魏晉南北朝佛教文化與傳統「氣思維」的交涉——以「形／神」問題的思辨與實踐為主

The Interaction between the Traditional “Thought of Qi” and the Buddhist Culture in the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties: With a Focus on the Analysis and Practice of the Form and Spirit Issue

相較於中土，印度佛教並沒有類似「氣思維」的傳統，對於生命與存有的解釋也有所不同，但佛教東來，如何面對一個充滿「氣思維」的世界？尤其當佛教朝向心性論的主體價值論發展，擴充了「無限心」的界域，傳統「氣思維」的影響卻仍無處不在，二理路的碰撞，誠然是中古思想史研究值得關注的話題。緣此問題意識，本文整理魏晉南北朝之護法佈教文獻，發現二理路在中古時期的交涉，較多呈現於形、神問題的思辨與實踐方面，故以此為研究主體，復依：一、「辨異」與「批判」；二、「格義」與「反格義」；三「權／實」的判釋統合等三項模態，作為交涉徑路的探討。
研究發現，在二元等級化辨異的思潮下，「以理治心」與「以氣練形」大致成為判釋佛、道二教徵性的基本概念。此外，尚有以外學配說佛理的「格義」：或是援「氣感」釋「業感」的直接稱代，乃至氣學運用的間接擬喻，適造成了「才性論」與「報應說」之交涉、「本體宇宙論」與「神不滅論」交涉等現象，從而影響及形、神異源分釋對才性論之「反格義」。南北朝末期，行者乃從對「道氣」說的批判，轉而汲取相關論理之身體自然圖像，將其納入「權／實」判釋的禪觀體系，乃所謂「業力因緣，變此一身」，形同「以禪釋氣」，既擴大了無限心的詮釋界域，也延展了氣學的適用性。

Unlike that of the central land (a name China used to call itself), India’s Buddhism had no tradition of thought similar to the Chinese discourse regarding qi, and indeed had a different interpretation of life and existence. But when Buddhism was introduced eastward to China, how did it face a Chinese world that itself was full of ruminations on the question of qi? Especially when Buddhism developed towards questions of the subjective axiology of the mind, expanding into the territory of the “infinite mind,” the influence of traditional notions of qi was still pervasive. The collision of these two systems is undoubtedly a topic worthy of attention for the historical study of intellectual thought during China’s middle ancient period. Setting forth from this question, the article combs through the dharma-guarding and Buddhism-preaching literature of the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, finding that the interaction of the two systems in the middle ancient period was mostly presented in the analysis and practice regarding the relationship between form and spirit. The article thus focuses on the form/spirit question, discussing the interactions between Buddhism and qi discourse via three modalities: 1) “distinction” and “criticism”; 2) “analogical interpretation” and “reverse analogical interpretation”; 3) distinction, interpretation, and integration of “power/truth.”