人間佛教與三乘共貫

Buddhism for the Human Realm and the Commonness of the Three Vehicles

游祥洲(Hsiang-Chou Yo)

《法印學報》 2期 (2012/10) Pp. 129-170

https://doi.org/10.29666/JDS.201210.0005

摘要

「人間佛教」的理念，由太虛大師（1890－1947）啟其端緒，印順論師（1906－2005）成其體系，它先從華語世界開始，進而以「入世佛教」（Engaged Buddhism）的名稱在英語世界開展。就亞洲地區而言，「人間佛教」在時間進程上也與西方「宗教人間化」（Religious Secularization）的開展相呼應。從一個歷史宏觀的角度來看，「人間佛教」本質上乃是根本佛教「人間性格」的復興運動，同時也是「大乘佛教」回歸原始佛教「人間性格」的大乘自覺運動。或是換一個方式來說，「人間佛教」也可說是北傳的「大乘佛教」與南傳的「上座部佛教」（二乘佛法）第一次共同回歸原始佛教「人間性格」的合作運動。如果提倡「人間佛教」，卻還是囿於大乘佛教的判教思維，跳脫不出「大乘優位」的意識形態，或是站在南傳佛教「上座優位」的立場，堅持「大乘非佛說」，那麼，南北傳佛教之間的紛爭與對立，必將沒完沒了。「三乘對立」只會加深裂痕，自我弱化，唯有「三乘同尊」，「人間佛教」的路才會越走越寬廣。印順論師對於「三乘」問題，有八點主要論述，有助於釐清「三乘」的定位：1、三乘一乘，都在學佛者的心行上立論；2、大乘與二乘，契入法性的角度不同，因此面對世間與涅槃的態度也不同；3、三乘的施設可以從「四悉檀」中得到正確的理解，但也必須把握到「方便」與「究竟」的差別；4、人間佛教，應以人為中心，應攝取印度初中二期佛教；5、三乘究竟，本是方便說的。在證入法性平等中，同歸一乘，為必然的結論；6、「人間正行」通於「三乘」；7、承認自己是「凡夫」；8、「人菩薩行」與「人天乘」的差別。要走出「三乘對立」的思維，必須取法於龍樹學「三乘共貫」的詮釋學進路，重新省思傳統判教的得失，走出「自宗優位」的思維框架。筆者以為，論述「三乘共貫」的義理，至少可以從下列十二個面向切入：1、抉擇經典傳承，明三乘同源阿含；2、抉擇三法印，明一實相印；3、抉擇空、緣起、中道義，明三乘無別；4、抉擇二諦，明真俗相攝而無礙；5、抉擇四依法，明「三乘」教法之間，只是了義、不了義的問題；6、抉擇「四悉檀」，明三乘教法功能不同；7、抉擇三乘施設，明「三乘並存」；8、抉擇學佛者心行，明三乘因機設教；9、抉擇十八空義，明三乘同歸「畢竟空」；10、抉擇輪涅之義，明「三乘同證無餘涅槃」；11、抉擇三十七道品，明三學與六度之一貫性；12、抉擇戒法根本，明三乘共戒。

關鍵字

人間佛教 ； 入世佛教 ； 印順 ； 三乘共貫 ； 宗教人間化

並列摘要

The ideal of ”Buddhism for the human realm” was proposed by Master Tai-xu (1890-1947), and its system was completed by Master Yin-shun (1906-2005); it first begins from the Chinese world, then with the term, ”Engaged Buddhism,” it transforms itself and spreads into the English-speaking countries. Diachronically speaking, while ”Buddhism for the human realm” has been developing in Asia, ”Religious Secularization” has done the same but in the west.From a macroscopic viewpoint in the history, ”Buddhism for the human realm” essentially is a revival movement of ”the character of humanness” in the fundamental Buddhism; meanwhile, it is also a self-awakening movement of Mahayana Buddhism returning to the primitive Buddhism. In other words, ”Buddhism for the human realm” could be a cooperative movement to go back to ”the character of humanness” of primitive Buddhism for the first time for both the north-bounding ”Mahayana Buddhism” and south-bounding ”Theravada Buddhism” (Dharmas for śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha).If we promote ”Buddhism for the human realm,” but for some reason, we, with the Mahayana standpoint, still confined ourselves to the ideology of preferring Mahayana Buddhism when we make a judgment, or relatively, with the standpoint of the elder (sthavira) and confine ourselves to claiming that ”Mahayana is not Buddha's teaching,” then, the confrontations and oppositions between the north-bounding and south-bounding Buddhism would not be over. ”Opposition among the three vehicles only deepens the rift and weakens in itself; only when we can ”respect for the three vehicles” could the road to the ”Buddhism for the human realm” become broader and much smoother.Master Yin-shun proposed eight main arguments for us to clarify the debate over the positioning problem of the ”Three Vehicles.” First, no matter ”Three Vehicles” or ”One Vehicle,” they are based on the perspective of a practitioner's mind and actions. Second, the angles of attaining the dharma nature are different for the Mahayana and the Two Vehicles, and which make their attitude towards the secular and nirvana different. Third, the design of the three vehicles could be properly understood through Buddha's ”four teaching methods” (Siddhānta), while the difference between ”convenience” and ”the ultimate” must be differentiated and grasped. Fourth, Buddhism for the human realm should be human-centered, so it should be taken in the early and middle periods of Buddhism in India. Fifth, that the concept of the three vehicles is ultimate is a convenient saying. When attaining into the equality of dharma nature, we will naturally understand that one vehicle is the ultimate. Sixth, the right action in the human world is the basis of the ”Three Vehicles.” Seventh, admit that we are ”commons.” Eighth, the difference between the path for human Bodhisattva and the deva-and-man vehicle.To step out of the ideology of ”the Opposition among Three Vehicles,” we must follow the hermeneutics approach that Nāgārjuna provides, the Commonness of the Three Vehicles, rethink the pros and cons of the traditional judgment theories, and go beyond our own thinking frame of ”giving ours the priority.” I think, we can discuss over the meaning of ”the Commonness of the Three Vehicles” in at least twelve perspectives as follows: First, from the classics heritage, we know Three Vehicles are originated from Agama; Second, the Three Universal Characteristics show us there is just one ultimate truth; Third, the meaning of empty nature, dependent origination, and the middle path shows that three vehicles are actually of no difference; Fourth, the twofold truth exemplifies that the secular and the ultimate are integrated without any barrier; Fifth, the four reliances (catvāri pratisamvida) show us the difference between the teaching methods of the ”Three Vehicles” lies in whether they provide the ultimate teaching or not; Sixth, four teaching methods (Siddhānta) highlight there are differences among three vehicles on their teachings and functions; Seventh, the design of the three vehicles shows three vehicles coexist; Eighth, the mind and actions of a practitioner explain teachings are designed in accordance with practitioners' various temperament ; Ninth, eighteen meanings of the emptiness show us the ultimate truth of the three vehicles is the empty nature; Tenth, the three vehicles all will attain to the nirvana without remainder (anupādiśesa-nirvāna); Eleventh, the thirty-seven aids to enlightenment manifest the consistency of the threefold training of morality and six perfection; Twelfth, precepts are the basis of the three vehicles.

並列關鍵字

Buddhism for the human realm,Engaged Buddhism ； Yin-shun ； Commonness of the Three Vehicles ； Religious Secularization