僧肇思想辯證－《肇論》與道、玄關係的再審查

關於僧肇與中國傳統道家和玄學的關係，一直是佛學界有關僧肇思想研究中的一個重要話題。學術界通行的觀點，幾乎以「同質化」的觀念，把僧肇思想看成道、玄化思想的產物。本文的主要工作，即通過重新理解和勘辨僧肇思想中的中心觀念，以期說明僧肇之論與道、玄思想並不同屬一個同質性的體系。全文分四部分。1、基於現代思想史的研究方法，主要是根據福柯（Michel Foucault）「知識考古學」中有關思想史的「連續性」和「斷裂性」，以及「語詞」、「邏輯命題」與「陳述意義」之間的複雜關係等觀念，重點說明僧肇與道、玄思想之間雖然存在語詞和邏輯的相似性，而義理方面仍然存在很大的異質性，故而不能簡單視為道、玄化的思想。2、重新疏解僧肇對於「空」的讀解，考察了印度中觀所說空義與中國玄學化解空的主要觀念，指出僧肇之前中國佛學對於空的誤讀，主要是在一種根源實在論的立場來理解中觀空論的反實在論傾向。僧肇的解空，語詞上雖不免有玄學舊習，而在內涵上則已擺脫了實在論的模式，恢復了中觀論空的本來意義。3、關於僧肇「般若無知」的概念，本文借用現象學的分析進路，對其中心命題：「虛其心而實其照」提出了兩種可能的讀解，即還原論或道、玄化與反還原論的。本文傾向於後一種理解。4、考察了僧肇對於中國禪，特別是石頭一系的影響，文章主要從「不二」和頓漸兩個問題入手，對他們之間的關聯進行了新的解說。

關鍵字

僧肇；道家；玄學；空；般若無知

並列摘要

This paper deals with the similities and differences between Seng-chao's philosophy and Taoism, New taoism during We-jin Dynasty in a new perspective. My main conclusion, which is different from the popular views, is that Seng-chao's philosophy in it's nature can not be part of Taoist or New taoist systems. The paper is divided into four parts: In the first part, the author applies Michel Foucault's ＂archaeology of knowledge＂ as a basic method , according to which the intellectual history should be interpreted through interruption viewpoint, and the relations among words to express ideas, the structure of logical propositions and meanings of text were usually complicated and heterogeneous, that is to say, we could not judge the nature and meanings of text simply from it's words expressed or the structure of logical propositions. As for the relationship between Seng-chao and Taoism or New taoism, though Seng-chao used a lot of words and the structure of logical propoitions from Taoist or New taoist test, his philosophy should be looked completely upon as a different type. It is not correct to say Seng-chao's philosophy belong to Taoist or New taoist Buddhism. In the second part, I try to give a new interpretation of seng-chao's interpretation of sunya. Before Seng-chao, Chinese buddhists interpreted sunya with ideas taken from Taoism, which called ko yi, that is, interpretation by analogy. Such a method naturally led to inaccuracy and distortion. The difference between this kind of Chinese Buddhism and Maadhyamika in India, however, is that the former regard sunya as a kind of substance or origin, while in the latter, sunya was seen as universal relativity, which was against realism. In order to eliminate probability of realism, Seng-chao interpreted sunya as the unreal. His efforts did try to return to Madhyamika's tradition. In the third part, this paper discusses how to comprehend of ＂prajña as unknown＂, I offer two possible interpretation of it. The first one is Reductive or Taoist, which considers ＂unknown＂ as a continuous process of inner purifying, the another one is Anti-reductive, which hold that ＂unknown＂ or ＂becoming empty of mind＂ has no reference to the process, but refers to a instant enlightenment. In the final part, I investigate Seng-chao's influence on Zen, especially on ＂the school of stone＂. Focusing my attention on ＂unduality＂ and ＂sudden/gradual＂, I state the relationship between Seng-chao and Zen in a new way.