論古靈寶經與早期道教──以道與至尊神為考察核心

The Lingbao Scriptures and Early Daoism: An Examination of the “Dao” (the Way) and the Highest God

本文反省當前被建構出的「道教」、「教派」等概念在運用上的有效性，特別是在早期諸教團對「道」的崇奉以及至尊神信仰的表現上。筆者據此來考察東晉南朝諸經典群之一的古靈寶經，也旁及出土文物。認為古靈寶經對「道」不僅有獨立的詮釋意義，且經群內部在至尊神的表現上也略顯參差；若就出土文物來看，其作用在南方與北方的影響進程亦不相同。簡言之，若以今日對「道教」的理解來檢視古靈寶經，則明顯可見古靈寶經不僅不以「道」作為崇奉的對象，且諸經面對當時江南各種經典傳統的態度亦不相同，而這也連帶影響了諸經對至尊神的紀錄。據此，將「道教」視為崇奉「道」的群體，或是認為存在結構嚴謹的「靈寶派」等「教派」觀念，或許有修正的必要。

This paper examines the accuracy and usefulness of the concepts at present labeled “Daoism” and “religious schools,” especially in reference to the homage paid to the “Dao” by myriad religious groups in medieval China and the expression of belief in the highest god. The author pursues this line of scrutiny on one group of texts in the canon of the Eastern Jin and Southern Dynasties, the Lingbao Scriptures, using excavated source materials for comparison. The study argues that not only do the Lingbao Scriptures contain a unique interpretation of the “Dao,” manifestations of “The Highest God” within the Scriptures are not quite uniform. Based on excavated source materials, the progression of its influence also differed from north to south. Simply put, if the Lingbao Scriptures are examined from the perspective of the modern understanding of “Daoism,” it becomes obvious that not only is the “Dao” not the object of its homage, but also that the attitudes of the various texts in the Scriptures towards the myriad other canonical traditions in the Jiangnan region were far from consistent. There is no doubt that this phenomenon influenced the treatment of the highest god in the different texts. It therefore seems prudent to reassess the appropriateness of the concept that “Daoism” is inherently characterized by homage to the “Dao,” or the notion that schools such as the “Lingbao School” existed conceptually in a strictly uniform way.