《物不遷正量論》辨析

A Critical Analysis of Wu Buqian Zhengliang Lun

僧肇的《肇論》是南北朝般若宗的傑作，歷代疏解者眾。總的來說，南北朝以後，佛家諸宗對《肇論》的文字內容並沒有太多異議，直到晚明，卻有華嚴宗鎮澄法師寫了兩卷《物不遷正量論》，對《肇論》中的〈物不遷論〉進行尖銳質疑和批判。其主要論點有二：一是論證〈物不遷論〉的主要命題「物各性住於一世」的「性住」義是一種外道常見，這與般若中觀的「性空」大乘義是截然相反的；二是論證〈物不遷論〉的「性住」義也同時與《法華經》的命題「是法住法位，世間相常住」的「常住」義完全不同。經過這兩個論證，鎮澄藉此欲指出僧肇〈物不遷論〉中「物各性住」的命題有根本錯誤，與般若、法華「性空」、「常住」的大乘義完全不合。事實上，與鎮澄同時許多高僧學者如道衡、蓮池、德清等，都與鎮澄有過筆戰，但鎮澄認為這些人都沒能說服他，所以這一樁晚明佛學公案沒有很完美地了結。本文則欲承此緒餘，針對鎮澄的兩個批評，展開較為豐富細致的論證，以證明鎮澄對僧肇「性住」義存在理解上的偏差。

Seng Zhao’s 僧肇 Zhao Lun 肇論, dating from the Southern and Northern Dynasties, is one of the most important treatises of Mādhyamika (Middle Way) School Buddhism. From that time, most Buddhist scholars viewed Zhao Lun as a profound and theoretically inerrant classic, up until the late Ming, when Zhen Cheng 鎮澄 wrote Wu buqian zhengliang lun 物不遷正量論 (“The Correct Buddhist View of ‘Wu buqian lun’”), in which he sharply challenged the views expressed in “Wu buqian lun” (“Things Do Not Shift,” a famous essay in Zhao Lun). Zhen Cheng’s challenge focused on: (1) demonstrating that the article’s most important proposition, that each individual is by nature stationed permanently in their historical period 物各性住於一世 is a kind of heterodox belief in permanence (changjian常見), and that xingzhu 性住 (by nature stationed) and xingkong 性空 (by nature sunya) are two contradictory propositions; and (2) demonstrating that xingzhu and changzhu 常住 (permanently stationed, a proposition similar to xingkong and originally derived from the Fa hua jing 法華經) are, at the same time, polar opposites. In demonstrating these two points, Zhen Cheng intended to point out that Seng Zhao’s proposition xingzhu neither coincides with changzhu nor is equivalent in meaning to xingkong. This is an important and meaningful academic work aiming to unscramble and discuss Zhen Cheng’s criticisms of Seng Zhao, since “Wu buqian lun” occupies an important place in Seng Zhao’s theory. Three prominent late-Ming Buddhist scholars, Dao Heng 道衡, Lian Chi 蓮池 and De Qing 德清, all wrote polemics against Zhen Cheng but failed to persuade him to change his opinion of “Wu buqian lun.” The purpose of this paper is to prove that Zhen Cheng’s challenge to Seng Zhao’s conception of xingzhu is in fact untenable because it misconstrues what Seng Zhao originally intended to express.