牛頭禪析論──從胡適到印順

Analysis and Discussion of Niu-tou Zen - From Hu Shih to Master Yin-shun

二十世紀的禪宗研究是中國佛教史璀璨的一頁，也是近現代中日佛學交流史具指標性成果的展現。投入禪宗研究這一領域的重要學者，有中國的胡適，日本的鈴木大拙、宇井伯壽、關口真大、柳田聖山等人，而印順則在他們的厚基上對文獻有更精闢、獨到的詮解。對於牛頭宗的法脈問題，胡適以為法融與楞伽宗無關；鈴木大拙依舊說，確認法融與道信有關。但胡氏與鈴木氏均未涉獵法持與弘忍。宇井伯壽肯定法融與道信、法持與弘忍皆有其傳承；關口真大則以為法融與道信無師徒脈絡，而法持與弘忍則有衣缽關係；印順卻以為兩兩概無師承關聯。此外，印順與關口真大一致認為《絕觀論》為法融所著；柳田聖山以為該書大概不是法融本身的著作，應是牛頭宗成立後，被拿來當作綱要書，而假託於宗祖。至於牛頭禪在中國禪宗史上的地位，關口氏宣稱：牛頭禪「開後世禪宗思想實踐於日常生活中之先河」、「禪宗中國化，牛頭法融在此禪宗史上的意義上極為重要」，而印順則點明「牛頭禪是從印度禪轉變到中國禪的關鍵」。還有，兩人都指出「牛頭禪終歸於南宗禪」，尤以印順更清晰的判定牛頭歸於南宗之石頭。可以說，印順有關牛頭禪的研究，不僅與胡適、鈴木大拙、宇井伯壽、關口真大、柳田聖山等人在研究成果上互涉相攝，並做出極為用心的回應，尚且提出許多卓識、創見，實為二十世紀中日禪宗研究「挺向另一高峰」。

The studies of the Zen Master in the 20th century are not only a glorious page of the history of the Chinese Buddhism, but also a presentation of the last century's remarkable performance in the history of the exchange of Buddhist studies between China and Japan. The major scholars involving in the studies of the Zen Master included Hu Shih of China, and Suzuki Daisetsu、Ui Hakuju、Sekiguchi Mahiro、Yanagida Seizan of Japan. And Yin Shun had more clear-cut and peculiar interpretations of their in-depth literatures. Regarding the faction problem of Niu-tou Master, Hu Shih thinks that Fa-Rong has nothing to do with Leng-Jia Master, but Suzuki Daisetsu refers to the old sayings and confirms that it is related to Dao-Xing. However, both Hu Shih and Suzuki Daisetsu do not mention Fa-Chih and Hong-Ren at all. Ui Hakuju is sure that Fa-Rong inherits the doctrines of Dao-Xing, Fa-Chih and Hong-Ren. Sekiguchi Mahiro thinks that between Fa-Rong and Dao-Xing there is no master-and-apprentice relationship, but both Fa-Chih and Hong-Ren inherit the mantle of Fa-Rong. Nevertheless, Yin Shun thinks that they have no such relationship of master and apprentice. Besides, Yin Shun and Sekiguchi Mahiro both agree that Discussion of Absolute Viewpoints is written by Fa Rong. But Yanagida Seizan thinks that this book is not a work of Fa-Rong, and yet only taken as a book of outlines and attached to the influence of a master after the formation of Niu-tou Master. As to the position of Niu-tou Zen in the history of the Zen Master in China, Sekiguchi Mahiro argues that Niu-tou Zen "is the origin for practicing the thinking of the Zen Master on our daily life in the later days," and "the Master Zen' s influence in China and Niu-tou Fa-Rong have very important meanings in the history of the Zen Master." And Yin Shun points out that "Niu-tou Zen is the key for the Indian Zen to be changed as the Chinese Zen." In addition, both scholars indicate that "Niu-tou Zen belongs to Nan-Master Zen in the end." Yin Shun even clearly judges that Niu-tou belongs to the stone of Nan-Master. It can be found that Yin Shun's studies of Niu-tou Zen not only echo with the research results of Suzuki Daisetsu、Ui Hakuju、Sekiguchi Mahiro、Yanagida Seizan, but also makes very careful response to their studies. With many extraordinary knowledge and creative viewpoints mentioned, Yin Shun really pushes the Chinese and Japanese studies of the Zen Master of the 20th century "to another summit."