群己之分與教理之別的抉擇――錢穆禪宗研究的視域融合與張力結構探析

The Choice Between an Individual-Collective Distinction and a Religion-Reason Divergence: An Analysis of the Fusion of Horizons and Structural Tension in Qian Mu’s Research on Chan Buddhism

錢穆對於禪宗的興趣與研究持續長達半個世紀之久，其成果不僅在20世紀的禪學研究史上佔有一席之地，更反映了自我、他人、時代三者之間的複雜互動實況，禪學、儒學與史學三者之間的深度視域融合。本文旨在將錢穆的禪宗研究置於實際的歷史發生場域，對其學術視域之融合過程進行譜系學分析，進而揭示其學術視域背後的張力結構。在青年時期，錢穆便敏銳感受到佛學在感性層面上製造的個體性與群體性之張力。轉入學術思想史研究後，這種張力得到了學理性表達。錢穆在佛學之中國化的視域中認為禪宗「一新佛門法義」，將它與馬丁・路德之宗教改革相類比，背後反映了他壓倒性的大群主義的儒家價值本位。進入40年代，在湯用彤與胡適一正一反的刺激下，錢穆深入禪宗的歷史與思想世界，重塑了胡適的「宗教革命論」。由此，群己之分的張力結構退藏於密，大群本位被暫時懸擱，宗教問題走向臺前。同時，懷著探尋中國學術思想史源流真相的意圖，錢穆將三國以下學術思想的核心問題判定為教理之爭。以「新儒」論說為判斷根據，錢穆提出禪宗為孔孟心傳，理學是禪宗正統血脈的論斷，徹底打破儒釋疆界。但晚年錢穆卻既認同朱子的辟禪說，也推崇慧能的純潔人格。可以說，錢穆的禪宗研究始終是在群己與教理這兩對不同張力結構之間搖擺游弋，催生了了其思想世界的複調品格。

Qian Mu’s interest in and research on Chan Buddhism spanned over half a century. His contributions not only occupy a significant position in the history of 20th-century Chan studies, but also reflect the complex interactions between self, others, and the times, as well as the deep fusion of Chan Buddhism, Confucianism, and historiography. This article examines the formative process of Qian Mu’s Chan studies, the transformation of academic horizons within this body of work, and reveals the fundamental value structure therein. In his youth, Qian Mu keenly perceived the tension between individuality and collectivity created by Chan Buddhists on both personal and ideological levels. After turning to the study of intellectual history, this structural tension was given theoretical expression. Qian Mu positioned Chan Buddhism as the“new Buddhist doctrine”within the context of the Sinicization of Buddhism. In the 1940s, spurred by Tang Yongtong and Hu Shi, Qian Mu delved deeply into the intellectual and historical world of Chan Buddhism, profoundly reshaping Hu Shi’s“theory of religious revolution.”From the perspective of Chinese intellectual history, Qian Mu believed that the core issue of post-Three Kingdoms scholarship was the dispute between religion and reason. Using the“New Confucian”discourse as his basis, Qian Mu asserted that Chan Buddhism should be viewed as the genuine successor of Confucius and Mencius, thus breaking the boundary between Confucianism and Buddhism. In his later years, Qian Mu both acknowledged Zhu Xi’s critique of Chan and admired Huineng’s pure personality. It can be said that Qian Mu’s Chan studies constantly oscillated between the tensions of individuality vs. collectivity and religion vs. reason, demonstrating the polyphonic nature of his intellectual world.