中華禪「道家化」了嗎？——以伊藤隆壽之禪思想批判為例的哲學論評

Is Chinese Chan a Form of Crypto-Daoism?: A philosophical study of Takatoshi Itō’s critique of Chan thought

中華禪「道家化」了嗎？本文站在佛教立場，從哲學視角切入，選取伊藤隆壽批判中華禪思想的著述，作為展開駁議的具體事例，嘗試提出否定其相關見解的論評。
文中，首先檢視學界有關「佛教中國化」論題的不同看法；然後按照伊藤隆壽所批判的對象，依序探討法融（594-657）《絕觀論》、神秀（606？-706）《觀心論》以及神會（684-758）語錄裡的禪思想，據以指出法融所說「大道」，畢竟還是佛教之「道」，不是道家之「道」；神秀所謂「觀心」之「心」，也不是某種能夠產生萬物的客觀實有；而神會的禪思想，更不是一種毫無條件棄絕所有修行工夫的「自然主義」。因此，伊藤隆壽認為法融、神秀、神會的禪思想，乃是融合道家思想和鳩摩羅什以後般若空觀思想的產物，而且因為中國般若空觀思想在本質上是已被奪胎換骨的「格義佛教」，它不同於印度佛教，所以作為融合物的《絕觀論》、《觀心論》乃至神會語錄，實際是反映出道家思維結構的「道．理哲學」，抑或屬於松本史朗所說的「基體論」（dhātu-vāda）——這一主要見解，並不符合情實。
最後，本文總結指出「『禪』本身」超越「中華」、「印度」等特定時空限界，從未具備一定不可改易的「本質」，唯有適應人事時地而不斷開新創化的功用。「禪」於中華文化場域發展，在中華人心中體現，而且使用漢語傳播，雖或不免承受固有文化成素的影響，但卻不可因此就說那是已經「異質化」為中華傳統思想、哲學乃至宗教的結果。源自印度佛教的「中華禪」，並未變成以「自然」為其理想價值歸趣的道家哲學。中華禪師所承傳的佛法實踐精神，一貫是般若經典所教「無住」、「無所得」的「念念不住」修行工夫。中華禪師繼承佛教世界觀、生命觀以及要求解脫成佛的生命課題，縱有取自中華傳統文化成素的不同開展，然而那些開展，從哲學角度嚴格檢視，卻不可講成是「印度禪」的「中國化」；而「中華禪」，也未嘗真的已經「道家化」了！

Has Chinese Chan Buddhism been “Daoized” (i.e. has it taken on certain characteristics of Daoism), as has been asserted by Japanese scholar Takatoshi Itō in his critical work on the thought of Chinese Chan? Taking the standpoint of Buddhism and approaching this topic from a philosophical perspective, in this article I evaluate Takatoshi Itō’s assertions and put forth a rather different point of view.
I first survey various prominent views about the sinicization of Buddhism. I then examine the main works on which Takatoshi Itō based his assertions—Farong’s Jueguan lun (Treatise on Renouncing All Thoughts), Shenxiu’s Guanxin lun (Treatise on Contemplating the Mind), and the Shenhui yulu (Discourses of Master Shenhui)—and conclude that the “Way” spoken of by Farong is, after all, still the “Way” of Buddhism, rather than the “Way” of Daoism; that the “mind” spoken of by Shenxiu in the context of “contemplating the mind” is not an objectively true existence that can give rise to all things in the universe; and that the Chan thought of Shenhui is definitely not a “naturalism” advocating the unconditional renunciation of all effort and spiritual discipline.
Takatoshi Itō’s main assertion is that the Chan thought of Farong, Shenxiu, and Shenhui is a synthesis of Daoism and the ideas on wisdom and emptiness current in China since the time Kumarjiva; he also contends that the Chinese understanding of wisdom and emptiness differs from that of Indian Buddhist thought, contending that it is in essence a hybrid product of the Chinese “matched-meaning” approach to the interpretation of fundamental Buddhist concepts. Thus he asserts that the Jueguan lun, Guanxin lun, and Shenhui yulu actually reflect the “philosophy of the Way / Principle” of Daoism, or the dhātu-vāda (essentialist) theory that Matsumoto Shirō speaks of. I go on to show how such a view does not accord with the actual facts.
I conclude by pointing out that Chan itself transcends all boundaries of time and space, including those relating to China and India; and that it does not have a fixed, unchanging essence, but rather is constantly adapted and re-created to suit the various needs of different people, situations, eras, and regions. To be sure, as Chan developed within the field of traditional Chinese culture, it was influenced by the Chinese language and way of thinking; but one cannot therefore say that Chan is a wholly new form of Indian Buddhism or a peculiar product of Chinese thought, philosophy, and religion. Moreover, unlike Daoism, Chinese Chan doesn’t take “spontaneity” or “being natural” as its ideal or ultimate goal. Rather, the central emphasis of Chinese Chan has always been on “non-abiding,” “non-attainment,” and the practice of “no-abiding from one thought to another,” as expounded in the perfection of wisdom sutras. In the process of adopting and transplanting the Indian Buddhist world view and approach to spiritual practice, it was only natural that Chan made various adaptations to suit its new context, but from a strict philosophical perspective, such developments cannot be said to amount to the sinicization of the dhyana tradition of Indian Buddhism; nor can it be said that Chinese Chan is a Daoized form of Buddhism.