析論東晉廬山慧遠法師以《莊子》「連類」佛法

An Analysis of Master Lushan Huiyuan’s Integration of the Zhuangzi into Buddhist Dharma Through the Method of“Lian Lei”in the Eastern Jin Dynasty

兩晉時期諸多佛教僧人援引老莊思想解說佛法，於教內稱「格義」。當時玄學興盛，佛學藉由玄學思潮引發士人討論，固有其因緣，然而為何是老莊思想成為佛教進入中國的連結？尤其是莊子思想更為眾多僧人引為解釋佛法，兩者應有相通之處。廬山慧遠少習老莊，傳法「連類」《莊子》解釋「實相」之意，能使惑者曉然。慧遠藉《莊子》解釋佛法的「連類」方法為何？而運用「連類」所說的佛法「實相」之意為何？究竟莊子思想中什麼概念可與「實相」相連？
本文以慧遠著作與《莊子》相較，認為莊子論「知」的自我局限，與佛法破除我執相通。而莊子在捨棄自我中心之後所呈現的「齊物」觀，與般若智超越分別而呈現的諸法「實相」，兩者亦可並觀而論。至於莊子對於物我關係，採取否定之否定的論辯方式，亦可與中觀學的雙遣相互參照。只是莊子理想的物我相忘境界，其根源為道氣論，具有實體之意，而佛教理想的涅槃境界雖也超越生死，然其根源在於依緣起而論萬物無自性，證諸法之真如實相為空。兩者雖於本體論有別，但是都有清淨專一的修行論述。慧遠「連類」《莊子》說解「實相」，不僅只有形式的類比，還涉及兩者義理的相互參照。莊、佛雖有其異，但兩者相類之處，是佛法能為中國士人接受的重要關鍵。

During the Wei and Jin periods, Buddhist monastics frequently appropriated Lao-Zhuang philosophy to elucidate the Dharma—a hermeneutical practice termed geyi (格義, concept-matching). Concurrently, the ascendancy of xuanxue (玄學, Neo-Daoism) stimulated intellectual debates among Chinese literati. Yet, while these metaphysical trends facilitated initial engagement, they fail to clarify why Lao-Zhuang thought specifically became the foundational nexus for Buddhism’s enculturation. The Zhuangzi, in particular, was widely invoked by monastics, implying intrinsic philosophical convergences between the two traditions. Having immersed himself in Lao-Zhuang studies during his youth, Master Huiyuan慧遠of Lushan employed the method of lianlei (連類, associative analogy), drawing on the Zhuangzi to clarify the concept of shixiang (實相, ultimate reality) for bewildered seekers. This article investigates the nature of Huiyuan’s lianlei methodology, the meaning of the ultimate reality articulated through it, and the conceptual nodes within Zhuangzi's thought that admit of connection to shixiang.
Comparing Huiyuan’s corpus with the Zhuangzi, this study contends that Zhuangzi’s critique of the epistemic limitations of knowledge resonates with the Buddhist deconstruction of ego-attachment. Moreover, Zhuangzi’s vision of the qiwu (齊物, equality of things), emerging upon the relinquishment of egocentrism, parallels the Prajñāwisdom that transcends binary distinctions to manifest the ultimate reality of all dharmas. Regarding the subject-object relationship , Zhuangzi's dialectic of double negation offers a fruitful crossreference to the shuangqian (雙遣, dual relinquishment) in Madhyamaka philosophy. Crucially, however, while Zhuangzi's ideal of“mutual forgetfulness of self and things”is anchored in a dao-qi ontology that retains substantiality , Buddhist Nirvana—though similarly transcending life and death—is predicated upon dependent origination and the lack of inherent existence, certifying the emptiness (空,śūnyatā) of ultimate reality. Despite this ontological divergence, both traditions converge on a praxis of purity and concentrated cultivation. Ultimately, Huiyuan’s lianlei hermeneutics represents a profound conceptual cross-referencing rather than mere formal analogy. These shared resonances, notwithstanding their differences, proved pivotal to the reception of the Dharma by the Chinese elite.