牟宗三與唐君毅論天台宗評華嚴宗「緣理斷九」說之比較

Comparison between Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi on Tiantai School's Comment on Huayan School's Theory of“Cut off Nine Conceptual Objects by Focusing on the Principle”

天台宗與華嚴宗在中國佛學史上因其所宗之經典、思想義理以及判教等關係，互相爭論內容繁多，其中關於「圓教」的問題牽連甚廣，既與二宗所歸宗之經典（《華嚴經》與《法華經》）對於佛法的詮釋有不同，而有判教上的差異；又能透過對於二宗圓教說法之比較，使中國佛學以至宋明理學，在與圓教有關的問題上有所繼承與發展。對於圓教的相關說法，牟宗三與唐君毅作為當代新儒家的代表人物，都有各自系統性的說明與闡釋，雖然在《華嚴經》與《法華經》的文獻詮釋上，二先生皆有其理據，但在關於華嚴宗的思想以及華嚴圓教的討論上，兩人意見則大多不同，尤其是對於華嚴宗的義理，牟宗三順天台智者大師與荊溪湛然等的觀點，評華嚴宗為「緣理斷九」，並認為華嚴宗所謂的圓教只能是分析的圓，不能夠為一真圓實教；而唐君毅則認為天台與華嚴二義應是一互奪而相即相入、不能互相取代的關係，需在相即相入的關係下，共成一圓教。學界對於牟宗三與唐君毅關於中國佛學相關的討論不少，但多集中於討論對天台宗思想的理解，以二先生對華嚴宗的說法，尤其是從天台宗批評華嚴宗「緣理斷九」的說法為核心的討論則少有。筆者認為以二先生對於天台宗批評華嚴宗「緣理斷九」相關說法的分析，可以對當代新儒家所重視的中國佛學中，天台與華嚴所謂圓教的意義有更深入的掌握，亦可對於二先生理解的「圓教」義的不同，有更進一步的理解。

In the history of Chinese Buddhism, the Tiantai School and the Huayan School have argued extensively regarding the classics on which they were based, their ideologies, and their doctrinal classifications. In these debates, the question about“The Perfect Teaching”is very extensive, it is not only related to the different interpretations of Buddhism in the classics (“the Avataṃsaka Sūtra”and“the Lotus Sūtra”) recognized by the two schools, so that there are different understandings of each taxonomy, but also through the comparison of the so-called“The Perfect Teaching”statement between the two schools, China Buddhism and even Neo-Confucianism in Song and Ming Dynasties can inherit and develop some related issues. As the representatives of contemporary neo-Confucian, Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi both have their own systematic explanations. Although in the interpretation of Buddhist scriptures, both of them have their own reasons, they mostly have different opinions on the thought of Huayan School and the discussion of the Perfect Teaching of the Huayan School. Mr. Mou following the views of Tiantai School Zhiyi and Jingxi Zhanran, commented on Huayan School as“cut off nine conceptual objects by focusing on the principle”and thought that the Perfect teaching on Huayan School can only be a perfect from analysis, but not a true perfect teaching. Mr. Tang, on the other hand, thinks that Tiantai and Huayan should be in the relationship that negates and complements each other. They must be together to achieve a perfect and complete teaching. There are many discussions about China Buddhism between Mr. Mou and Mr. Tang, but most of them focus on the understanding of Tiantai thought, and there are few discussions centered on their views on Huayan, especially his criticism of Huayan's“cut off nine conceptual objects by focusing on the principle”from Tiantai. The author thinks that the analysis of this subject can help us to have a deeper understanding of the meaning of the Perfect Teaching between Tiantai and Huayan in China Buddhism, which is valued by contemporary neo- Confucianism, and also help us to have a further understanding of the difference in the meaning of the Perfect Teaching understood by Mr. Mou and Mr. Tang.