Journal of True Enlightenment ─ Issue 5

【作者】正覺學報編輯部

【出版日期】2011年12月

【書號】978-986-87362-1-4

【開本】244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

  • 論文四

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.

求真求實的精神是探求宇宙真相者必備的要素,佛教實證的精神就是依據正真如實的要領,最後成就究竟清淨的佛道。這些佛教義學的內涵乃是釋迦牟尼佛及過去諸佛,透過實踐菩薩道而親證法界實相心,依次轉依修行而最後成就佛道;又為應眾生需要而開示佛法義學的內涵,讓後繼者能夠依之實踐與親證。因此對於真理的追求過程中,實證性與實踐性是不可或缺的要素。然而在實踐佛教義學內涵的同時,法義的正確性與一致性則是其重要指標,有智者應當以此指標加以簡擇而行。然而正確佛法的弘傳非常不易,因為大多數人皆屬未實證者,常常會錯解佛法義學的內涵與次第;這樣以訛傳訛的流傳下去,就會出現具有相似性的錯誤法教而流行於世。這類相似佛法在許多地方是類似實義佛法的說法,然論其實質內涵與法教,卻是與佛法正真的義理相違背,在佛法經論中,有時說之為「相似像法、相似正法、像似正法、相似法」等,此等相似佛法的氾濫愈到末法時期就愈顯嚴重。因此,對於一個求真求實而探求法界實相的佛學學術人士,必須要依智慧來簡擇「實義佛法與相似佛法」的同異,具此智慧才不會落入盲信與迷信之中,才會有正確而如實的佛學研究結果。

由此之故,本期學報以「實義佛法與相似佛法」的核心義理為主題,依實質面的內涵與次第,配合三量的論證作為方法,從「唯識正義與邪說的論證、藏傳佛教空行母定位之考察,以及一貫道剽竊本質的探源」三個方面為案例,發表三篇優秀論文,依此說明「實義佛法與相似佛法」的差異性,以利今世與後世追求真理者。本期學報採用三篇不同領域的論文來論證佛法正義,發表的論文如下:

  1. 第八識「種識一異」論題之抉擇—以「四重二諦」為本的考察兼評印順的說法(張志成)
  2. 空行母悲歌—女性在藏傳佛教的角色與命運(蔡志成、張火慶)
  3. 一貫道的「剽竊」本質—以「彌陀淨土」及「正法眼藏」為例(江正崇、張火慶)

張志成著作的〈第八識「種識一異」論題之抉擇—以「四重二諦」為本的考察兼評印順的說法〉,係以「實證佛學」的基礎來論證唯識正義,考察佛法的心識論與諸法間「一、異」等關係,並循唐朝奘、基師資依《瑜伽師地論》所建立的「四重二諦」為研究之方法論,此「四重二諦」的方法論乃是完備且可為大家所共許。

該文從釋印順所主張的內容和《成唯識論》所主張不同點,考察其各自主張差異的問題所在;作者發現真正主張差異的根源是在於「有無實證第八識」,因為本身對於第八識(如來藏、阿賴耶識)親證與否,對同一個議題會提出不同的觀點,而且主張完全相反。這樣的差異是反應在兩個主要議題上面:第一、探究「第八識到底有無自體」的議題,《成唯識論》的主張是基於實證第八識如來藏而立論,因此玄奘提出五教證和十理證來證明第八識有其自體,並且是「諸識差別」的「八識論」;然而釋印順卻是以未曾親證的學術界「佛法思想是演化的」角度來看待第八識,因此認為六識論的「中觀應成思想」為了義說,傾向主張第八識乃是「唯名無實」、「自性空之空性」的代名詞而已。作者發現釋印順以此錯誤的預設來詮解唯識經論義理,因此常常有依己意扭曲經論本義的情形發生,或者常常有依己意來擴大解釋經論本義內涵的現象,並有引導讀者傾向否定「八識論」而相信中觀應成派「六識論」的意圖。該文從釋印順所主張的內容和《成唯識論》所主張不同點,考察其各自主張差異的問題所在;作者發現真正主張差異的根源是在於「有無實證第八識」,因為本身對於第八識(如來藏、阿賴耶識)親證與否,對同一個議題會提出不同的觀點,而且主張完全相反。這樣的差異是反應在兩個主要議題上面:第一、探究「第八識到底有無自體」的議題,《成唯識論》的主張是基於實證第八識如來藏而立論,因此玄奘提出五教證和十理證來證明第八識有其自體,並且是「諸識差別」的「八識論」;然而釋印順卻是以未曾親證的學術界「佛法思想是演化的」角度來看待第八識,因此認為六識論的「中觀應成思想」為了義說,傾向主張第八識乃是「唯名無實」、「自性空之空性」的代名詞而已。作者發現釋印順以此錯誤的預設來詮解唯識經論義理,因此常常有依己意扭曲經論本義的情形發生,或者常常有依己意來擴大解釋經論本義內涵的現象,並有引導讀者傾向否定「八識論」而相信中觀應成派「六識論」的意圖。

……(待續)

蔡志成及張火慶教授合著的〈空行母悲歌—女性在藏傳佛教的角色與命運〉,是以藏傳佛教(喇嘛教)中「性力角色」的重要代表—空行母、明妃,作為論文主軸來探討,進而考察空行母在整個藏傳佛教(喇嘛教)中的真實定位。該文從藏傳佛教空行母的類別、內涵、由來、演變等方面,辨析論述「具格空行母」必須具備之條件,以及空行母在四部密續中之地位。由這樣的論證解析可知,空行母的角色功能是涉及整個藏傳佛教根本且核心的教義,也就是以「無上瑜伽、男女雙修、樂空雙運」等為核心的「淫樂」理論。從古印度到西藏的流傳,乃至今日的藏傳佛教諸喇嘛、上師、活佛著作中,都可以看到這類空行母角色內涵的說明。根據探討空行母的來源與演變,知道整個藏傳佛教中的空行母、明妃、佛母,在修行上的「性力定位」是具一致性的。又依此空行母的「性力定位」為線索,來探討兩個相關議題,檢視藏傳佛教(喇嘛教)與真正佛教截然不同的差異性,依此來彰顯藏傳佛教所謂「欲貪為道,即身成佛」的本質,其實是與真正的佛陀教法完全不同。

……(待續)

江正崇與張火慶教授合著的〈一貫道的「剽竊」本質—以「彌陀淨土」及「正法眼藏」為例〉,探討一貫道信仰的根源,亦從其核心義理與傳教本質來論。從古今一貫道自編的傳承歷史,以及他們祖師之著作中,整理爬梳各個階段轉型的內容改變來考察,始終皆是不離剽竊的本質。

該文從一貫道前身先天道的發展過程檢視中,發現:一向自詡為彌勒信仰的一貫道,其實是仿傚自彌陀信仰而來;從其理天的建構與無生老母(萬靈真宰)的演變過程,都不難發現有彌陀信仰烙印的痕跡;並且隨著時代逐漸轉變其教義內容,究其原因則是源於創教時即屬於盜法的本質而導致。而這些痕跡,就是來自於一貫道所承襲的明清民間信仰。後來,為了因應民間信仰版「龍華三會」的彌陀信仰,不符佛教真正龍華三會的彌勒成佛說的理論困境,因此才轉變偏向於彌勒信仰。從現存的一貫道經卷中,依稀存在著對彌陀信仰所留下來的蛛絲馬跡;也就是說,從先天道到一貫道,其仿傚的信仰內涵由彌陀變成彌勒,從這中間的轉變,可以發現一貫道乃是雜竊、多變的剽竊本質!由這種本質的繼承流傳,結果是繼續盜法而導致現在的一貫道法義之中,不免混入許多儒家及一神教的法義,因此產生極多教義混亂、自相矛盾的現象,與竊盜佛教教義的藏傳佛教教義自相混亂的情況類似。

Briefing

The truth-seeking spirit is essential for those who explore the true reality of the universe. The positivist spirit of Buddhism is based on the principle of correctness and truth to eventually accomplish the ultimate and pure Buddhahood-Way. The contents of these Buddhist doctrines are as follows: Buddha Sakyamuni and all Buddhas in the past have personally realized the ultimate reality of the dharma-realm through practicing the Bodhisattva Way; then, they convert to the ultimate reality, with further practices in sequence, and finally achieve Buddhahood; in response to the sentient beings’ need, the Buddhas expound the contents of Buddhist doctrines, based on which their followers can practice and personally realize Buddhism. Hence, during the truth-seeking process, positivism and practice are two indispensable elements. However, during the practice of the Buddhist doctrines, the correctness and consistency of doctrines are the important guidelines for practitioners; the wise should follow these guidelines to choose the correct Buddhist practice. Nevertheless, the propagation of correct Buddhism is no easy task. It is because most people have no actual enlightenment and often misunderstand the contents and the practice sequence of Buddhist doctrines. They convey incorrectly what is already incorrect, and as a result, erroneous teachings resembling the true dharma become popular. This kind of resembling Buddha dharma is seemingly similar to the real Buddhist teaching in many ways, yet its substantive contents and teachings violate the real Buddhist doctrines. In Buddhist sutras or treatises, it is sometimes referred to as “semblance dharma, resembling correct dharma, seemingly correct dharma, and resembling dharma.” Such resembling Buddhist dharmas spread even more widely in the dharma-ending age. Hence, any Buddhist scholar who truthfully seeks the ultimate reality of the dharma-realm should, based on wisdom, distinguish between “real Buddhism and resembling Buddhism.” Only with such wisdom will one not fall into blind faith or superstition, and therefore correct Buddhist research results can be obtained as they really are.

For this reason, the theme of this issue focuses on the core doctrine about “real Buddhism and resembling Buddhism”; based on the substantive contents and practice sequence, using Three Valid Cognitions as the argument method, and from the three perspectives—“a discussion on correct meanings vs. evil teachings of Vijnana-Only, a study on the role of dakinis in Tibetan Buddhism, and exploring the origin of plagiarism in I-Kuan Tao,” three excellent papers are presented to explain the difference between “real Buddhism and resembling Buddhism” and to benefit the truth-seekers of this and future lives. Focusing on the correct meanings of Buddhism, three articles of different study fields are accepted in this issue:

  1. Are the Eighth Vijnana’s Seeds and Entity Identical or Different?—A Study Based on “Two Truths with Four Layered Statements” and A Comment on Yinshun’s View (Chang Chihcheng)
  2. An Elegy about Dakinis—The Role and Destiny of Women in Tibetan Buddhism (Tsai Jyhcherng and Chang Hwoching)
  3. A Study on “Plagiarism” in I-Kuan Tao—Citing the “Pure Land of Buddha Amitabha” and the “Right Dharma-Eye Store” as Examples (Chiang Chengchung and Chang Hwoching)

In Chang Chihcheng’s article “Are the Eighth Vijnana’s Seeds and Entity Identical or Different? —A Study Based on ‘Two Truths with Four Layered Statements’ and A Comment on Yinshun’s View,” the author discusses the correct meanings of Vijnana-Only based on “Positivist Buddhism” and examines the Buddhist theory of mind and whether the relationship between dharmas is “identical or different.” Chang also follows the principle of “two truths with four layered statements,” which was established by Xuanzang and Kuiji of the Tang Dynasty according to the Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice. As a research methodology, the principle of “two truths with four layered statements” is perfect and commonly acceptable.

……(continue)

In the article “An Elegy about Dakinis—The Role and Destiny of Women in Tibetan Buddhism,” coauthored by Tsai Jyhcherng and Prof. Chang Hwoching, its theme focuses on the dakini, or female consort, who represents the important “sexual role” in Tibetan Buddhism (Lamaism). The authors explore the true role of the dakini in the whole Tibetan Buddhism (Lamaism) and discuss the necessary requirements for a “qualified dakini” and its position in the four divisions of tantras from the perspectives of its category, content, origin, and evolution. From the authors’ analysis, we can see that the role and function of the dakini involves the fundamental core doctrine of the whole Tibetan Buddhism, namely the “sexual pleasure” theory which takes the “Highest Yoga Tantra, Couple-Practice Tantra, and Dual Operations of Bliss and Emptiness” as its core doctrine. During its propagation from ancient India to Tibet, the description of the role connotation of those dakinis can be found even in the writings of lamas, gurus, or living “Buddhas” in Tibetan Buddhism nowadays. According to the exploration into the origin and evolution of dakinis, the “sexual role” of dakinis, female consorts, or “Buddha”-mothers in Tibetan Tantric practice is consistent. Furthermore, based on the “sexual role” of dakinis as a clue, two related topics are studied to examine the difference between Tibetan Buddhism (Lamaism) and real Buddhism. The authors show that Tibetan Buddhism, which claims that “greed is the Way and one attains Buddhahood in a lifetime,” is entirely different in essence from the real teachings of the Buddha.

……(continue)

In their article “A Study on ‘Plagiarism’ in I-Kuan Tao—Citing the ‘Pure Land of Buddha Amitabha’ and the ‘Right Dharma-Eye Store’ as Examples,” Chiang Chengchung and Prof. Chang Hwoching explore the origin of I-Kuan Tao and also discuss its plagiarism from its core doctrines as well as its preaching nature. According to the transmitted history edited by I-Kuan Tao and the writings of their patriarchs, the authors examine the changing contents in every transition stage and conclude that I-Kuan Tao is always plagiaristic in nature.

第八識「種識一異」論題之抉擇──以「四重二諦」為本的考察兼評印順的說法
Are the Eighth Vijnana's Seeds and Entity Identical or Different? --Also a Brief Comment on the Saints of Three Vehicles Hearing —A Study Based on "Two Truths with Four Layered Statements" and A Comment on Yinshun's View

摘要

第八識(阿賴耶識)是瑜伽行派義學主張之根本,有關第八識的體用、性相,自古以來即因實證與否而有許多不同的主張,有關「種識一異」—第八識心體與其所含攝種子兩者間之關係的論題即是其一,而此論題攸關佛法的修證與義學核心—第八識只是有名無實的施設,或是可以證解的實存心體?

本文以為,窺基依《瑜伽師地論》建立的「四重二諦」在考察佛法的心識論與諸法間「一、異」等關係方面,是相當完備且可為共許的方法論。依之考察此論題的意涵,本文發現,《攝大乘論》提出第八識與種子兩者是「非一非異」的關係;而《成唯識論》依「四重二諦」的原則深入詮釋兩者如何是「非一非異」的關係,即在第二、第三、第四世俗(或第一、第二、第三勝義)的「安立諦」層次,第八識與種子是可分別(「不一」)的,然而兩者有「全體」(自證等四分識體)與「部分」(相分)、「體」與「用」的關係,因此也是「不異」的。而印順將此論題侷限為「第八識與種子是同體或是不同體」的層面,並提出:「無著、世親的本義是『種識是一』或『一種七現』—第八識的全體即是種子的集合體,其自身並不現行,現行的只有七轉識;而《成唯識論》是主張『種識不一』或『八識現行』—第八識會現行且種子只是現行識的部分,且此種說法是機械的分割說、固執不通,偏離了無著、世親的本義。」

本文並以「實證佛學」的觀點指出:印順和《成唯識論》不同主張的根源在「有無實證第八識」,而反應在「第八識有無自體」和「第八識若有自體,是否有現行」此二問題上。《成唯識論》基於實證第八識而立論,因此提出五教證和十理證來證明第八識有其自體,且是「諸識差別」的「八識論」;並提出「四分說」,表示第八識有「見分」的現行,可了別作為「相分」的根身、器界和種子,因此是「八識現行」說。而印順以學術界「佛法思想是演化的」角度來看待第八識,依「中觀應成思想」為了義說,傾向第八識是「唯名無實」、「自性空之空性」的代名詞;並以此預設來詮解唯識經論義理,因此有依己意扭曲或擴大解釋經論本義的現象,並有引導讀者傾向否定「八識論」而相信中觀應成派「六識論」的意圖。本文並舉教證、理證駁斥印順主張的「無著、世親本義是一種七現」此種說法,反而證明此二大師的本義是「八識現行」說。

最後本文以三量在「佛性」、「染污末那的所執境」、「末那識的所依」、「定後等位的身受」各層面來抉擇此論題的是非,證明「一種七現」說是不符合三量的說法,護法、奘基師資一系的「八識現行」說才是符合法界實相的義學主張。

關鍵字:
第八識、阿賴耶識、種子、種識一異、種識是一、種識不一、一種七現、八識現行、四重二諦、攝大乘論、成唯識論、玄奘、窺基、印順、實證佛學、八識論、六識論、現行賴耶、種子賴耶

一、前言

佛法應包含修證與義學(宗通與說通)兩層面,而義學是依據真實的修證(實證)而以三量鋪陳的理論架構與修證方法,因此是一種「實證佛學」; 古今諸大真悟菩薩所著作的論典,譬如以彌勒、無著、世親、護法、玄奘菩薩傳承為中心的瑜伽行派皆是如此。

第八識(阿賴耶識)是瑜伽行派義學主張之根本。瑜伽行派以為,在佛陀所說的三轉法輪經典中,初、二轉經典並未明說第八識,而是以密意說其存在與中道體性; 至第三轉經典時,才公開明說第八識之體用、性相;並以為「是否實證第八識」是大、小乘佛法的根本分野所在。

在瑜伽行派的根本所依《解深密經》、《楞伽經》、《瑜伽師地論》、《攝大乘論》、《唯識三十頌》……等經論中,第八識有許多異名諸如「心」、「阿賴耶識」、「阿陀那識」、「所知依」、「異熟識」、「本識」、「種子識」、「藏識」、「如來藏」、「無垢識」……等,如被視為集唯識今學大成的《成唯識論》中所說。

然而對第八識體用、性相的描述,由於諸根本經論所使用的名相與詮解系統表面有所歧異,以及因後世天竺、漢地、西藏諸論師實證之有無、深淺,與義學領會、解讀之不同,導致後世經論之傳譯與釋論詮解,在許多層面上呈現了巨大的差異,對於後世修證與義學之抉擇的影響不可謂不大。……(待續)

二、「種識是一」與「種識不一」

第八識識體與種子間的關係是「種識是一」或是「種識不一」的區分說法,來自於印順,他於解釋《攝大乘論》(以下簡稱《攝論》)的「由攝藏諸法,一切種子識,故名阿賴耶,勝者我開示」時說:

講到種子識,得注意種子與本識的關係。依本論說,是「非一非異」。但後來無性、護法,側重在種識不一的意義,說種子不是本識,能持這一切種子的才是本識。固然,在本論中也曾講到種識的不一,但並不是可以這樣機械的分割說的。不但本論說「阿賴耶識為種子」,「虛妄分別種子」;本論與《莊嚴經論》,並且常以無始時來的過患熏習,表現阿賴耶的自體。事實上,無著世親的本義,是側重種即是識的。

另一段解釋「一切有生雜染品法,於此攝藏為果性故;又即此識,於彼攝藏為因性故;是故說名阿賴耶識」時說:

無性論師根據《阿毘達磨經》的「諸法於識藏,識於法亦爾,更互為果性,亦常為因性」,解釋本論的第二頌,所以就建立了「展轉攝藏」的道理。護法承襲他的思想,就有兩重因果的解釋了。傳承護法學的玄奘門下的基測二師,對能所藏的說法,也有不同。基師約現行賴耶說:現行能執持種子,賴耶是能藏,種子是所藏。現行賴耶又受諸法的熏習,能熏的諸法是能藏,所熏的賴耶是所藏。測師約種子說:種子能生現行,種子是能藏,諸法是所藏。現行熏習種子,諸法是能藏,種子是所藏。他們從種識差別的見地,所以各取一邊,固執不通。依無著世親的見解看來,應該在種即是識的合一的見地去解說,並且也只有一重能所,本識是因性,雜染是果性。

而陳一標的《有關阿賴耶識語義的變遷》一文繼承印順的說法,正式提出了「種識不一」與「種識是一」的區別名相。……(待續)

空行母悲歌——女性在藏傳佛教的角色與命運
An Elegy about Dakinis --The Role and Destiny of Women in Tibetan Buddhism

摘要

空行母起源於印度教性力派,是濕婆神之妻「伽梨女神」的女侍,屬鬼神類,由蓮花生引入西藏之後,受藏地宗教文化的影響而有演變,如:種類增多,有佛母、金剛瑜伽母、金剛亥母、度母、智慧女、明妃、事業女、天女、鬼女、夜叉女、羅剎女、女信差、供品……等。而這些看似複雜的角色與功能中,最重要的是:配合男性喇嘛修雙身法。從藏傳四大派對空行母的選用條件及培訓過程可知:空行母只是誘發淫欲、完成雙修的性工具;因此,須尋訪年輕貌美、陰戶有彈性之女性,再施以密法、空性、密戒、灌頂及性技巧的訓練,並授與智慧空行母之美名,讓她們在民眾中有崇高的身分及優渥的生活,而樂於提供性器與喇嘛行淫,並幻想透過雙修過程中喇嘛的加持,也能「即身成佛」。然而,事實上這些女子如奴隸、如物品,被男人們送來遞去:弟子將她們獻給上師,上師用完又將她們交給弟子使用;一段時日之後失去新鮮感,則棄而不用;喇嘛對這些女子只有道具與祭品之意義,而不可有任何感情,所以「空行母」在無上瑜伽中,只是被利用的「性工具」。

由於空行母在藏傳雙修法中扮演的是「滿足男子性欲」或「提供女性能量」的兩種角色,空行母只是宗教的虛名,女體/性器才是欲求的現實,在男權主宰的政教合一環境中,女性的身體與心靈是被侵犯、被利用、被欺壓、被掠奪的;空行母初始的人權已失落,最終的命運更可悲,在犧牲個己的人身自主與心智成長以成全喇嘛的淫樂及成佛妄想之後,終究被遺棄─因為,每一個色身都是無常的,有使用期限;而喇嘛對空行母的需求量極大,且樂於品嚐不同類型的女性,既然藏傳佛教的女性行者皆附屬於男性喇嘛,有予取予求的使用權,那麼,被物體化、工具化的雙修女性,在男上師的邏輯中,「用過就丟」「迎新棄舊」則是必然的結論。

若就其以佛法名相為包裝的邪謬妄想—欲貪為道、雙修成佛—而論,藏傳無上瑜伽雙身修法,始終不離欲界貪、不真持菩薩戒、不得根本定、不斷我見我執、不證第八識如來藏,三學六度皆不成就,又如何次第進修而成佛呢?既不能成佛,則施設整套的理論、名銜、條件、培訓,逼誘女性扮演佛母、明妃以配合雙修,最後是修行落空,兩敗俱傷,成了一場庸俗的騙局;在男性還能終身受用淫樂,在女性則是全面喪失人格。這個喇嘛教的騙局,在西藏過去千餘年或許被神話與政權刻意的覆蓋了,在今日全球化的文明發展與人權關注下,則必須被如實揭開並重新審視。

關鍵字:
佛母、空行母、明妃、事業手印、性力派、男女雙修、無上瑜伽

一、前言

空行母,乃梵文Dākinī (荼吉尼)之意譯,本是一種介乎天人之間的女性神靈、夜叉鬼之類,她有大力,可於空中飛行,故名。有人認為,Dākinī的詞源可上溯至早期(雅利安入侵印度之前)印度西南部達羅毗荼人(非梵語)的女性崇拜,他們將喜馬拉雅山區「24個聖地」視為(人身、鳥獸頭)空行母的居處;雅利安人接管印度之後,將這些空行母指派給了濕婆(Siva)神, 劉婉俐云:

在Sir Monier-Williams 編纂之《梵英字典》(A Sanskrit-English Dictionary,1899;rpt. 1964)中,即認為空行母的梵文字義「Dākinī」,是指「啖人肉」之「伽梨女神(Kālī)的女性侍從」(Willis,61、150)。此處的伽梨女神,乃印度教三大主神之一、主司破壞的天神濕婆(Siva)之妻,是印度教性力派崇奉的主神之一。

啖人肉的空行母,在性力派中,是濕婆神之妻「伽梨女神」的女侍從,屬於鬼神類,這是空行母最早的由來。「女侍」的本質是事事聽從主人的指示而配合執行,在主人事業中沒有自己獨立的主體思想,是主人的附屬品。印度的空行母傳入西藏之後,又有了誇飾附會的發展,劉婉俐云:

空行母的藏文為「mkha’gro ma」(或音譯為「Khandroma」),mkha 意指「虛空」,gro 則表示「行走、步入」之意,ma 是一般泛稱女性的字尾,整個字詞合起來的意思,是指「空中的女性行者」。

藏傳佛教的空行母(荼吉尼)源於印度性力派,並且是喜好吃人血肉的夜叉、羅剎女鬼。

「空行母」一詞在藏傳佛教中,具有多元且甚深的象徵意涵。就修行層面而言,空行母是佛、法、僧三寶的內相「三根本」(上師、本尊、空行)中,負責護持佛行「事業」的根本(root),是女性的佛母、成就者與大護法等的集合名詞。但這僅是分類上的方便歸屬,空行母也可以是上師:如伊喜措嘉、瑪姬拉卓……等女性的傳承祖師;也有屬於本尊類別的綠度母、金剛亥母、妙音佛母……等。這些互涉、錯綜的關係,除了使其在名相或專有名詞上的定義不易外,也增添了不少相關研究上的難度。

若依詞面,空行母只限生活於「空中」之女性天人或鬼神;然而,藏傳佛教的「空行母」形象,除了沿用印度教原有的意涵,入藏之後又演化、增添了多重意義,在藏傳佛教中的角色與功能極其複雜而重要,泛指一切與修行有關的女性,可以是傳法者、上師或法主(佛母)、人民的救度者(度母)、證悟者(智慧空行母)、上師或喇嘛的性伴侶(明妃、事業女)、護法天人、鬼神、佛菩薩與凡夫間之信差、密續之守護者等。……(待續)

二、空行母的來源與演變:從印度到西藏

空行母,是從印度到西藏密教的一種特殊形象,與這兩個文化區域的女性崇拜有關,李南云:

密教金剛乘的女神中,又有各種智慧神、方位神、保護神、舞神、門神、光神、獸面神、瑜伽女、荼吉尼(空行母)等等,……這些神的造像或銅雕石刻,或泥塑彩繪,大量出現在石窟、廟宇裡,為修行者的觀想修習提供了極大的方便,並吸引了眾多的善男信女,是密教金剛乘一時得以廣泛傳播的重要原因之一。……密教主張以方便(悲)為父,以般若(慧)為母,因此便以雙身佛相擁交合作為「悲智和合」的表徵。……特別要提一下荼吉尼,她們是以婦女形象出現的象徵物,在修習時對她們進行冥想。她們通常面目猙獰,飾物駭人,與印度恐怖女神難近母一脈相承,常不穿衣,有的只有獨眼、獨腿。然而她們由於認識到「空」而從塵世中解脫,翱翔在精神領域的高空,為秘密知識的傳授者。

密教在印度鼎盛的時期,曾有著為數眾多的女修習者。在密教中她們常被冠以用於女神的尊稱。……稱之為荼吉尼則是認為她們猶如空行母一般,由於認識到「空」性而從人世間解脫,在悟得正道的精神領域中自由飛翔;……(密教、印度教的性力派)認為宇宙是由女性的創造力產生的,因而女性的力量從本體論上說就是原初的,第一位的,而男性的力量則是派生的,從屬的,故而男性在社會關係以及儀軌關係上都應依從婦女。

密宗發展到無上瑜伽部時,女性神佛數量空前,地位日升。她們當中,有些女神一直是重要的佛母或菩薩;有些女神在剛出現時原本地位較低,而後發展成為教派崇拜的中心;還有的女神曾經是男主神的明妃,後來地位逐漸提升,最終佔據了怛特羅壇城的中心,而其男性伴侶反倒受到排擠。

這些密教金剛乘的女神,多數起源於古印度(雅利安人入侵之前)母系社會的「生殖」崇拜,後來在印度教中發展為性力派,從「生殖」本能的迷思,轉為對女性(神)及其性器官的崇拜,再透過「性交」與她們合一,並分享她們的能量(性力)。傳入西藏之後,這種性力又摻雜了「苯教」巫術的魔力,並附會了「佛教」空性的思想而自稱為藏傳的佛教。以下分述之。

(一)印度教性力派(Shaktism)與左道密教

印度教以梵天、毗濕奴、濕婆等三大神為主;濕婆是毀滅之神,也是生殖之神,由對於濕婆神之威力崇拜,而引出生殖力及女神的崇拜;林伽(Linga)是濕婆的性器,生殖則由其妻卡利(Kālī)擔任,故而分化出女神的「性力」崇拜。……(待續)

一貫道的「剽竊」本質——以「彌陀淨土」及「正法眼藏」為例
A Study on "Plagiarism" in I-Kuan Tao --Citing the "Pure Land of Buddha Amitabha" and the"Right Dharma-Eye Store" as Examples

摘要

一貫道乃歷經數百年,吸取多種民間宗教之內涵,糅合演變而成的信仰組織。在大陸被取締之後,轉進臺灣七十年,快速發展且推向國際,篤信「無生老母」為萬靈真宰、「理天」為原胎佛子的歸處,以及「龍華三會」末劫年「彌勒古佛」掌天盤……。其道統傳承及教法理論是標榜三教一致、兼收並蓄,並依虛妄想像的「先天之道」一以貫之;近代又擴大其範圍為五教合一,表面看似乎具備「理一而分殊」的哲學創見與宗教體悟,若細析其名相與觀念,卻不外乎「剽竊」的本質。凡是在宗教上有信眾有市場的宗教,一貫道都要竊來充實、妝點自家門面,卻不問他教是否同意,此舉已招來佛教信眾與基督教徒的破斥;雖然部分一貫道人士也有回應,但所作的解釋與引證,徒然又一次自信己意地曲解與強辯,越描越黑,不能圓場。

本論文的重點先從一貫道自編的傳承歷史去爬梳每個轉型階段,竊他教之法以為己用、應時局之變以求生存的事實,道教─佛教─新儒學,羅教─彌勒─白蓮教……乃至基督─阿拉,無所不竊,一以貫之。如此以竊為業,雜湊糅合,牽強附會,混淆天下人耳目的傳承,才是它潛在而根本的致命傷;也就是欠缺「自證的體驗」與「自創的教義」,只能依草附木,竊取其他宗教的名相與法義之後,加以扭曲與變造,自以為後來居上而喧賓奪主;這種不誠實、不坦蕩的行徑,雖部分來自初始時期民間宗教崛起的雜糅拼湊性格,立教之後卻又變本加厲,竊取他教教義以後,以下犯上地貶低各教教主與教義而持續不斷,乃至別創明明上帝(無生老母)以君臨天下、統攝五教……。從一貫道的「道統」捏造及「教義」胡扯,可以顯見它為了證明其道貫千聖且統領諸教,不惜將竊取其他宗教的贓物與手法,列成清單、到處販賣,唯恐天下人不知,這可說是明目張膽而且愚昧的行為,故一貫道的本質為一貫盜──吾道一貫以「盜」行之。

其次,特就一貫道竊自佛法的兩個內涵─淨土「阿彌陀佛」及禪宗「正法眼藏」─而加以附會改造為「理天」與「玄關一竅」為例,詳考細論以揭發其「竊而無道」的粗劣手法;此行為類似竊車集團,四處竊來各家高檔名車,拆解之後重新拼裝,雖然所有零件分別來自各大名車,也足以炫耀,而整體卻是四不像,機件之間互相矛盾、牽制,只能千驚萬險、勉為其難的混過去,可能無法行駛很久就會解體而發生車禍,或者被拆穿其仿冒與竊盜的實質。

彌陀淨土是佛教信仰法門之一,持念彌陀聖號可於命終往生極樂,繼續成佛之道的實修。一貫道前身先天道的發展過程中,彌陀信仰是重要的內涵,自詡為彌勒信仰的一貫道卻將阿彌陀佛變裝為萬靈真宰,掌天盤者;極樂世界則成了原胎佛子未來的出生地─理天。雖然歷經久年之後,現今一貫道的書籍已覓不著彌陀信仰的訊息,但仍有蛛絲馬跡可尋;也就是說,從先天道到一貫道,其仿效的信仰內涵由彌陀信仰變成彌勒信仰,這中間如何的轉變,是本文所要探討之一貫道雜竊、多變的本質!

「無生老母」、「三期末劫」、「三曹普渡」、「三寶心法」是現今一貫道之基本教義,這些教義中以「三寶心法」為核心,而三寶又以「玄關一竅」最殊勝。一貫道將其視為亙久不輕傳的密意,甚至認為玄關一竅就是禪宗的「正法眼藏」;本文先論述正法眼藏在佛法之實際意涵(真實心如來藏),對照一貫道如何另作定位與詮釋,進而探討「玄關一竅」是否符合佛教正法眼藏之聖教量,以及以之作為明心見性之樞紐是否為非法妄語?

最後,對一貫道以剽竊於五教而拼裝的教理施設與修行次第,是否具備「超生了死」、「收圓返鄉」及「得道成佛」的功德受用,或只是停留於世俗法的表相勸善?若據此以自修並推廣,其能到達的結果又如何?以上列種種依佛教正法研究比對所得的結論,提供一貫道高層及信眾們參考、三思。

關鍵字:
玄關一竅、超生了死、正法眼藏、三寶心法、無生老母、理天、三期末劫、彌陀信仰、彌勒信仰、剽竊、盜法。

一、前言

當今民主時代,各宗教雖有建構、弘揚自家教義的自由,然而一貫道信徒中有許多是為了追求「解脫」乃至「成佛」之真理與實證,只是因緣不足或被一貫道誤導而進入此「非佛教」的宗教體系,依彼所教而修行一輩子,卻不得佛法之功德受用,亦不知所學所修乃心外求法之教;因此,基於辨正佛法與一貫道之差異,令學人知所分別而抉擇,故寫作本文。

從義理與歷史的雙重論述以確定所謂「佛教」,本質是能令學人親證法界實相,且具備客觀真理的意義,此乃是佛教之體。其次,有所謂「相似佛教」,雖承認佛法僧三寶,於教理行果的施設中卻多有違反佛教之聖教量,表面相似實不同。至於「非佛教」者,乃不承認佛教、不歸依三寶者,即所謂的外道。

以上三者之區分,對於佛教(真理)流布的如法性,及學人獲得佛法正知見的確保性,是有重大意義的。世間一切實證佛法的菩薩、祖師,於其說法、論著中必先歸依三寶、讚仰佛陀,不可能外於釋迦牟尼佛而另立教主、另開教法。準此而言,一貫道雖竊用佛教名相與思想,卻不以「佛法僧」為依止,而另立「玄關、口訣、合同」為三寶,並曲解佛理以詮釋之,成了所謂的「附佛外道」。

一個宗教的「道統」敘述,涉及其義理的源流與傳承,也涉及其修證的內涵。佛教的義理是可實證的,其修行次第是完備的,故後世弟子可依此而實修親驗,也才有所謂「道統」傳承的實質可言。但在一貫道書籍《道統寶鑑》的〈歷代統緒大略〉中言:「孟子以後心法失傳,天命暗轉釋門,……釋迦牟尼奉天承運,道統一脈相傳,後傳大弟子摩訶迦葉。」此後即將所謂的「西天二十八祖」「東土六祖」表列於後,再續入一貫道的七祖白玉蟾與馬端陽、八祖羅蔚群、九祖黃德輝……十八祖張天然。就其所列之道脈源流似屬佛教禪宗,然而,這是一貫道的實證法脈嗎?還是攀緣附會以混人耳目?又於公開傳教中標榜自己是紹繼禪宗六祖, 承達摩祖師的密法,自云其心法「玄關一竅」就是禪門「正法眼藏」,是明心見性之樞紐,儼然自居為佛教真傳;卻又誑稱是三曹普渡、一步直超之「天道」正統,落入三界生死中。而現今的一貫道自詡為彌勒信仰,與其所承襲的「先天道」傳統信仰不同,後者在「理天」的初始建構、後來「無生老母」的演變與「龍華三會」救世主角色的轉變中,都有「彌陀信仰」的痕跡。這其間傳承定位與信仰內涵的變化,都透露出其教門之雜竊與多變的性格。

對於上述問題,本文試從明清之際民間宗教與先天道之文獻去釐清一貫道所承襲之教派,以及一貫道雜取各種不同宗教而混同之,隨意拼湊而自相矛盾的教理結構,以呈現其剽竊、變造、佔有之「剽竊」本質。尤其針對一貫道從佛法中竊取的兩個主題「正法眼藏」與「彌陀信仰」,追溯其竊用名相之因緣及變造內涵之過程,以及佔為己有之結果,詳細論析其不誠實、不正知而又廣宣其教、誤導群眾的剽竊心態;並進而說明一貫道以剽竊手段而施設的教理解說與修行次第,最多也只是世俗法的人倫勸善而已,依此而信受而修行,絕無可能如所誑稱的超生了死,出離三界!因為,這是唯有「佛法」修證才達得到的成就,一貫道雖經歷數百年與佛教的曖昧關係,卻從未理解佛法真實義,更不曾實修佛法道次第,因此,與三乘佛法既不相應,又如何獲致「佛法」的功德與受用?此一必然結果將於後面舉證辨析。……(待續)

二、從一貫道的歷史傳承透視其剽竊→變造→佔有之本質

一貫道有著數百年的歷史,從其八祖羅蔚群至十祖吳紫祥(1715-1784),適逢各類民間通俗宗教從明代中末葉以來,即已風靡大江南北的年代。有多少民間宗教直接或間接影響一貫道的形成及教義的傳承,是值得去注意和探討的。

據林萬傳先生在其著作《先天道研究》中指出:「一貫道之教義大體上仍沿襲先天道,惟為因應時代趨勢,做了若干改革而已。」雖說先天道道統系譜九祖以前的各祖師,是教徒基於心法、義理而遙接的傳承,並非歷史的遞代。但這些心法與義理,卻又是某些民間宗教所發展延伸出來的,所以由先天道的道統加以反溯,即可清理一貫道的歷史傳承。

(一)一貫道探源

先天道於同治年間(1862-1874)分裂,各派系獨自發展其道務及訂定道統,到了清末山東東震堂王覺一(1821-1884)一系發展成後來的一貫道。是以一貫道前身乃清代的先天道,但先天道在清代官方的文書檔案中,有青蓮教、金丹道、齋匪等稱號。甚至也有大乘教之稱,如嘉慶二十五年(1820)的《護道榜文》事件記載,貴州都勻府丹江廳大乘教徒龍燕海,當時吐供云:

我係貴州都勻府丹江廳人……康熙六年,有素習大乘教的直隸民人羅維行領了官給的《護道榜文》在外傳教。後羅維行四傳至江西民人何弱為徒,何弱得了《榜文》,到貴州省內習教……

康熙六年(1667)於江西傳大乘教之直隸民人羅維行,多位學者認為他就是一貫道的第八祖羅蔚群。另據馬西沙先生的研究,引文中的何弱即一貫道所稱第十一祖何若(?-1800),而何若之師吳子祥即一貫道第十祖吳紫祥(1715-1784),此兩人清代檔案記錄多處,行跡鑿鑿。再據嘉慶十一年(1806)八月護理江西巡撫先福奏審吳文春的奏摺,所附吳文春所藏符籙清楚的記載著,善字號吃齋者奉黃廷臣、吳子祥為祖師,以及依吳文春符籙的書寫順序來看,黃廷臣為吳子祥的前輩祖師。以及據馬西沙先生的研究,雍正十二年(1734)江西發生的圓頓教案中的黃廷臣(即黃上選、黃榮萬)就是一貫道傳說中的黃九祖黃德輝(1684-1750)。而且據林萬傳先生的研究,黃德輝曾拜羅維行為師。因此,從清代檔案的記載,所謂羅維行的四傳應該就是羅維行、黃德輝、吳子祥與何若,也就是後來一貫道所稱之八祖至十一祖。……(待續)

Historical Right, Historical Responsibility and Historians

Abstract

Although it is extremely important, the scope of the historian is a topic that very few people explore in historiography. Using historical right as the characteristic of the historian, this article defines the scope of the historian. Among many different opinions about the content of historical right, this article thinks the right to select and interpret parts of facts to manifest their knowledge and value is the historical right of the historian.

The reason why the historian has the historical right is that the historical facts are too huge to record all of them, and a historian has to write about the essential parts selected from countless facts. The author of this article expresses a different view on the topic about “the historian, who manages official documents to assist in the governing of a country” and thinks the historical right defined by the author is completely different from the official historian’s governing power, which will hinder the execution of historical right. With this view, this article clearly defines the connotation of historical right and clarifies the real characteristic of the historian.

Historical responsibility comes with the corresponding historical right. With the historical right, a historian should bear the responsibility for the history which he manifests. The historical responsibility is not given to a historian by anyone; it is a definite phenomenon generated by the continuous operation of the “grandly unified” causality rule in the dharma-realm. The execution of historical right by a historian is in fact to write the rules in his mind; it is the historical right of a historian.

Generally there are three layers of meaning for the grandly unified historical responsibility: The first is the minor precepts of conduct; the second is the unique causality rule of grand unification; the highest layer is the ultimate origin of causality rule—the eighth vijnana Tathagatagarbha. All three layers of the historical responsibility should not be violated when a historian executes his historical right.

According to the characteristic of historical right, this article finds both journalists and media workers are historians in conformity to the characteristic of historical right. Furthermore, everyone and even all sentient beings of ten dharma-realms are historians too. It is because every sentient being of ten dharma-realms is the subject of history; everyone has the historical right to write the rules with one’s bodily, verbal and mental deeds, and has no choice but to bear the due historical responsibility; therefore the ten dharma-realms are built. Among the ten dharma-realms, the sages and saints of the four noble dharma-paths are true historians, whereas the sentient beings of the six ordinary karma-paths are false historians. This is a reduced scope of the historian.

Keywords: historian, historical right, historical responsibility, writing the rules, seven noble precepts, five supernatural powers, five insights, grand unification, distortion of the facts, Confucian ethical code, Tathagatagarbha, double standard, balance of power, journalist, media, theory of public opinion

1. Introduction

The scope of history includes all existing facts. Historians collect, read and digest huge amounts of detailed historical data; they construct and interpret the evolution of history. However, historical researches are enormous and complex; with time, more and more historians are needed to participate in research; on the other hand, it seems that historical researches also become endless as time goes by. Liang Qichao, a modern historian, states in Research Methods of Chinese History:

For two thousand years, the historical study in our country has been uniquely flourishing as compared to those of other countries. Nevertheless, its writing system was mostly created by those scholars over a thousand years ago. The historical system needed at that time is quite different from that of today. The knowledge of that time was still not divided into subdisciplines. All different fields of knowledge were recorded by history. Therefore, the scope of history was extraordinarily wide. With the passing years, the number of history books has been increasing, even to the extent that no one can read all of them throughout one’s entire lifetime. As we live in present days, reading old history books is just like “sifting gold from sand, in which valuable things are often found.” Without sand, there would be no gold. However, it is indeed an extremely laborious task to obtain a piece of gold from several decaliters of sand; moreover, not everyone can have the technique of sifting gold. If one goes the wrong way, it will be inevitable that one obtains sand instead of gold. Unfortunately, the current education of history in China is exactly like that.

Liang Qichao thinks that “all different fields of knowledge were recorded by history.” Obviously, in the extremely wide range of historical data, due to the limited space, what is recorded in history should be the knowledge that is beneficial to later generations, rather than those useless data. Liang Qichao further states: “However, it is indeed an extremely laborious task to obtain a piece of gold from several decaliters of sand; moreover, not everyone can have the technique of sifting gold.” It is obvious that the historical contents recorded by historians are not all useful mundane wisdom or knowledge. If Liang’s statement that “it is indeed an extremely laborious task to obtain a piece of gold from several decaliters of sand” is true, what were recorded by historians is in fact rich in sand instead of gold, and useful wisdom or knowledge is scarcely found. Moreover, if useful wisdom or knowledge is to be found, the readers need to have the technique of sifting gold; without the technique of sifting gold, one would be unable to obtain useful wisdom or knowledge. Worst of all, “it is inevitable that historians obtain sand instead of gold.” In that case, historians bring disaster to later generations by transmitting sand to them.……(continue)

2. Historical Right and Historians

This article attempts to explore the scope of the historian. The characteristics of the historian should be clarified first. Chinese historians always like to mention the establishment of official historian system and consider it to be one of the important factors in the well-developed Chinese historiography. However, the occupational historical officer is not a characteristic of the historian. The reason is that although there was no historical officer in ancient society, it does not impede the propagation of historical facts. Although the Western society established the official historian system later, historians still existed before the establishment of official historian system, and it does not impede the development and advancement of Western history. In describing the Chinese official historian system, Du Weiyun states:

The Western world did not establish an official historian system to record the world events immediately. … As for Greeks, who initiated historical study, they had already had a lot of political experiences up to the 7th century BC. It was strange that the Greeks at that time did not think of recording their experiences in written words. They only paid attention to the history provided in epic poems. As a result, Greeks still did not have plentiful records in written words until the 5th century BC. That was the situation at that time, and no wonder Western historians disappointedly said, “At first, the stimulation to record historical events did not come from the interest in the past, the so-called interest in history. The forerunner of historical study was full of surprises; it seemed unlikely that, in the beginning, the duty of the so-called historian has its origins in history.” In contrast, the situation in China was entirely different. Since distant ancient times, China had established an official historian system to record the world events immediately, which never happened before. The time when China established an official historian system might not be as early as that told in legends. Cangjie and Jusong, the inventors of Chinese characters, were probably not the ancestors of official historians. However, in the Shang Dynasty or the Xia Dynasty at the latest, China had indeed established an official historian system.

Du Weiyun praises that in the Shang Dynasty or the Xia Dynasty at the latest, China had established official historians in different governmental organizations, and the establishment of official historians is occupational and professional. However, from the definition of the historian, although the occupational and professional historical officers are historians, occupationization and professionalization are not the most important characteristics of the historian; it is proved from the fact that there were still historians writing about history although the Western world set up the official historian system in a later time. As stated by Western historians: it seemed unlikely that, in the beginning, the duty of the so-called historian has its origins in history. It exactly shows that occupationization is not the characteristic of the historian. Liang Qichao even states in the Research Methods of Chinese History:.……(continue)