做代工，還是要建立自有品牌？胡適禪宗史研究的再檢討   全文下載

Doing by OEM or OBM? Reflection on the Study of Shih Hu on the Ch'an History

在胡適諸多學術研究中，禪宗史屬於較不起眼、但他形容為具有原創性的貢獻。這項研究主要通過宋代《壇經》與敦煌本的比對，提出某些大膽的假設，來質疑傳統燈史的可靠性。這不僅與漸、頓法門之分，亦和南北宗對立有關。遺憾的是，他的主張始終受到批評，評論多半指責反宗教心態導致他不公平地對待這段歷史。然而，本研究以為，首先澄清他的研究脈絡是有必要的。吾人不能因為他提及禪宗史的某些主題，便輕易斷定他的最終研究對象就是禪宗史。本研究試圖呈現，胡適筆下的禪宗史，即印度禪與中國禪之間，存在著一種被忽略的斷裂。再者，透過對此種斷裂的說明，本研究進一步指出，在胡適的書寫中，從印度禪到中國禪的過程，不但不具一種連續性特徵，反而闡明了可比擬為製造業的中國佛教，逐步從代理印度佛教義理的階段，轉向專注於經營禪宗這項自有品牌。

Among the studies undertaken by Shih Hu, that of the history of Ch’an is a contribution little obvious but qualified by him of original. His research consists in launching fearless hypotheses, by comparing Platform Sutra’s Song version with the version of Dung-Huang, to question the credibility known by the traditional Buddhist history. It is not only about the difference between sudden and gradual, but also about the opposition between the Northern school and Southern school. Unfortunately, its proposals are always blamed for having treated inequitably this history because of his anti-religious mentality. However, we think that it is at first necessary to enlighten the context of his research. Because we cannot judging by certain themes of Ch’an that the ultimate object of his study is the Ch’an history. In this perspective, we try to show that there is, within the Ch’an history described by Hu, a break neglected between the Indian tradition and the one who is Chinese. Besides, by the explanation of this break appeared in Hu’s writing, we shall indicate even more that continuity does not characterize the process from a tradition to the other one, more exactly, the Chinese Buddhism, compared with a manufacturing industry, and passes little by little the representation of the Indian doctrines (OEM) to the creation of Ch’an schools (OBM).