Journal of True Enlightenment ─ Issue 2

【作者】正覺學報編輯部

【出版日期】2008年12月

【書號】978-986-83966-2-3

【開本】188頁

【定價】300元台幣/ 輯

全文下載
  • 學報宗旨

  • 編輯序言

  • 論文一

  • 論文二

  • 論文三

學報宗旨

正覺學報的宗旨,在於弘揚釋迦牟尼佛實證第八識如來藏而成就佛道的佛法義學,秉持學術界客觀求真的科學精神,以合乎三量--至教量、現量、比量--的辯證方法,公平客觀的引證態度,以及真修實證的立場,引導佛學界回歸以實證為目標的佛法義學。

Mission Statement

The mission of the Journal of True Enlightenment is to spread Buddha Sakyamuni's doctrine of attaining Buddhahood through the personal realization of the eighth consciousness, Tathagatagarbha, and to guide the Buddhist academia back to the correct understanding of Buddhist sutras based on the scientific spirit of objectively pursuing the truth, the methodology of the three-ways-of- knowing—knowing by ultimate teachings, personal experience and logical inference, the fair attitude of citation, and the standpoint of both real practice and personal realization.

在探求真理的路上,古今中外之賢聖都是依據事實的觀察而實證,並透過嚴密的論證來演述給眾生了知。本學報亦本於此佛法義學求真求實的精神而創刊,並以現代學術論文的方式來發揚佛法正理,揭示現代佛學學術界眾多學者一向都忽略的實證精神。除此之外,本學報中所採用的論文皆是依據論藏三量──至教量、現量、比量──的嚴密方法闡釋佛法中深妙義理,而此三量正是引自西方神學體系的現代佛學學術界所缺乏的學術標準。由於近代佛學學術界普遍缺乏論議的標準,往往猶如天馬行空一般各自發揮,使得佛學學術論文脫離了追求真理的目標,這是整體佛教教界與學術界的極大損失。因為大量的人力、時間與資源的投入,所獲得的結論卻常常產生錯誤,無助於真理的追求、解脫的實證與法界光明的增上,對於世人當然是極大的損失。為了避免這種長期的資源浪費與損失,而且有助於學術界追求真理,以及對傳統佛教一向所採用富有實證精神的論藏三量標準,都能精準地修正方向及實際理解,本學報要求所有論文作者都以此標準來造論,確實值得佛教界與學術界的重視。

由於以論藏三量的標準所撰寫的論文,才能正確地處理佛學與哲學所面對的所有命題並獲致可靠有效的結論,而此結論將具有實證與實踐的意義,並非文字訓詁式的研究與空談。因此,以論藏三量為標準的學術論文,可以預見地將會是未來東西方哲學學術界所必然採用的標準與主流。由於現代學術界的訓練中缺乏論藏三量的元素,使得要以論藏三量的嚴謹標準來撰寫學術論文,成為高難度的學術創作,也是現代佛學學術界亟待建立的學術能力。在這樣的環境條件與標準下,本期學報採用三篇論文:

  1. 《阿含經》之聖法印略探──兼略論不生不滅法史觀(蔡禮政)
  2. 以《阿含經》略論道德的根源──並略評釋昭慧《佛教後設倫理學》(陳介源、蔡禮政)
  3. 阿賴耶識的內涵與外延──評陳一標〈有關阿賴耶識語義的變遷〉(游冥鴻)

蔡禮政著作的〈《阿含經》之聖法印略探─兼略論不生不滅法史觀〉,乃依據富有實證精神之三量標準,探討《阿含經》中釋迦牟尼佛於經中所舉示佛法的準繩──聖法印──的意涵,以作為佛學中判斷各種學說是非對錯的標準。該文探討釋迦牟尼佛所證悟「實相」的內涵與法印之間的關係,進而深入探討佛教核心教義中「法」有「生滅法」(其異名有:五蘊法、緣起法、緣生法或一切法等等)及「不生不滅法」(其異名有:涅槃、空性、如來藏等等)兩大分類的要旨。該文申論生滅法與不生不滅法是法界必然存在的二種法,二者之間有嚴謹的分類與邏輯關係。如果混淆二種法之間的分類關係而認為彼此可以轉換,或者主張只有其中的一種存在,必然會產生嚴重的邏輯錯誤。因而此種分類與關係,可以作為論斷各式學說主張的準繩,也是構成法印的基本要素。該文將法印的結構分為「根本法印」與「對治法印」以對應不生不滅法與生滅法;並且認為小乘的三法印中,涅槃寂靜法印是「根本法印」,即是大乘不生不滅的一實相印而含攝其他生滅的「對治法印」。此項法印的見解在學術界確屬創見。

此外,該文辨析及歸納出「釋印順所闡述的佛教史為『生滅法史觀』,並不符合法印的準繩」,因此提出「不生不滅法史觀」的獨到見解。該文中「法印與史觀」的部分,辨析釋印順將印度佛教史切割成三個時期而對應小乘的三法印,有嚴重的邏輯錯誤;並證明「不生不滅法史觀」才是符合佛教教理的正確史觀,並且是以「不生不滅法」作為佛教的核心教義──不論是大乘教或小乘教。此亦是極富學術創見並且符合論藏三量的標準。

陳介源、蔡禮政合著的〈以《阿含經》略論道德的根源──並略評釋昭慧《佛教後設倫理學》〉,該文以《阿含經》的義理探討西方哲學二千餘年來,到現代物質文明發展困境下,人類所一直關懷的倫理學的核心命題──道德的根源。該文認為探討倫理學命題的同時,應該先建立穩固而無法破壞的價值體系。現代倫理學繼承二千年來西方哲學對於善、正義、道德受體……等道德用語無法永遠明確定義的困境,一直無法對於人類的道德實踐有重要的指導意義,就是因為缺乏穩固一致的價值體系。該文認為十法界是佛教所主張永恆且穩固的價值體系,並且以《阿含經》證明:入胎識如來藏是出生與住持十法界的根源,所以也是價值的根源。由於如來藏的真實存在而可以實證,因此使得十法界的價值體系具有實證與實踐的意義。這是現代佛教界與學術界的重要創見。

在十法界的價值體系中,六凡業道是所有有情必須面對的業道抉擇,四聖法道則是所有有情厭惡業道輪迴後,所必須面對的法道抉擇。人類每一世的每一事件都在面對業道與法道的抉擇,如果沒有正確的價值觀與抉擇的智慧,就無法對倫理學的命題進行探討與定義。該文認為佛教的義理是主張具有實證意義的「自由意志的抉擇智慧」,是在自由意志下以實證的智慧進行實踐道德的抉擇。該文認為,康德主張基督宗教是理性宗教,卻是以不能實證與驗證的公設為前提,本質上並不是理性宗教。佛教是以實證三種事實:1、自由意志的抉擇,2、如來藏永恆存在,3、法界實相的智慧,在這三者都可以貫徹及親證的前提下,使得佛教成為真正的理性宗教,因此亦使得自由意志的抉擇智慧具有指導道德實踐的意義。

此外,該文並因釋昭慧《佛教後設倫理學》一書中對於現代倫理學的許多重要命題有所探討,因此特選該書作為評論的基礎。佛教雖然是一個古老的宗教,對於現代倫理學的種種重要命題與道德用語的定義,卻仍然能夠跨越時間與空間的限制,對於現在物質文明發展下的困境提供發人深醒的智慧,以作為現代人類實踐道德的判斷準則,因為佛教的義理是宇宙中的真相而不可能被改變。因此,該文認為佛教本質是科學、先進與文明的,同時亦顯示佛教一向超越世俗的自由、民主、人權等普世價值,而追求出世間絕對自由──成佛──的最究竟普世價值。由於該文對於倫理學的架構有完整的論述,對於善的定義與道德的根源,亦有獨到的創見並切合《阿含經》的義理,且極富深度、廣度與高度。該文對於倫理學的研究方法論亦提出極為精闢的主張與創見,因此內容極為精彩豐富,是難得一見的佳作。

游冥鴻所著〈阿賴耶識的內涵與外延──評陳一標〈有關阿賴耶識語義的變遷〉〉,以語意學中內涵與外延的術語,來說明法界實相心──阿賴耶識、第八識、藏識、異熟識、阿陀那識、心、所知依,並申論阿賴耶識的存在乃是一種客觀的事實,所以祂有具體的內涵與外延,也能讓人觀察到祂的存在,因此阿賴耶識乃是客觀的存在而有實證的意義。該文以學者陳一標的論文為例,提出大部分的西方和日本學者,將佛教的義理當做思想來研究,這其實是違背佛教經教的基本主張,因為佛教的經教中處處皆留存著要求實證的文字證據。這些學者因為偏見與方法上的錯誤,所得的結論即成為文字訓詁的遊戲而不具有效性。

該文以《阿含經》的經文來探討阿賴耶識內涵,並舉證《成唯識論》、《攝大乘論》、《解深密經》所說內涵,作為實證阿賴耶識的外延的重要參考。例如,從阿賴耶識是無始以來的存在,是不待他緣、本然的存在,是諸法的根本因;以許多面向來說明永恆存在的阿賴耶識,其存在條件與方式與其他諸法的存在條件是截然不同的。此外,阿賴耶識隱藏於肉體內,維持眾生的壽命,是眾生所貪愛的對象,並且被眾生內執為我,因此阿賴耶識是具有具體內涵的心體。然而,阿賴耶識一詞在語意學中,其實是具有「能藏、所藏與執藏」三種意義,使得不能實證阿賴耶識的古今中外學者,對於阿賴耶識與種子之間的關係是一抑異?只能想像與猜測而產生種種誤解。該文對於阿賴耶識的內涵與外延的詮釋,有極精闢的創見;並指出阿賴耶識的外延,不是語言文字所能夠圓滿表述的,因為祂正是語言文字所指涉的真實事物,是實證的標的,只能以實證的方法來認識。阿賴耶識是唯有大乘見道以上的菩薩才能夠實證,並且真正了知阿賴耶識的內涵與外延而能夠有詮釋的能力;故非尚未親證的阿羅漢所知,更非阿羅漢所能詮釋。因此,該文亦是一篇精闢而有創見的佳作。

佛法義學的本質是以實證法界中事實真相的智慧,作為實踐道德的依據,使得論文作者、讀者、被評論者,皆可以因為追求真理增進法界光明而獲得利益。以上三篇論文皆係採用實證精神的三量標準所撰寫的論文,由於論證嚴謹,所以其結論皆具備有效性,可以作為學術界的重要參考,都是難得一見的優秀作品。

Briefing

In the pursuit of truth, the sages and saints since ancient times, around the world, all have their actual realization based on the observation of facts, and expound it to sentient beings through rigorous demonstrations. Based on this truth-seeking spirit of Buddhist practical theory, this Journal is published to propagate the correct theory of Buddha-dharma with modern academic papers, and to demonstrate the positivist spirit that is often neglected by many scholars in modern Buddhist academia. In addition to that, the papers of this Journal all explain the profound Buddhist doctrines based on the rigorous methodology according to the principle of three-valid-cognition-ways for Buddhist treatises, namely valid cognition by ultimate teachings, direct perception and logical inference. The principle of three-valid-cognition-ways is exactly the academic standard that the modern Buddhist academia, which follows the system of Western theology, lacks. Owing to the general lack of argumentation standard in modern Buddhist academia, the researchers often express their views individually in an unrestrained way, which makes the Buddhist academic papers away from the goal of seeking truth; this is a great loss to the whole Buddhist world and academia. Because a large amount of human power, time and resources has been used, and yet the wrong conclusions have often been drawn, without any help in the pursuit of truth, the actual realization of liberation and the greater glory of dharma-realm; it is certainly a great loss to the people of the world. To avoid this long-term waste and loss of resources, and also to help the academia pursue the truth, accurately correct the direction and actually understand the standard of three-valid-cognition-ways for Buddhist treatises (which is full of positivist spirit and is always followed in traditional Buddhism), this Journal requests all the authors to write papers based on this standard and it really deserves special attention from the Buddhist world and academia.

Only those papers that are based on the standard of three-valid-cognition-ways for Buddhist treatises can correctly deal with all the propositions about Buddhism and philosophy and reach reliable valid conclusions; these conclusions will have the significance of actual realization and practice, but not just researches and empty talks like explanatory notes in ancient books. For this reason, the academic papers based on the standard of three-valid-cognition-ways for Buddhist treatises will be foreseeably the standard and the main stream that are definitely followed by the Eastern and Western philosophic academia in the future. Owing to the lack of elements of three-valid-cognition-ways for Buddhist treatises during the training process in modern academia, to write academic papers based on the strict standard of three-valid-cognition-ways for Buddhist treatises becomes a highly difficult task of academic original writing. It is also the academic capability that the modern Buddhist academia urgently needs to build. Under such environmental conditions and standard, three articles are presented in this issue:

  1. A Brief Exploration on Noble Dharma-Seal in The Agama Sutras──And A Brief Discussion on the Historic View of Neither-Arising-Nor-Ceasing Dharma (Tsai Lichen)
  2. A Brief Discussion on the Root of Morality Based on The Agama Sutras──And Brief Comment on Shi Zhaohui’s Buddhist Metaethics (Chen Chienyuan, Tsai Lichen)
  3. The Connotations and Denotations of Alaya Consciousness──Comment on Chen Yibiao’s “About the Changes in the Literal Meaning of Alaya Consciousness” (Yu Minghong)

According to the positivist standard of three-valid-cognition-ways, Tsai Lichen’s article “A Brief Exploration on Noble Dharma-Seal in The Agama Sutras──And A Brief Discussion on the Historic View of Neither-Arising-Nor-Ceasing Dharma” explores the meaning of Noble Dharma-seal, which is the Buddhist standard proposed by Buddha Sakyamuni in The Agama Sutra as the criterion for judging whether various Buddhist theories are correct or not. This article investigates the relationship between the dharma-seal and the connotations of “ultimate reality” realized by Buddha Sakyamuni, and then further deeply into the essential ideas that “dharma” has two main categories in the Buddhist core doctrine: “arising-and- ceasing dharma” (with different names of five-aggregates dharma, dependent-arising dharma, condition-arisen dharma, all dharmas, etc.) and “neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma” (with different names of nirvana, emptiness-nature, Tathagatagarbha, etc.). This paper explicates that arising-and-ceasing dharma and neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma are two kinds of dharmas that definitely exist in the dharma-realm; there are strict classification and logic relationship between these two. If the classification and relationship between these two kinds of dharmas are confused and one thinks that they are interchangeable, or proclaims that only one of the two exists, it will makes serious errors in logic. Therefore, this kind of classification and relationship can be used as the standard to judge various theories, and is also the basic element of which dharma-seal is composed. In Tsai’s article, dharma-seal is constructed of “fundamental dharma-seal” and “correction dharma-seal” corresponding to arising-and-ceasing dharma and neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma respectively; this article also thinks that, in the three Hinayana dharma-seals, the dharma-seal of nirvana being tranquil is “fundamental dharma-seal” and precisely the neither-arising-nor-ceasing Mahayana Seal of One Ultimate Reality, which includes the other arising-and-ceasing “correction dharma- seals.” This view on dharma-seal is indeed an innovative idea in the academic world.

In addition, Tsai’s article analyzes the related documents and concludes that, “the Buddhist history being ‘the historic view of arising-and-ceasing dharma’ expounded by Shi Yinshun is not in accordance with the standard of dharma-seal.” Hence, the author presents the unique “historic view of neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma.” Concerning the part related to “dharma-seal and the historic view” in this article, the author’s analysis finds that Shi Yinshun’s division of the Buddhist history in India into three periods corresponding respectively to the three Hinayana dharma-seals made serious errors in logic. On the other hand, the author also proves that “the historic view of neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma” is the correct historic view in accordance with the Buddhist doctrines, and neither-arising- nor-ceasing dharma is taken as the Buddhist core doctrine, whether in the Mahayana or Hinayana teachings. This view is also an innovative idea of great academic value and accords with the standard of three-valid-cognition-ways for Buddhist treatises.

With the practical theory of The Agama Sutras, the article “A Brief Discussion on the Root of Morality Based on The Agama Sutras──And Brief Comment on Shi Zhaohui’s Buddhist Metaethics” (co-authored by Chen Chienyuan and Tsai Lichen) explores the core proposition about ethics in Western philosophy── the root of morality, about which human beings have been concerned for more than two thousand years and even in the difficult development position of modern material civilization. This article thinks that a stable value system which cannot be destroyed should be established first while exploring the propositions about ethics. In modern ethics, the difficult position, in which the moral terms for good, justice, moral patients, etc. in Western philosophy have always been unable to be clearly defined for over two thousand years, still persists; its inability to significantly guide people to the practice of human morality is because it lacks a stable consistent value system. This article thinks that the ten dharma-realms are the eternal and stable value system in Buddhism, and it is proved from The Agama Sutras that the embryo-entering consciousness, Tathagatagarbha, is the origin that gives birth to, dwells in and sustains the ten-dharma-realms, and therefore is the root of value. Owing to the real existence of Tathagatagarbha, which can be actually realized, it gives the value system of ten dharma-realms the significance of actual realization and practice. This is an important innovative idea in modern Buddhist and academic worlds.

In the value system of ten dharma-realms, the six ordinary karma paths of ten dharma-realms are the choice of karma paths faced by all sentient beings; the four noble dharma paths are the choice of dharma paths faced by those who dislike the transmigration (samsara) of karma paths. Human beings are facing the choice of karma paths or dharma paths in every happening of each lifetime. If one does not have the correct value and wisdom to choose, one is unable to explore and define the proposition about ethics. This article thinks that the Buddhist doctrine proposes “the wisdom choice by free will,” which has the significance of actual realization, namely to choose the moral practice with the wisdom of actual realization by free will. This article also thinks that, although Kant claimed Christianity to be a rational religion, yet based on the premise of those postulates which cannot be actually realized or verified, it is intrinsically not a rational religion. In Buddhism, it is to actually realize the three following facts: 1. the choice by free will, 2. the permanent existence of Tathagatagarbha, 3. the wisdom of ultimate reality of dharma-realm; based on the premise that all of the three facts can be thoroughly and personally realized, it makes Buddhism become a real rational religion, and therefore, makes the wisdom choice by free will have the significance of guidance on moral practice.

In addition, Chen’s and Tsai’s article also selects Shi Zhaohui’s book Buddhist Metaethics as a basis for comment, because she explores many important propositions about modern ethics in her book. Although Buddhism is an ancient religion, it still can provide, surpassing the limits of time and space while in this difficult development position of modern material civilization, the inspiring wisdom for various important propositions and definitions of moral terms in modern ethics as the judging standard of moral practice for modern people; it is because the Buddhist doctrines are true reality of the universe and cannot be changed. Hence, this article thinks that Buddhism is intrinsically scientific, advanced and civilized, and at the same time, it also shows that Buddhism always surpasses the universal value of mundane freedom, democracy, human right, etc. to search for the supra-mundane absolute freedom, namely becoming Buddha, which is the ultimate universal value. This article has a complete description and discussion about the structure of modern ethics; concerning the definition of good and the root of morality, a unique innovative idea in accordance with the practical theory of The Agama Sutras is also presented with a great depth, breadth and altitude. This article also proposes a brilliant and innovative view about the research methodology for ethics. Therefore, the content of this article is so wonderful that makes it an excellent piece of writing rarely seen.

Using the semantic terms “connotation” and “denotation,” Yu’s article “The Connotations and Denotations of Alaya Consciousness──Comment on Chen Yibiao’s ‘About the Changes in the Literal Meaning of Alaya Consciousness’” explains the ultimate-reality mind of dharma-realm, which is also called the Alaya consciousness, the eighth consciousness, store consciousness, Vipaka consciousness, Adana consciousness, mind, what the perception depends on, etc., and explicates that the existence of Alaya consciousness is an objective fact; hence it has concrete connotations and denotations and its existence is also observable. For this reason, the Alaya consciousness exists objectively and has the significance of actual realization. Taking Chen Yibiao’s article as an example, this article points out that most Western and Japanese scholars study the Buddhist doctrines by regarding it as a thought. It in fact conflicts with the teachings of Buddhist sutras, because there is lots of recorded evidence in Buddhist sutras about the requirement of actual realization. Those researchers, due to their prejudices and wrong methodology, have drawn invalid conclusions, which are like a game of explanatory words in ancient books.

From the text of The Agama Sutras, this article explores the connotations of Alaya consciousness. The connotations mentioned in The Treatise on Completing the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only, The Collected Mahayana Sastras and Samdhinirmocana Sutra are cited as examples for the important reference to the actual realization of denotations of Alaya consciousness. For example, the Alaya consciousness independently and originally exists since beginningless time and is the root cause of all dharmas. The permanently existing Alaya consciousness is described from many aspects; the conditions and ways of its existence are entirely different from those of other various dharmas. In addition, the Alaya consciousness hides in the physical body and sustains the sentient being’s life; it is the object which each sentient being is greedy for and the self to which each sentient being is internally attached. Hence, the Alaya consciousness is the essence of mind which has concrete connotations. However, the term “Alaya consciousness,” in semantics, actually has three meanings, namely “something that stores things, something where things are stored and something that sustains things.” Concerning the question that the relationship between the Alaya consciousness and seeds is the same one or different ones, those scholars (since ancient time, all around the world) who are unable to actually realize the Alaya consciousness can only imagine and speculate on the answer with various misunderstandings. This article interprets the connotations and denotations of Alaya consciousness with a brilliant and innovative view. The author also points out that the denotations of Alaya consciousness can not be perfectly described through language, because it is the real object which the language refers to and the target for actual realization; only through actual realization can it be recognized. Only those Mahayana bodhisattvas who have seen the Way can actually realize the Alaya consciousness, truly understand the connotations and denotations of Alaya consciousness and can provide the correct interpretation; so it is not understood by those arhats who have not actually realized it, nor can they provide the correct interpretation. Therefore, this article is also an excellent piece of writing with a brilliant and innovative view.

The essence of Buddhist practical theory is to provide the wisdom, which comes from the actual realization of true facts in dharma-realm, as the basis of moral practice; all the authors, readers and the people who have been criticized can benefit from the pursuit of truth to the greater glory of dharma-realm. The three articles above are all written based on the positivist standard of three-valid-cognition-ways. Owing to the strict demonstrations, they have drawn the valid conclusions which can provide important reference for the academic world. All the articles are excellent pieces of writing rarely seen. On behalf of Journal of True Enlightenment, I am grateful to many authors for their earnest contributions and patience for the review by editorial board; I also owe my sincere gratitude to the editors who have reviewed the articles with their best. With the determination to benefit the Buddhist and academic worlds, this Journal is the first to apply the positivist standard of three-valid- cognition-ways to the review of articles. We look forward to the recognition of this standard or any suggestion from the Buddhist and academic worlds. Lastly, it is hoped that the Buddhist and academic worlds all pay their respects to the three-jewels (triratna) because of the benefit in karma paths and dharma paths obtained from the publication of this Journal.

《阿含經》之聖法印略探--兼略論不生不滅法史觀
A Brief Exploration on Noble Dharma-Seal in The Agama Sutras --And A Brief Discussion on the Historic View of Neither-Arising-Nor-Ceasing Dharma

摘要

佛陀在其教法中不斷強調「如實觀察」的實證精神,以及佛法有其必然的準繩必須加以遵守;然而現代佛學學術研究不但失去佛教傳統的實證精神,對於研究佛法的求真準繩也不再遵守。

本文認為傳統深具科學實證精神的三量原則,即是現代佛學學術所應採用的學術標準。本文便是採用此三量原則,探討佛法的準繩──聖法印──的根源及正確意義,以樹立佛學學術研究可以依循並作為判斷論證內容正確與否的重要標準。

本文研究發現具足並且區分「不生不滅法」(空性)及「生滅法」(緣起法)是佛法的核心教義,相對地,聖法印具有「根本法印」與「對治法印」的結構與構成。「根本法印」即是「不生不滅法」,是唯一且不可變動的法印;「對治法印」是可變動的法印,法印數量可以從無到無量。其中,「不生不滅法」(根本法印)的現量存在,具有哲學上一定的實證意義及邏輯意義;凡是違反此論述者,將產生違反三量的邏輯錯誤,即是違反佛教教理的錯誤論述。

《阿含經》之法印三經一致的指向「不生不滅法」即是法印的根源,即是大乘一實相印;亦證明二乘聖人曾在佛世親聞佛陀宣講大乘唯一實相法義,而被二乘聖人結集於四阿含之中。這是大乘法教曾於佛世宣說的直接文獻證據,具有佛教史中最早、最直接、最可靠文獻的特性,更具有不可否認性之實質。 本文認為佛教的史觀是「不生不滅法史觀」,是以「不生不滅法」為關鍵的核心教義,是符合三量、文獻證據,並具有最強力的詮釋力,亦符合「聖法印作為佛法準繩」的極致意涵。

一、緒論

傳統的僧伽及居士於佛教中修行,是在寺院、道場中以「聞、思、修、證」的階段步驟,進行戒、定、慧的「聞熏」而開始學習,努力邁向最後「親證」的目標。但由於「親證」的目標極難以達到,似乎不是每一位修行者所能企及;於是近代僧伽及居士的修行便轉往學術方向發展,以發表學術論文、獲得高等學位,取代「親證」的目標;並以取得高等學位作為類似修證的表彰,於是開始有學士學位、碩士學位、博士學位的法師出現於台灣佛教界,形成另外一股風潮。

但是「聞思修證」的學習階段是一個必要的、不可躐等的過程,而且只有從最後「證」的階段,才能藉由至教量之印證,最終確認前三階段學習內容的正確性。因此,釋印順在〈教法與證法的信仰〉文中說:

修學佛法,應先了解佛法,不是從假設、推論、想像中來,而是有自覺的體驗為依據的。1……再就證法說:證法即修證,對佛法作實際的參究與體證。

這樣的見解是符合佛教驗證的道理,值得注意的則是「參究與體證」的真正意涵。釋尊自證的內涵是宇宙生命的「實相」,「實相」即是所有「事實真相」的根源之意。《阿含經》中釋尊經常要求聞法弟子「如實觀察」3,所謂「如實觀察」的意義是:經過對「事實」的深入觀察及比對驗證無誤,才能確認自己所證是否符合釋尊證悟的內涵。只有通過事實的驗證才能稱為「實相正理」,才能說這不是「假設」、「想像」,也不是只停留在「聞、思」或邏輯推演中,這正是釋尊說「如實觀察」的真實意旨,也是佛教實事求是的「證」法之一,稱為「現量」。譬如《瑜伽師地論》云:

由三量故如實觀察,謂由至教量故、由現量故、由比量故,由此三量證驗道理。

現量是可現前驗證、比對、衡量的事實。至教量意謂:釋尊的言教是「如法說」5──依據親證底「事實真相」而說的意思,也是符合現量的。「如實觀察」(現量)及「如法說」(至教量)指的都是要將釋尊的言教,與「事實真相」作一番慎重的審視觀察及比對,以確定對佛陀言教的正確瞭解以及是否實證。因此,「如實觀察」及「如法說」代表著傳統佛教6的實證精神。

在佛學學術研究中,由於只重聞與思,尚未修習及實證的緣故,沒有法界實相的現量智慧,因此應該將釋尊現量親證法界實相而宣說的至教量等同於現量。由於某些「事實真相」不是一般的「世間智者」7所能觀察得到的,世間智者所能觀察的範圍只能是五蘊、世間、世間法等等生滅法。釋尊則是「出世間智者」,所觀察「事實真相」的範圍,不僅函蓋世間智者所能觀察的生滅法,還包括世間智者所不能觀察到的不生不滅、常恒不變易的「法性」;因此,至教量等同於現量。釋印順在〈以佛法研究佛法〉文中亦認同此觀點:

作為能研究的方法的佛法,是佛法的根本法則,普遍法則──也可說最高法則。佛所說的「法性,法住,法界」,就是有本然性,安定性,普遍性的正法。這是遍一切處,遍一切時,遍一切法的正法。

在研究佛法時,應該以「出世間智者」所親證的不生不滅、常恒不變易的「法性」內涵作為研究佛法最高的根本法則。因此,「至教量等同於現量」是佛學研究者所應共遵的學術標準。比量是邏輯推論,意謂依據至教量所說及觀察現量事實所得的「事實真相」為前提,加以邏輯推論而可以證成的佛法道理。所以,屬於比量之邏輯推論也是佛學學術標準之一,唯前提必須是以現量(實證)來作比量的基準。

至教量等同於現量的另一個原因是:現量與至教量,依古時與現代的實證者而言,其範圍與層次是不同的;但至教量等同現量的道理則始終不變,因為至教量所說之全部意涵是現量(實證)的究竟及圓滿,無可超越、諸佛齊等。例如,依據經典的記載,佛世的古印度具有四禪八定及五神通的外道9修行人,其數量是很多的。當時關於三界人天的境界內容是屬於現量,是當時修行者間可以驗證而無爭議的事實,然不圓滿、不究竟,故其現量不能具足等於至教量,於其實證之部分,則等於至教量。但是,由於物質文明的發展,人類追求物質富裕所帶來的感官刺激,使得願意拋棄感官刺激、專心修習禪定而獲得禪定證量境界者,已經稀有難尋,故古時實證者的現量與現代多數自稱實證者的現量是有其差異的,現代多數自稱實證者的現量是非量故。關於古代此部分的現量範圍,有一部分將歸屬於經典中的至教量;而現代實證者的現量並非普遍性的,而是稀有性的。佛世的至教量範圍,依據經典所記載,主要在於「法性」內涵及依之修行的「法道」內涵。時至今日,至教量尚應函蓋依據經典的記載而為佛教界所共信的其他內容,例如:十法界。

本文的研究依《瑜伽師地論》:以至教量、現量及比量等三量作為證成佛法的研究前提與方法;即是根據至教量及現量之事實,加以推論,不從假設及想像而推論。

現量、至教量是具有「實踐修行」的意義,是實證佛法的關鍵要素,也是從事佛學學術研究的最終目標。然而,在現代佛學的學術研究中,「實踐修行」似乎被排除於研究方法之外。例如:吳汝鈞在《佛學研究方法論》將「實踐修行法」臚列在方法論中,但是卻說:

這裏謹就稍為熟悉的禪的修證,談談這種實踐修行法的概略。這自然不是一種「研究方法」,但它卻表示一接觸甚至契入佛教的門徑,不可不注意。

表明了「實踐修行法」不是佛學的「研究方法」,而是佛法的實證方法。吳文將「實踐修行法」臚列在該書中,應該只是用來澄清「實踐修行法不是佛學的研究方法」而已,應無他意。現代佛學學術將「實踐修行法」排除於研究方法之外,與《瑜伽師地論》所代表傳統佛教之實證精神,存在嚴重的落差;也是將佛學學術研究外於佛法實證的主張,難免導致佛學學術研究的成果偏離佛法,使研究結果成為非知識的哲學,已不是屬於知識的佛學,這個後果值得學術界進一步的探討。本文仍依傳統佛教之實證精神,以「三量」作為研究的前提與方法。……(待續)

什麼是「緣生法」?所謂:無明、行等等。不論佛出世或不出世,十二支緣生法生滅相續存在而常住。諸緣生法能夠生滅相續而常住世間,是因為緣生法安住於「法界」──住於諸法各自應有的功能差別中。為什麼生滅變異不斷的緣生法可以安住於各自的功能差別中呢?因為彼如來已自己覺知了沒有生滅相續現象的不生不滅「常住法」,不由他悟;經修行成「佛」後,為人演說,開示顯發:由於不生不滅的「常住法」存在,藉由「無明緣生法」引生「行緣生法」,乃至藉由「生緣生法」引生「老死緣生法」。由於一切緣生法背後共有一個不生不滅的「常住法」存在,使得緣生法不停地出現(法住),出生又滅盡,滅盡又出生(無常故法空),相似於「常住法」而得相續起滅(法如),運作次序終不錯謬(法爾),緣生法不能離開「如」(此處將不生不滅的「常住法」立名為「如」)而由不生滅的「常住法」支援才能運作(法不離如),緣生法不能與「如」完全割離,並攝屬於「如」(法不異如),這是究竟真實而不顛倒的道理。由於「如」出生緣生法,才能有三界有情的蘊處界身心不斷地出生及存在,而且所生的一切緣生法都能各住其位而運作,並能互相配合而不錯亂,因而隨順成就緣起法,這便是「緣生法藉緣生起」的道理──緣起法。「如」的另一意義就是「隨順」之意,不自作主張,故無錯亂牴觸之可能。

因此,「緣生法」及「緣起法」代表現象界(現量)及現象界的因果律則(比量)等一切法,而現象界及其律則皆由「如」出生而展現,一切現量及比量皆根源於「如」,故「如」即是萬法之根源,亦名「實相」。因果律則可以一直在生滅變異而常住不斷地在世間中實現而顯示,是因為有不生不滅的「如」存在。由於佛陀自己覺悟有此不生不滅的「如」存在,才能夠成就究竟的覺悟,並且為人開示顯發緣生法的道理。而「如」即藉前支緣生法作為藉緣,不斷地出生後支緣生法而運作不輟,方能有各類五陰世間。因此,生滅的緣生法與變異的緣起法,能夠生滅相續而常住於世間,是依靠著真正的常住法──不生不滅的如來藏──阿含中說之如,永恆存在而出生緣生法,並且賦予不同的緣生法種種不同的功能差別,使得緣生法可以安住於各自的功能差別中不斷的顯現世間緣起的現象。

《雜阿含經》293經以「緣起隨順法」定義「出世空」,是在描述說:「出世空」是出生萬法的根源。由有「出世空」,才有蘊等諸法藉緣而起;如是觀察所得之法,名為緣起法。由於「出世空」具有藉緣生起諸法的事實,故「出世空」即是緣起隨順法,恆依緣起法則而隨順運行故。而「出世空」即是「如」,若「出世空」不是「如」,若二者皆是「緣起隨順法」,則現象界應有二種因果律;然現量事實是因果律只有一種,故「出世空」亦名「如」。……(待續)

A Brief Exploration on Noble Dharma-Seal in The Agama Sutras── And A Brief Discussion on the Historic View of Neither-Arising-Nor-Ceasing Dharma

Abstract

In his teachings the Buddha continuously emphasized the positivist spirit of “observing things as they really are”, and there were definite Buddhist standards to uphold. However, in modern academic researches on Buddhism, not only the traditional positivism in Buddhism no longer exists, but the standards of Buddhist research are not upheld any more.

This paper thinks that the scientific positivist principle of three-valid-cognition-ways in traditional Buddhism is the academic standard that should be adopted in modern Buddhist academia. According to this principle of three-valid-cognition-ways, the origin and the correct meanings of Noble Dharma-seal, as the Buddhist standard, are studied in this paper. Hence the important criterion is established and can be followed to judge whether the content of a demonstration is correct or not.

This study finds that the core doctrine of Buddhism is to fully possess both “neither-arising- nor-ceasing dharma” (emptiness-nature) and “arising-and-ceasing dharma” (dependent-arising dharma), and to differentiate between them. Respectively, Noble Dharma-seal is composed of “fundamental dharma-seal” and “correction dharma-seal.” “Fundamental dharma-seal” is precisely “neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma.” It is the only and unchangeable dharma-seal. “Correction dharma-seal” is changeable, with its number from none to countlessness. Among them, the real existence of “neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma” (fundamental dharma-seal) has philosophically the definite significance of personal realization and logics. All that violate this point will make a logical mistake of contradicting the principle of three-valid-cognition-ways, and will be wrong discourses on the Buddhist doctrines.

The three dharma-seal sutras of Agamas all point out that “neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma” is precisely the origin of dharma-seal, the Mahayana seal of One Ultimate Reality. It proves that, during the Buddha’s lifetime, the Hinayana saints had personally heard the doctrines of Mahayana One Ultimate Reality from the Buddha; and then, those doctrines were collected in The Four Agama Sutras by the Hinayana saints. This is the direct documentary evidence that Mahayana teachings had been expounded during the Buddha’s lifetime, which is the earliest, most direct and reliable documentary evidence in Buddhist history; all the more, it is an undeniable truth.

This paper thinks the historic view of Buddhism is actually “that of neither-arising-nor- ceasing dharma.” It takes “neither-arising-nor-ceasing dharma” as the crucial core doctrine of Buddhism. This view accords with the principle of three-valid-cognition-ways and documentary evidence, provides the best interpretation, and is also in accordance with the ultimate meaning of “Noble Dharma-seal being the Buddhist standard.”

1. Preface

Traditionally the home-leaving and home-staying Buddhists practiced Buddhism in the monasteries or practice centers. They followed the steps of “hearing, thinking, practicing and realizing” with the study of precept, samadhi and wisdom, and strived to progress toward the final goal of “personal realization.” However, the goal of “personal realization” seemed too difficult for most of the practitioners to achieve. The practice of home-leaving and home-staying Buddhists has then been shifted to the academic field in recent times. The goal of “personal realization” is replaced by publishing academic papers and gaining a higher university degree, as a similar honor to their practice and realization. Therefore, Buddhist monks with bachelor, master or Ph.D. degree started to appear in Taiwan Buddhist world, which has become another trend.

However, the stages of “hearing, thinking, practicing and realizing” are a necessary process of study, and any levels of practice can not be skipped. Moreover, only through the “realization” of the last stage, the practitioners can finally verify whether the study contents in previous three stages are correct or not. Therefore, Shi Yinshun said in his article “The Belief on Teaching Method and Realizing Method”:

To practice Buddhism, one should understand Buddhism first. This understanding does not come from assumption, inference or imagination, but is based on the personal realization.1… Furthermore, from the point of realization method, it means practice and realization, i.e., the practical contemplation and personal realization of the Buddha dharma.

This viewpoint conforms to the theory of Buddhist verification and the true meaning of “meditative contemplation and personal realization” should be noted. What Sakyamuni had personally realized is the “ultimate reality” of the universe and life. The “ultimate reality” means the origin of all true facts. Stated in The Agama sutras, Sakyamuni usually asked his disciples to “observe things as they really are.”3 What it means by “observing things as they really are” is: through detailed observations of the “facts” and verification by comparison, one can confirm if what he has realized is in accordance with the content of Sakyamuni’s enlightenment. Only through the verification by facts, it can be called “the correct theory of ultimate reality,” and said that it is not “assumption” or “imagination,” nor just to stay in the stages of “hearing, thinking,” or logic reasoning. This is exactly the true meaning of “observing things as they really are” expounded by Sakyamuni. It is also one of the “realization” methods in Buddhism to seek truth from facts, and called “valid cognition by direct perception.” In the Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice, it states:

One is said to observe things as they really are if he follows the principle of the three-valid-cognition-ways, namely valid cognition by ultimate teachings, direct perception and logical inference. Through the three-valid-cognition-ways, the theory is verified.

Valid cognition by direct perception refers to the facts that one can directly verify, compare and judge. Valid cognition by ultimate teachings means Sakyamuni’s teachings, which are “spoken according to the dharma,”5 i.e., spoken according to the “true facts,” and it is also in accordance with valid cognition by direct perception. “Observing things as they really are” (valid cognition by direct perception) and “speaking according to the dharma” (valid cognition by ultimate teachings) refer to that Sakyamuni’s teachings and “the true facts” are carefully observed and compared, to make sure that one correctly understands and personally realizes the Buddha’s teachings. Therefore, “observing things as they really are” and “speaking according to the dharma” represent the positivist spirit of traditional Buddhism.

In the Buddhist academic research, because scholars place emphasis only on hearing and thinking without practice and personal realization, they are lacking in the direct-realizing wisdom of ultimate reality of dharma-realm. Therefore, valid cognition by ultimate teachings, which were expounded by Sakyamuni who had directly and personally realized the ultimate reality of dharma-realm, should be equivalent to valid cognition by direct perception. This is because that some of the “true facts” are not observable for the ordinary “mundane wise.”7 What the mundane wise can observe are only the arising-and-ceasing dharmas such as five aggregates, the world, the mundane dharmas and so on. Sakyamuni is a man of “supra-mundane wisdom.” The “true facts” that he had observed include not only the arising-and-ceasing dharmas, which can be observed by the mundane wise, but also the neither-arising-nor-ceasing and permanently unchangeable “dharma-nature.” For this reason, it is said that valid cognition by ultimate teachings is equivalent to valid cognition by direct perception. Shi Yinshun also agreed on this viewpoint in his book A Study of Buddha Dharma Based on Buddha Dharma, he said:

Being as a research methodology, the Buddha dharma is the fundamental, pervasive and also highest principle of Buddhism. The “dharma-nature, dharma-dwelling, and dharma-realm” expounded by the Buddha is precisely the correct-dharma with the natures of originality, stability and pervasiveness. This is the correct-dharma that exists everywhere, all the time and in every dharma.

While doing Buddhist research, the connotation of dharma-nature, which is neither-arising- nor-ceasing, permanently unchangeable and personally realized by “the supra-mundane wise,” should be taken as the highest fundamental principle. Therefore, “valid cognition by ultimate teachings being equivalent to valid cognition by direct perception” is the academic standard that all the Buddhist researchers should follow. Valid cognition by logical inference means the way that one can prove Buddhism through logical inference, based on the ultimate teachings and the observation of “true facts” by direct perception. For this reason, valid cognition by logical inference should also be one of the Buddhist academic standards, based on the premise that direct perception (actual realization) must be the basic standard of logical inference.

Another reason for “valid cognition by ultimate teachings being equivalent to valid cognition by direct perception” is: The range and level of valid cognition by direct perception and ultimate teachings are different between the true realizers in ancient and modern times. However, the rationale that valid cognition by ultimate teachings is equivalent to valid cognition by direct perception never changes. It is because the meaning of ultimate teachings is all about the ultimacy and perfection of direct perception (actual realization), which is unsurpassed, and equal between all Buddhas. For example, according to the sutras, there were a lot of non-Buddhist practitioners9 who achieved four-dhyanas-eight-samadhis and gained the five supernatural powers in ancient India during the Buddha’s lifetime. At that time, it is irrefutably true that the states of the human and celestial beings in three-realms were directly perceivable and could be verified by the practitioners in those days. And yet, their states are not perfect nor ultimate, so their valid cognition by direct perception is not fully equivalent to the ultimate teachings, whereas their actual realization is equivalent to the ultimate teachings. However, human beings seek sensory stimulation while becoming materially rich after the advancement of material culture. Consequently, it has become very rare to find such people who are willing to give up sensory stimulation and focus on the practice of meditative concentration to attain samadhi states. Therefore, the direct perception of actual realizers in ancient times is different from that of many self-claimed actual realizers in modern times, whose direct perception is invalid cognition. Concerning this kind of direct experience in ancient times, part of that is classified as the ultimate teachings in sutras in modern times. On the other hand, the direct perception of modern actual realizers is uncommon and rare. According to the sutras, the ultimate teachings in the Buddha’s lifetime mainly include the connotations of “dharma-nature” and the “dharma-way” practiced based on the “dharma-nature.” Nowadays, valid cognition by ultimate teachings should also cover the other contents that are based on the sutras with the common belief shared by the Buddhist world, for example, ten dharma-realms.

Based on the principle in the Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice, this study takes the three-valid-cognition-ways, namely valid cognition by ultimate teachings, direct perception and logical inference, as the premise and method of research on proving Buddhism. In other words, one makes logical inferences from the ultimate teachings and the facts by direct perception, but not from assumption or imagination.

Valid cognition by direct perception and ultimate teachings has the meaning of “practice and realization” and is the key factor of actually realizing Buddhism, as well as the final goal of Buddhist research. However, in modern academic research on Buddhism, “practice and realization” seems to be excluded from the list of research methodology. For example, Wu Rujun includes “the methods of practice and realization” on a list of methodology in his book Methodology for Buddhist Research. However, he says to the contrary:

Here we talk briefly about the method of practice and realization, respectfully based on Chan practice, which is somewhat familiar to us. Naturally, Chan practice is not a “research methodology.” However, we should note that Chan practice is a method by which one can get in touch with or even come to realize Buddhism.

He says clearly that “the method of practice and realization” is not a Buddhist “research methodology,” but a method of actual realization of the Buddha dharma. Without any further implication, Wu listed “the method of practice and realization” in his book only to clarify that “the method of practice and realization is not a Buddhist research methodology.” Modern Buddhist academia excludes “the method of practice and realization” from the list of research methodology. This approach differs greatly in spirit from the traditional Buddhist positivism exemplified in the Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice. The claim that the actual realization of the Buddha dharma is excluded from Buddhist academic research will inevitably lead to that the results of Buddhist academic research depart from the Buddha dharma, making the research results become a non-knowledge philosophy instead of the Buddhist philosophy within the scope of knowledge. This consequence deserves further academic investigation. Still, based on the positivist spirit of traditional Buddhism, this study takes the “three-valid-cognition-ways” as the premise and method of research.……(continue)

What is the “condition-arisen dharma?” It means Ignorance, Behavior etc. No matter if the Buddha was born or not, the twelve of condition-arisen dharmas continuously arise and cease and permanently exist. The reason that all condition-arisen dharmas can continuously arise and cease and permanently exist in the world is that the condition-arisen dharma dwells securely in the “dharma-realm” (dwells in its own different functions that it should have). Why can the continuously changing condition-arisen dharma of arising-and-ceasing nature dwell securely in the different functions of each own? It is because that the Buddha himself perceived the existence of “everlasting dharma,” which is neither-arising-nor-ceasing (not a continuous arising and ceasing phenomenon). After becoming “Buddha” through practice, not guided by others, the Buddha expounded and manifested it to the people. Because there exists “everlasting dharma,” it gives rise to the “condition-arisen dharma of Behavior” depending on the “condition-arisen dharma of Ignorance,” and so on until it makes the “condition-arisen dharmas of Aging and Death” arise depending on the “condition-arisen dharma of Birth.” Because there exists the same “everlasting dharma” behind all the condition-arisen dharmas, it makes the condition-arisen dharmas appear repeatedly (dharma-dwelling); it makes them arise and then cease, and arise again after ceasing (impermanent and therefore dharma-empty); it makes their natures to be similar to that of “everlasting dharma” and therefore they continuously arise and cease (dharma-such); it makes them operate in a correct order (dharma-natural); the condition-arisen dharma cannot operate without “suchness” (not-off-suchness and here everlasting dharma is named as “suchness”) and must be supported by the neither-arising-nor-ceasing “everlasting dharma”; The condition-arisen dharma cannot be completely separate from “suchness” and is included in “suchness” (not different from suchness). This is why it is ultimately true without topsy-turvy delusion. Because “suchness” gives rise to the condition-arisen dharmas, the sentient beings with body and mind of aggregate-field-division (skandhas, ayatanas and dhatavah) in the three realms can continuously arise and exist. Also, all condition-arisen dharmas can dwell in their own positions and operate; they also can cooperate with each other without disorder. “Suchness” follows and accomplishes dependent-arising dharmas accordingly. This is how “condition-arisen dharmas arise depending on conditions”─dependent-arising dharma. Another meaning of “suchness” is “to follow conditions,” not to make its own decision, so it is impossible to be in a state of disorder and contradiction.

Therefore, “condition-arisen dharma” and “dependent-arising dharma” represent all dharmas in the phenomenal world (valid cognition by direct perception) and its law of causality (valid cognition by logical inference). And yet the phenomenal world and its law of causality all come from “suchness” to manifest themselves. All the valid cognition by direct perception and logical inference originates from “suchness.” Hence “suchness” is precisely the origin of all dharmas, also named as “ultimate reality.” Because there exists the neither-arising-nor-ceasing “suchness,”……(continue)

以《阿含經》略論道德的根源--並略評釋昭慧《佛教後設倫理學》
A Brief Discussion on the Root of Morality Based on The Agama Sutras --And Brief Comment on Shi Zhaohui's Buddhist Metaethics

摘要

西方哲學從古希臘便開始嘗試對善、正義等道德用語進行定義,並且努力發掘人類為何會有道德觀念,道德的根源到底是什麼?此種努力一直到近代採用語言分析的分析哲學興起後,倫理學也重新探討相關命題,並將所有的哲學問題歸納為語言問題,致使後設倫理學跟著興起而成為研究的重點。可是經過將近一世紀的研究,對於道德的根源命題,仍然無法獲得突破性的成果。

本文嘗試以佛教《阿含經》的觀點,對於上述西方哲學二千餘年來的重要命題進行研究。本文發現佛教是以堅固穩定的價值體系作為探討的基礎,而此價值體系就是符合法界事實的十法界。十法界中六凡業道是所有有情必須面對的業道抉擇,四聖法道則是所有有情厭惡業道輪迴後,所必須面對的法道抉擇。十法界的價值體系即是以實踐道德的能力所成立,而一切道德價值的根源即是可以實證的入胎識──如來藏。

由於有十法界的客觀存在,使得有情在無量的輪迴生死後,想要獲得勝於此世的未來世果報,或想要獲得解脫輪迴的自由,因此產生道德觀念以作為業道與法道的抉擇,以此作為善惡的分野,並且以此作為相對善與絕對善的定義。佛教即是以實證法界根源如來藏所得的實相智慧,引發自由意志的抉擇智慧而邁向成佛之道。

釋昭慧認為佛教是以緣起法中的我愛作為道德的根源,並由我愛的基礎產生自通之法作為道德判斷的基礎。本文研究發現《阿含經》主張「我愛是不道德的根源,是無量無數惡的淵藪」,不學佛法而自通之法,只是通於世間善的人天法,只是初級道德的動力而非根源,只能及於未來世的好果報而不能及於解脫生死輪迴。因此,緣起法不是所有道德的根源,住持有情身心的如來藏才是所有道德的根源。

康德主張理性宗教的三個道德公設並不正確,其中自由意志的選擇與上帝的存在,是彼此矛盾的公設。本文認為真正的理性宗教應具有三個實證內涵:1、自由意志的存在,2、如來藏永恆存在,3、實相智慧。此外,對於存有命題,語言研究的方法,並不是正確有效的方法;語言研究所獲得的任何證據皆不是第一手證據,只有現量實證所獲得的智慧,才是真正的第一手證據,也是終極證據。

本文認為所有有情隱藏於內心深處,對於自由、民主、人權等普世價值的渴望,正是對於佛教自由意志的抉擇智慧的渴求。由於對普世價值的渴求,必然使得一切有情在獲得具有實踐道德能力的人身時,在諸佛菩薩無慢的慈悲教導下,終將實證實相智慧而逐步邁向成佛之道,唯除決定性的不迴心二乘人。

一、緒言

倫理學(ethics)又名道德哲學(moral philosophy)1。倫理學中的核心命題,在近代被劃分為後設倫理學(metaethics),而與規範倫理學(normative ethics)2、應用倫理學(applied ethics)3 作為議題上的區別與分類。Metaethics中文通常譯為「後設倫理學」,是由ethics倫理學,加上字首meta-所構成。字首‘meta’一詞的意義為after(在……之後)或者beyond(在……之上)。將metaethics譯為「後設倫理學」,是有待商榷的。4因為‘meta’雖然有「在…之後」的意涵,但是metaethics所討論的內容卻不是一般應用倫理學(applied ethics)或者規範倫理學(normative ethics)時序後面的內容。相反的,metaethics討論的內容是規範倫理學的前置性的基礎理論。孫效智舉出:

從今日觀點來看,後設倫理學可以說是規範倫理學的一種前置性的基礎理論工作,這也是它為何被稱為「後設」倫理學的原因。換言之,後設倫理學並非只是破壞性地去懷疑道德價值的客觀基礎,而是要更嚴謹地去思考道德價值有沒有客觀基礎或有怎樣的客觀基礎。

孫效智是充分瞭解「後設」一詞的英文字義,只是依循慣例而採用而已。既然metaethics作為規範倫理學的「一種前置性的基礎理論工作」,將「前置性」的基礎理論工作稱為「後設」,顯然在中文的意義上是不相稱的。

相類似的情形,metaphysics是由‘physics’(物理學)加上字首‘meta’所構成,譯為「哲學」或「形而上學」而不譯為「後設物理學」。因為編輯亞里斯多德的著作時,將亞里斯多德探討「第一哲學」(或者稱為「自然的基本原理」)的部分置於物理學之後,因此構成metaphysics。也就是說,metaphysics意謂著人類觀察自然現象的規律,接著探討自然現象「背後的道理」,亦即是探討宇宙與生命的根源,探討自然現象的前置性基礎理論工作。由於‘meta’意謂著是「前置性、根源性」的探討,中文譯作「後設」確實有不妥適的情形。

從metaethics與metaphysics兩個字的構成來看,前者屬於探討人類心靈的道德規範成立的基礎,後者屬於探討物質世界的自然現象運作成立的基礎6,而心靈與物質運作背後的根源,到底是各有根源呢?還是有共同的根源?這是哲學與宗教千百年來所不斷探究的重要議題。佛教對於這個議題的觀點是如何,正是本文所要討論的重要議題之一。

在近代物質文明下,合乎科學的、邏輯的、一致性的理性精神抬頭,重新檢視屬於心靈的倫理學的合理性,亦即檢視基督信仰把一切道德歸結為上帝的律令,將一切道德建築於上帝存在的合理性。十八世紀時休謨(David Hume, 1711-1776)認為道德是根源於一個人的道德感7,從而否定上帝作為道德的根源。康德(Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804)則主張理性宗教具有三個不必驗證的道德公設:第一是意志自由,第二是靈魂不朽,第三是上帝存在。也就是說,康德通過第三公設,恢復了關於上帝存在的倫理學證明。8可是人類的自由意志卻常常造作不道德,違反公設為全能的上帝所下達的道德律令,使得上帝的存在更令人質疑。接下來尼采(Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900)更宣布「上帝已死」,並且呼籲世人應該「重估一切價值」。9孫偉平描述後設倫理學發展的背景:

尼采揮舞「鐵錘」通過對傳統文化的隱含前提的質疑和批判,徹底否決了傳統文化、傳統倫理道德。尼采認為,自蘇格拉底以來的西方文化和道德,已經完全失去了其存在的理由。迄今為止的一切道德都是不合邏輯的發展的,都是不公正的,它們不是人的道德,而不過是所謂「集群動物的道德」。正因為如此,尼采痛斥基督宗教在西方社會所造成的人性懦弱和卑劣,從而舉起了反傳統道德的大旗,主張人應該從傳統道德的束縛下解放出來,自由地建立自己賴以生活的信仰。

尼采發現基督信仰的不合邏輯與不公正,乃至稱之為「集群動物的道德」正是理性精神抬頭反省的代表之一。……(待續)

本文嘗試根據佛教中《阿含經》的義理進行研究,試圖回應西方哲學二千多年來,直到現代仍然不能解答的後設倫理學中三個核心命題:

  1. 什麼是「善」與「惡」等道德用語的定義?
  2. 什麼是「善」與「惡」等道德判斷的本質?其基礎與標準是主觀的?還是客觀的?
  3. 成立「善」與「惡」等等道德與價值的判斷,其根源與基礎是什麼?

在西方哲學史中,對於上述三個道德學說的命題有極悠久的歷史。在蘇格拉底時代就有針對第一個命題──「什麼是善?」、「什麼是正義?」──進行激烈的辯論,可是直到現代仍然莫衷一是。這個古老的議題被這樣描述著:

說到這裡,我們就要遇到倫理學上最大而且最根本的問題了,這個問題,關係著全部道德學說,這就是何謂正義?──是要在道德中求正義呢?還是在力量中求正義?──到底我們應當為善呢?還是應當強而有力?

「何謂正義?」是探討人與人之間互動關係中的「善」,那麼「什麼是善?」,這是屬於倫理學中實然的命題(The Is Question)。「我們應當為善呢?還是應當強而有力?」則是應然命題(The Ought Question)。也就是說,倫理學討論的是「什麼是善?什麼是正義?」的定義,來作為「我們應當為善呢?還是應當強而有力?」等等是否應該實踐道德的命題。這些都是後設倫理學的核心議題。

除此之外,在後設倫理學發展的背景下,如何不會令後設倫理學並非只是破壞性地去懷疑道德價值的客觀基礎,而是要更嚴謹地去思考道德價值有沒有客觀基礎或有怎樣的客觀基礎,確實是我們所應慎重考慮的。按照筆者的觀點,後設倫理學的研究要達到更嚴謹的思考,而非只是破壞性地懷疑道德價值的客觀基礎,便應該思考卡根(Shelly Kagan)所說道德哲學的核心問題:「我們應該如何生活?」14,就是在凸顯探討倫理學的同時應該有道德實踐的意義。也就是說,倫理學的探討本身也是生活的一部分,是道德實踐的一環,是身為人類而異於集群動物所應實踐的生命意義。

換言之,研究道德的人在研究的當下,是否也應該是道德實踐的一環?譬如,宇宙與生命的根源是否真實存在而可以實證?而存在或不存在必然只有其中一個可以成立。如果此根源確實存在,則學術論文的撰寫就應該抉擇為存在,排除不存在。這樣才是道德的實踐。如果此根源確實不存在,則應該抉擇為不存在,排除存在。這樣也是道德的實踐,因為符合事實的緣故,沒有任何一絲欺騙的可能。同樣的,如果此根源確實存在而且可以經驗而實證之,則學術論文也應該抉擇為存在而可實證;反之亦然。這樣才是研究後設倫理學的道德實踐。因此,上述命題中的第三個命題,就是在探討道德的根源是否真實存在,使得人類實踐道德是有真實的意義,沒有絲毫的欺騙。

然而,我們常常見到學術論文對於事實的存在與否不作抉擇,反而抱持著「存在或不存在都有可能」的態度,以展示自己的胸懷寬大與對於不同意見的包容。其實這種學術研究的態度並不符合道德的實踐,反而遠離了道德精神與實踐。因為對於事實存在與否不能抉擇,表示對於真實存在的事實加以質疑,以及對於真實不存在的事實卻願意鄉愿地間接承認其存在,因此有了欺騙的本質而增加人類無知的程度,違反學術研究追求真理的目的。就好像口中宣稱道德,可是所說的內容卻是違背道德,那麼就背離後設倫理學研究的目的。所以,對於事實存在與否不能抉擇的學術研究,不但不是道德的實踐,反而是道德的淪喪。因此,學術論文的撰寫與發表能夠符合實踐道德的倫理要求,其前提就是作者對於事實存在與否的命題已經實際驗證,然後才發表自己的論點。這樣才符合道德的實踐。

佛陀在《阿含經》中說:「愍傷世間,為天、為人求義及饒益,求安隱快樂」15,作為實踐道德的總綱。也就是說,對於眾生的無明與痛苦感到憐愍與悲傷,因此為天人與人類的正義與饒益,以及安隱與快樂而宣說佛法。秉持同樣的理念,筆者效法佛陀實踐道德的精神,認為對於錯誤的學術論說應該直接提出批評與討論。因為如果對於某些學術論說明知其錯誤,卻不加以評論而提出正確的看法,那麼就是放任該作者的無知,以及放任該作者錯誤的教導讀者,則自己其實是不道德的。因此,對於錯誤的學術論說加以評論並提出正確的看法,也是實踐道德的必要作法。相反的,如果明知有錯誤的學術論說,為了不願得罪該作者,或者為了顯示自己的寬大與包容的名聲,而不予評論及糾正,就是眼見該作者的無知而不願施予智慧,就是貪圖短期的世間名聲而放棄長期追求正義與饒益的不道德行為。因此,學術論文的評論與申論,都是實踐道德的一環。……(待續)

釋昭慧以上的敘述至少產生六種錯誤:第一、沒有推究到真正的根源。既然自通之法源自「自他互易」的心理基礎,這種心理基礎又源自「自我處境」強烈關懷的「我愛」,因此自通之法係輾轉由我愛產生。「自通之法」源自於「自他互易」的心理基礎,那麼「自通之法」顯然不是道德的基礎,更基礎的「自他互易」心理才是基礎。因此,引生出來的「自通之法」不可能是道德基礎。

第二、最基礎的「我愛」是道德的基礎嗎?顯然亦不可能,因為強烈關懷「自我處境」的「我愛」是雙面利刃,同時也會導致起惑、造(惡)業、感苦、自誤、誤人等等不道德的結果,反而往往是不道德的根源,產生「道德的基礎就是不道德的基礎」之矛盾結果。

第三種錯誤,將「我愛」的雙面利刃中善的部分,取來做為道德的根源,無視於另一面惡的利刃必將產生惡的部分,產生不一致的矛盾。由此可知,「我愛」顯然不是道德的根源。

第四種錯誤,道德基礎應該不受時間限制,然而「自通之法」的「作是覺已」卻受時間限制。人類在嬰孩階段的意識沒有發育成熟,無法「作是覺已」而缺乏「自通之法」。對於缺乏「自通之法」的無知嬰兒,可以稱嬰兒為不道德嗎?……(待續)

阿賴耶識的內涵與外延--評陳一標〈有關阿賴耶識語義的變遷〉
The Connotations and Denotations of Alaya Consciousness --Comment on Chen Yibiao's "About the Changes in the Literal Meaning of Alaya Consciousness"

摘要

阿賴耶識又稱為第八識、藏識、異熟識、阿陀那識、心、所知依等等,祂是大乘最重要的秘密法,不共聲聞與緣覺。阿賴耶識的存在是一種客觀的事實,所以祂有具體的內涵與外延,也能讓人觀察到祂的存在。祂有種種的性狀,而經論在描述祂時各有側重,以致在表面上看來差距很大,但在實證阿賴耶識的人看來,這些都是正確的描述。

大部分的西方和日本學者,都把佛教當做思想來研究,這其實是違背經教的,經教中處處皆有要求實證的文字記載。這些學者因為偏見與方法上的錯誤,所得的結論也錯得很離譜。

阿賴耶識的內涵包括:祂是無始以來的存在,是不待他緣、本然的存在,是諸法的根本因;祂隱藏於肉體內,維持眾生的壽命,是眾生所貪愛的對象,並且為眾生內執為我。以上內涵,《阿含經》皆曾隱約的提及。

阿賴耶識的外延,則不是語言文字所能夠表述的,因為祂正是語言文字所指涉的真實事物。這只有大乘見道的菩薩能夠了知。

一、前言

阿賴耶識又稱為第八識、藏識、異熟識、阿陀那識、心、所知依等等,祂是大乘最重要的秘密法,不共聲聞與緣覺。內涵與外延,則是語意學的術語。

內涵,是以語言文字形容特定的事物。例如,「依法令從事公務之人」,是刑法定義「公務員」一詞的內涵。而「公務員」的外延,則是具體實施公務的人,如台北市長郝龍斌。外延是不能用語言文字來說明的,因為外延就是語言文字所指涉的具體事物。所以,以上的例子仍有些勉強。嚴格說起來,如果有人問:「公務員的外延是什麼?」我們必須把嘴巴閉起來,然後指著一個一個的警察、戶籍員、市議員、兵役科員、法官、監獄管理員、國稅局長……。這樣才是指出「公務員」的外延──這當然是一個不可能的任務。所以,一般來說,只要指出一位特定的公務員,就可以認為已經指出「公務員」的外延。

例如,一個人只要在動物園看過一隻北極熊,就可以說:「我看過北極熊。」他可能弄不清北極熊的雌雄,沒看過剛出生的北極熊,也沒看過牠們獵食、求偶、冬眠等等生活情形,但是沒有人會因此指責他撒謊。如果他從百科全書當中,看到很多北極熊的文字描述,但是沒看過真正的北極熊,即使他很知道北極熊的習性,他還是不能說:「我看過北極熊。」真正看過北極熊的人,即使因為經驗很少,所知不多,但是他卻可以在真實見的範圍內,立即判別他人的種種說法是否為洽當的描述。不像只看書的人,永遠都無法分辨人家講的正不正確。一個生物學家如果要研究北極熊,一定是以真正的北極熊為研究目標,而不是研究古往今來有關北極熊的文獻。這是內涵和外延的差別。

只要是真實存在的事物,一定有內涵和外延。例如,法官必須判斷,特定人某甲是不是公務員,才能決定他可以不可以依瀆職罪來處罰。判斷的過程,即是將法條文字(內涵),指向具體的某甲、某乙等等(外延)。法律的適用,必須由定義清晰的法條文字,轉為具體的人、事、時、地、物、方法、原因等等。描述具體事實時,則必須使用語言文字。前者,是將內涵轉換為外延;後者,則是將外延轉換為內涵。不存在的事物,必然沒有外延,是否有內涵則不一定。

《成唯識論》說: 已入見道諸菩薩眾得真現觀,名為「勝者」,彼能證解阿賴耶識,故我世尊正為開示。或諸菩薩皆名「勝者」,雖見道前未能證解阿賴耶識,而能信解求彼轉依,故亦為說。非諸轉識有如是義。

已見道的菩薩,「能證解阿賴耶識」;未見道以前,則「未能證解阿賴耶識」。這表示大乘見道的內涵,即是證解阿賴耶識。既然說「證解」,表示阿賴耶識是真實存在的,也就是有具體外延的,並非只是一種概念或假說。

不過,阿賴耶識具體的內涵,就是大乘有別於聲聞緣覺的不共法,一向被列為絕對機密,不許明白的宣說,必須在加行位覓道的過程自行參究,因此本文所說必須避開阿賴耶識具體的內涵。此處所謂的「具體的內涵」,是指毫無保留的定義阿賴耶識,讓一般人皆可以據此內涵找到阿賴耶識的外延而言。之所以要使用〈阿賴耶識的內涵與外延〉這個標題,主要的目的,是強調阿賴耶識是真實的存在,並非是假說,也不是一種哲學或思想。這個主張和一百多年以來佛學領域的學術主流,是截然不同的。

相對於經教中以語言文字描述阿賴耶識的體性,禪宗則是以機鋒指出阿賴耶識的外延。《成唯識論》說:「第八識自性微細,故以作用而顯示之。」2所以,禪宗的機鋒看起來雖然與經教無關,其實是藉第八識在蘊處界當中所顯示的作用,以指出第八識的外延,所以稱之為「直指人心」。語言文字的好處,是有客觀的意義,方便溝通,也便於記載和流通。但是語言文字有其極限,當我們在描述一個事物時,其實只是描述它的重要特徵,所以要透過語言文字理解一個自己未知的事物,有其困難點。所以在經教之外,必須有「直指人心」的禪門機鋒。經教所描述者為內涵,禪門機鋒則是直接指向外延,二者所呈現的風貌全然不同,但都是為了讓人能夠親證第八識──了知阿賴耶識的外延和具體內涵。

本文主要的評論對象是陳一標先生〈有關阿賴耶識語義的變遷〉,這一篇文章發表於《圓光佛學學報》第四期,頁75-106,1999年12月出刊。這一篇論文與多數學者的主張相同,認為阿賴耶識是一種思想,而且是有發展和流變的跡象可尋的思想。陳一標的想法,其來有自,他引用的文獻,包括德國、日本、台灣諸多學者,除了?谷憲昭3之外,幾乎都認為阿賴耶識是一種思想或哲學。

佛學學術領域把阿賴耶識當作是一種思想概念,其實是很荒謬的,但是因為大部分的學者都這麼做,幾乎已經積非成是了。甚至很多學者把六道輪迴、因果報應,也當作思想概念體系。事實上,六道輪迴、因果報應的主張,若以理則學的術語來說,都是「命題」。命題是有客觀真假值的語句。有客觀真假值的語句,原則上都是可以檢驗的,也就是說,可以經過一定的方法加以證實或證謬。……(待續)

二、阿賴耶識是客觀的存在

陳一標〈有關阿賴耶識語義的變遷‧提要〉如是說:

《阿含經》中已有「阿賴耶」一詞,意義專重心理學上的貪愛、執著,阿毘達磨時代的論書亦同。瑜伽行派的經論,才使用阿賴耶識一詞,其語義在《解深密經》中,意指「隱藏於肉體中的識」,與肉體形成安危與共的關係,首出的意義為「隱藏」,其次說它有生物學上的執受義;《攝大乘論》側重此識與諸法的關係,將阿賴耶識詮釋成「與諸法相互攝藏的識」,進而是有情會「執藏」以之為自我的識;《成唯識論》立基於種識不一的立場,從能藏、所藏、執藏三義解釋阿賴耶識的語義,有別於《攝大乘論》種識是一的立場。

陳氏這段文字,對經本的解讀,有顯然的誤會,稍後再辨正,此處先就他以為阿賴耶識的語義有變遷的部分加以評論。基本上,陳氏認為阿賴耶識在《阿含經》、《解深密經》、《攝大乘論》、《成唯識論》的語義不同,由此可以看出阿賴耶識是一種經過演變而成的思想。

陳氏的錯誤在於先入為主,相信史密豪森(Lambert Schmithausen)的主張,以致先認定阿賴耶識是一種思想,然後才在經論當中尋找證據。他沒有想到,一般生活當中,大家所共知的客觀事實,在不同的人口中,本來就會有形形色色的描述。這是因為語言文字有其侷限性,都是從數不清的性狀當中,把它抽象化,擇要而說,不可能做全面性的描述。……(待續)