杜順初祖說的考察

Investigating the Question of Master Dushun’s Status as the First Huayan Patriarch

唐代華嚴宗五祖說現今已為學術界廣泛認可，但這一祖統說的建立、發展還存在相當大的問題，其中日本學界對杜順「華嚴初祖」這一身份也是多有齟齬，最著名的當為境野黃洋博士提出的「智正初祖說」與常盤大定博士對此提出的「杜順初祖說」之爭。在探討唐初華嚴宗發展之時，要考慮到華嚴宗初祖這一帶有宗派性質說法的正式提出與華嚴學者之間的學說上的教理承襲之間的區別。當一個宗派成立之時，其正統性的意識也隨之自覺產生，而祖統傳承的確立其實是伴隨著這一正統性意識的覺醒而隨後被創造的，所以對於杜順其人，我們要從以下兩點來考察，一是關注杜順對智儼及法藏等後代華嚴學家的學術影響，以及這一影響何時為人所認同；二是關於杜順的初祖地位是從何時為人所認可，這兩點很容易被混為一談，但實際上這是兩條不同的主線，不能混為一談。

The notion of the five Tang dynasty Huayan patriarchs is broadly accepted by historians. However, there subsists important questions regarding the establishment and development of this patriarchal lineage. The identity of Master Dushun as the first patriarch of this lineage has been a subject of debate in the Japanese scholarly community. Professor Koyo Sakaino has suggested that the first patriarch was actually Master Zhizheng, whereas Professor Daijo Tokiwa has maintained the view that it was Master Dunshun. When discussing the development of the Huayan School during the early Tang dynasty, specifically regarding the status of Master Dushun, it is essential to consider both the sectarian accounts from that period and the doctrinal disagreements between Huayan masters. When a Buddhist sect is established, an orthodoxy naturally forms in its wake. The heritage of the tradition as well as the patriarchal lineage is constructed subsequently on the basis of this orthodoxy. Consequently, the figure of Master Dunshun should be examined along two lines of inquiry. One the one hand, it is necessary to investigate his doctrinal influence on later Huayan masters, such as Master Zhiyan and Master Fazang. Secondly, one must determine the period at which his influence and status as the first patriarch was established. While these two issues can be easily mixed up, they are actually two distinct topics, each requiring their own investigation.