區來建構其組織影響力。其中，佛光山建構現代化弘法空間，法鼓山建構現代化禪修空間，慈濟建構現代化慈善空間，一方面透過人間道場的空間再現，建構集體性的修行場域，拓展人間道場的空間效應；另一方面也深入經營社會空間，拓展公共性的修行展演，推動人間淨土的再現空間。在修行與自我技藝層面，佛光山建構出善法的佛教徒，法鼓山建構出實踐的佛教徒，慈濟建構出行動的佛教徒，以創新性的修行儀式、日常生活的禪修、菩薩道的多元實踐三項重要的自我技藝，將修行導引為回應現代性的自我技藝。人間佛教主張回歸日常生活，帶動了佛教的現代性復振，本研究把人間佛教看做是現代性與佛教復振的重要案例，從多元現代性的角度反思西方世俗化理論。

關鍵字

人間佛教；治理性；自我技藝；日常生活；文化創新

並列摘要

This dissertation attempts to explore how a new set of Humanistic Buddhism discourse and practice can be established through the organizational process of the Humanistic Buddhist organizations in Taiwan that is moving towards modernity. Through a comparative case analysis of the Buddhist organizations of Fo Guang Shan, Tzu Chi and Dharma Drum Mountain, we explore that how the modern meaning of Buddhist practice could be reinterpreted and constructed from the mechanism of governmentality and the dimension of cultural innovation to define the ways of practicing “new Buddhist”. At the level of discourse, including Master Hsing Yun, Master Sheng Yen, Master Cheng Yen all followed the road of Master Taixu and Master Yinshun’s modern interpretation to bring Buddhism back to the "human world". Master Hsing Yun advocated “Buddha in the Human World”, focused on the human-oriented, and returned to the Buddha nature. Master Sheng Yen advocates “Pure Land in the Human World”, focused on "building a pure land on earth" by uplifting the quality of Human Mind from the modern interpretation of Chan. Master Cheng Yen advocates “Bodhisattva in the Human World”, focused on the modern suffering discourse and encouraged volunteers to reach the modern salvation from following the road of being human Bodhisattva through charity work. At the level of space production, the three Humanistic Buddhist organizations all emphasized on the modern spatial deployment for building main temple and large religious parks to promote their organizational influence. Fo Guang Shan constructed modern missionary spaces. Dharma Drum Mountain constructed modern meditation spaces. Tzu Chi constructed modern charity spaces. On the one hand, they all constructed collective practice field through the representations of space for Humanistic Sacred places. On the other hand, they also deeply manages social space for expanding public practice and promoting the representational space of pure land on earth. On the level of practice and technology of self, Fo Guang Shan constructed the model of “Buddhist in Dharma.” Dharma Drum Mountain constructed the model of “Buddhist in Practice.” Tzu Chi constructed the model of “Buddhists in action.” They all promoting three important kinds of technology of self, including innovative spiritual rituals, meditation in everyday life, and multiple ways of Bodhisattva. By doing so, they reinterpreted Buddhism practice as technologies of self in response to the condition of modernity. Humanistic Buddhism advocates for returning to every life and promoting the modern revival of Buddhism. This study regards Humanistic Buddhism as an important case of investigating modernity and Buddhism Revival. We could also reevaluate Western secularization theory from the perspective of multiple modernity by this study of Taiwan Humanistic Buddhism.