殖民地、公民社會及宗教自由：回應侯坤宏教授《論近代香港佛教》一書及進一解

Colony, Civil Society and Religious Freedom: A Response to Hou Kung Hong’s On Buddhism in Contemporary Hong Kong

本文對侯坤宏教授近作《論近代香港佛教》的討論不是一般意義下的簡短書評，而是對侯書從個別論點到綜合視野的詳細回應。主要包括三個部份：一，「全書綜述與特點」簡介正文各章的主題及全書特色，以1949年中國政權易手和1997年香港主權英中轉移兩個年份為主軸，探討當中有代表性的佛教人與事案例，該書在資料和視野上皆取臺、港對照的方式，從而補充了單純香港視野之不足。二，「諸章回饋」就各章主題所涉人與事的內容與立論，提出對脈絡等的補充說明、深度剖析，及觀點商榷，在表面上看似枝節的事例補充中種下多個見微知著的議題伏筆，為進一步的深入分析作預備。三，以「公民社會和宗教自由」為基本線索，綜合探討藏於侯書各章字裡行間隱而未發卻又無從迴避的重要議題，即：若與戰後的臺灣和中國相比，同一階段的香港政治–宗教關係所形成的宗教公共環境，對香港佛教戰後發展的影響，及香港佛教是如何帶著對此的消化（或不消化），而進入主權轉移後的香港。最後以列出尚待進一步開展研究的主題來結束本文。

Rather than offer an abbreviated book review considering the general sense of Hou Kung Hong’s On Buddhism in Contemporary Hong Kong , this article is a detailed response to the book’s individual arguments and more comprehensive views. The article primarily consists of three parts.
First, it provides a summary of the entire book and its unique characteristics, in which I briefly introduce the themes of each chapter and the features of the work. The years 1949, when political authority in China changed hands, and 1997, the year that sovereignty of Hong Kong was handed over to China from Britian, serve as the principal axes of the book’s discussion, which considers several representative Buddhist figures and events. The choice of materials and perspectives of this book are all informed by comparative methods that center both Taiwan and Hong Kong, and thereby supplement the insufficient perspective of simply focusing on the latter.
Second, the article responds to the subject matter of each chapter, reflecting on both the content, people and events, and theoretical issues. This section of the article, regarding the context of issues covered in the chapters, offers some supplementary comments, in-depth analysis, and discussion of several perspectives. On the surface, it seems that, in augmenting the discussion with several minor, but related, examples, we see a multiplicity of issues, which allow us to glimpse the larger picture through such minor matters and foreshadow later developments. Such an undertaking serves as preparation for further, more thorough inquiries.
Third, with civil society and religious freedom as the basic threads of the discussion, the article explores several significant issues, which are either implicit and never broached or avoided altogether in Hou’s book. That is, if we compare Taiwan and China after the war with Hong Kong during the same period, we see that the religious and public environment that took shape with regard to political and religious relations had a tremendous impact on the development of Buddhism in the territory. Moreover, the section considers how Buddhism in Hong Kong bore such transformations and entered the period after sovereignty was handover. Finally, in conclusion, the paper lays out several subjects still awaiting further research.