「佛陀為本」vs.「聲聞為本」──太虛與印順「判教」思想之對比考察

“Buddha-based”versus“Śrāvaka-based”: A Comparative Study of the Philosophy of Pan Jiao between Taixu and Yinshun

印順自陳他的佛教思想深受太虛深刻影響，在著作中多處記述太虛思想對他的重要意義。然而印順和太虛在佛教史觀認知、思想判攝與教法抉擇上皆有諸多不同，從《印度之佛教》一書所衍生的法義論辯即可得知；本文即以兩人印度佛教「第一期」的歷史分判作為探討焦點。相對於印順以「聲聞為本之解脫同歸」為「第一期」，太虛卻修正為「佛陀為本之聲聞解脫」，當中「佛陀為本」與「聲聞為本」明顯不同；本文以此為線索進一步析探兩人思想之差異。首先對比「佛陀為本」與「聲聞為本」各自的主張，其次分析「聲聞為本」的意義，認為印順之「聲聞為本」含攝「聲聞為主」、「阿含為本」以及「緣起為本」等內涵，進而反思兩人「判教」之準據與不同方法進路，包括對「釋尊特見」的迥異看法，各以佛性論和性空論為佛教思想中心，以及論事推理和依理推事、融貫與辨異等不同義理路數。最後結論指出，雖然兩人之佛學思想看似大異其趣，然而師生二人的佛教理想及菩薩精神卻相當一致，由此看出大乘佛法多元多重的奔放思想與開明開闊的寬廣格局。

"Venerable Yinshun stated that his Buddhist thought was deeply infl uenced by Venerable Taixu, and details of this infl uence are found in many of his books. However, Yinshun and Taixu had quite diff erent views on the understanding of Buddhist history, on the evaluation of Buddhist thoughts, and on the choice of Dharma practices, which can be seen in the philosophical debates arisen from the book Buddhism in India. The focus of this paper is to study their divergent demarcation regarding the Indian Buddhism’s fi rst period. In contrast to“Śrāvaka as the core of Common Liberation'' in the fi rst period, Taixu revised Yin Shun’s identification to“Buddha-basedŚrāvaka Liberation.”Apparently,“Buddha-based”and“Śrāvaka-based”were greatly at odds. Analysis of the diff erent thoughts between these two masters is the main purpose of this study. I will start by comparing the respective claims of the notion of“Buddha-based”and of“Śrāvaka-based.”Then, I will analyze the meaning of“Śrāvaka-based,”suggesting that it would include“predominantlyŚrāvaka,”“Āgama-based,”and“Pratītyasamutpāda-based”in Yinshun’s usage. This implies their diff erent criteria and approaches toward Buddhist thought evaluation, including their distinct views on“insights of the Buddha,”on the core of Buddhist philosophy (e.g. the Theory of Buddha Nature versus the Theory of Emptiness), and on the ways of reasoning and evaluating the Buddha-Dharma (e.g. evidence-based inference vs. idealization-based inference; coalescence of vs. discernment of the diff erent thoughts). I conclude by pointing out that though their Buddhist thoughts seemed quite divided, their Buddhist ideals and bodhisattva spirits were quite the same; hence bearing witness to the diversity and broadness of Mahayana Buddhism."