在虛擬的網路世界裡，GuoBing 與我無意間對話起來，感謝他指點我注意耆那教與佛教之間的共同偈頌，讓我把想像力飛往那個當年耆那教徒與佛教徒共同並存遊方乞食的古老印度裡。這兩個宗教都像是當年新教徒反抗梵諦岡古老腐敗而擁有通往天堂鑰匙的天主教一樣，訴諸理性的、個人的、自由的、素民主義的、反貴族的(不管是血統、武力、財富或知識哲理的貴族)，而高舉證悟的、解脫的、可以個人親見的、寂靜而非縱欲的涅槃。
同時，我們也關切：「或許，佛經裡記載的耆那教，是一種偏頗而不完整的描述，甚至是一種誤解。」
以下是就同一主題相隔幾個月的對話：
以下引自部落格《我們正趨向神祕主義》
http://www.wretch.cc/blog/guobing/8995209
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
日前在G. Tucci的《梵天佛地（Indo-tibetica）》中讀到了金剛手大菩薩發威火刑伺候婆羅門教的大天（mahadeva）：
於是金剛手大菩薩呼召這些天眾，說：「喂！諸為惡者！接受我的教言，（否則）我用金剛杵發出一道火焰，把你們全都燒成灰燼。」
atha vajrapāṇirmahābodhisatvastāṁ devādīnāhūyaivamāha|
“haṁ bho duṣṭāḥ pratipadyata mama śāsane|
mā vo [dīptenā] nena vajreṇa ekajvālīkṛtya, sarvāneva bhasmīkuryām” iti|
（Sarva Tathāgata Tattva Saṅgraha Ch. 6）
爾時金剛手大菩薩告彼眾言：『汝諸惡者，於我教中如教所行，無令我此大金剛杵發火光明，都為一聚，廣大熾焰焚燒一切悉為灰燼。』
（佛說一切如來真實攝大乘現證三昧大教王經卷第九）
類似的脅迫劇情其實也可在《阿含經》中見到，如《雜阿含110經》就記載了金剛力鬼神拿著燃起熊熊烈焰的金剛杵等在薩遮尼犍子（saccakassa nigaṇṭhaputtassa）身旁，想說如果薩遮尼犍子再不回答世尊的尋問，馬上就要「乎依死」：
時，有金剛力鬼神持金剛杵，猛火熾然，在虛空中，臨薩遮尼犍子頭上，作是言： 『世尊再三問，汝何故不答？我當以金剛杵碎破汝頭，令作七分。』
《增壹阿含37.10經》的描述也大致同於《雜阿含110經》，比較有趣的是南傳《中部35 經》薩遮迦小經的描述，在金剛力鬼神「起毛歹」之前，其實世尊自己也技巧性的暗示薩遮尼犍子要乖乖回答：
『火種居士（指薩遮尼犍子）！現在就回答問題，現在不是沉默的時候，火種居士！凡任何有理由的問題被如來問到第三次不回答者，就在此處頭裂七片。』
byākarohi dāni, aggivessana, na dāni te tuṇhībhāvassa kālo. Yo koci, aggivessana tathāgatena yāvatatiyaṃ sahadhammikaṃ pañhaṃ puṭṭho na byākaroti, etthevassa sattadhā muddhā phalatī.
（MN.35 Cūḷasaccakasuttaṃ）
不信服我，就燒死你！
不乖乖回答問題，就打破你的頭～
2011.01.25
Yifertw 2011.04.16, AM 11:45 留言：
如果不把所有的佛經都當成同一個佛教的經典，而是區分為「原始佛教」、「部派佛教」、「初期大乘佛教」、「後期大乘佛教」、「秘密大乘佛教」、「偽裝成佛教的『非佛教』」，如果接受逐次結集而非只有一次「第一結集」，對一些「讚佛反成為謗佛」的言詞，就能理解其差異而予以抉擇。
就個人經驗而言，學佛之後的最初十幾年，我潛意識地將大乘經典敘述的幾尊佛與阿含經典的佛當成同一佛(佛佛道同)，與現在相比，我把《長阿含》當成「俗講形態」的「譬喻 Apadana」，也對《增一阿含》的「大眾部傾向」與「大乘氣味」保持警覺，發現觀點不同，看到的世界就不同。所差的，只是依法修習、法次法向而已。
GuoBing 2011.4.16, PM 3:18 回應
幾年前在網路論戰時，我曾對這種「一個佛教，各自表述」的現象提出了「此佛非彼佛」的反諷式結語，這種亂象的背後當然是有許多龐雜的因素所肇成，但追根究底不外乎是面對現代性挑戰所援入的世俗化運動導致！
在各自表述下又過於以自我信仰為中心，這也使得佛教經典的研讀程成了一種近乎昧著良心的閱讀或是將神話認作真實的迷失，因此當看到有人高喊著佛教是絕對的和平主義這類的論述時，我其實會思索──「真是如此嗎？」
今日的南傳佛教光譜相對於漢傳佛教雖然較為接近所謂的「原始佛教」，但在南傳佛教歷史上卻有不少左傾或是激進路線所導致的宗教暴力出現，在這些事實中，人們該如何正確的理解自身的信仰也就是個複雜的接受或捨棄了。
近日讀了Sujato比丘的文章，他藉著經典中出現的三十二相來分析「神話／事實」頗讓人省思，神話在宗教傳播有他的意義存在，但真正的佛子在面對經典時到底重點該放在哪？這部分在目前的漢傳佛教教育上似乎是有待努力的部分吧（至少由我日前在網路上論戰所觀察到的現象來看）。
On the 32 marks / Bhikkhu Sujato
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/on-the-32-marks/
Yifertw 2011.4.18, PM 3:14 回應
突然想起關則富老師的一篇論文(英文)：
Kuan, Tse-Fu, (關則富), (2009), ‘Rethinking Non-Self: A New Perspective from the Ekottarika-āgama’, Buddhist Studies Review 26(21): 155–175.
此篇文章中關則富老師檢視世尊所駁斥的「我見」，他發現對應經典《中部35經》、《雜阿含110經》與《增一阿含37.10經》經文中薩遮尼犍子「色是我」的主張，比較接近邪命外道(Ājīvika)，而不是耆那教(Jainism)的主張。
同樣地，你文章內所談的《增壹阿含37.10經》、《雜阿含110經》火種居士（指薩遮尼犍子），Aggi 是祀火外道，不是尼犍子(耆那教)，經文中有一些東西，好像不是誦經者出錯、就是我們忽視了一些線索。
GuoBing 2011.4.19, AM 1:17 回應
其實學長提到的問題不少學者也有注意到，很多時候佛教徒總以為自己很了解耆那教（當然是順著佛教經論的理解來認識的），但是當學者把雙方經典攤開來比對時卻也常發現許多佛教徒所不了解甚至誤解的耆那教。
例如關於裸體的教法，日前我找到的耆那教經典中可以發現該教法是大雄提出的，然在當時，還是有其他遵循Parshva教法的耆那教信徒是穿著僧袍的（Utt. 23），而P. S. Jaini在經典與考古出土的石雕中找到介於兩者之間的持衣派（Ardhaphālaka），在《增支部》中提到的「尼乾提外道，一布者（nigaṇṭhā ekasāṭakā）」所指的就不知道是不是跟這一部派有關了。
另外Johannes Bronkhorst也曾在2000年的一篇文章中討論到初期佛教經典中的ājīvika與jina，他認為ājīvika在較為初期時所指稱的並非某一被稱作邪命外道的宗教團體，也有可能是指稱大雄門下的教徒或是其他的裸體修行者，在上述種種前提下，佛教經典中的jina或nigaṇṭha到底指稱的是哪一個部派的耆那教，如果沒有先行釐清，後文所接著的陳述或批判都可能都會是個錯置！
而面對這些問題，如果僅只願意依循佛教方面的說詞，則許多的誤解或不解可能也就繼續被傳承下去了吧。
Bronkhorst, Johannes, (2000), The Riddle of the Jainas and ājīvikas in Early Buddhist Literature, Journal of Indian Philosophy v.28 n.5/6, pp. 511-529.
Yifertw 2011/4/19 AM 10:13 回應
我有 pdf 檔, 需要我寄給你參考嗎？
Kuan, Tse-Fu, (關則富), (2009), ‘Rethinking Non-Self: A New Perspective from the Ekottarika-āgama’, Buddhist Studies Review, 26(21): 155–175.
GuoBing 2011.4.19, PM 5:22 回應
我已經看到該篇文章了，關老師在文章中用了「invention」、「contamination」等用語還真的很有意思，而這也與學長網頁中所介紹 Anālayo 比丘的一系列他山之石文有近似的概念──經典在傳播中或多或少的被加油添醋、誤解，唯有透過不同傳承的經典之比對，才能釐清較為本初的原貌～
由關老師分析「rūpaṃ me attā」來看，這教法是被「invention」出來之後，再因傳誦過程中被誤套在耆那教身上，那佛典之中有多少這種對耆那教的錯誤理解呢？而我們援引近代學者對耆那教教義的定義中，是否存在著「將註釋當作經文本身」的問題（jīva、ajīva等系統化的七諦或九諦概念是較為後期才被論師所整理起來的）？這部份可就不能光靠佛教內部經典比對來解決了，而是需要把佛／耆雙方的經典，甚至是婆羅門教的經典也一起拿來重新比對與檢討了吧。
關老師的「invention」說：Although Saccaka's title, the Nigaṇṭha's son, denotes a Jain, his view as criticized in the two similar versions has nothing to do with Jainism, but rather it is probably an "invention" created by distorting Brahmanical thought.
Yifertw 2011.4.20 PM 9:52 回應
對於關則富老師的觀點，我的論文曾加以探討，希望這篇論文會在五月底之前刊出。
另外，根據萬金川與田曉菲的觀點，也許所謂「原本」、「原始教導」完全無法復原，後學者會陷入如此的兩難：「如果你未證得究竟智與涅槃，你會被這些錯誤的背誦和文本所誤導；但是，如果你不去閱讀與思考這些會誤導你的『錯誤的背誦和文本』，你也沒有機會證得究竟智與涅槃。」
萬金川，(2009)，〈梵本《維摩經》的發現與文本對勘研究的文化與思想轉向〉，《正觀雜誌》51期，143-203頁，南投縣。此文也在《第四屆印度學研討會》發表，嘉義縣南華大學主辦，台灣。
田曉菲，(2007)，《塵几錄—陶淵明與手抄本文化研究》，中華書局，北京市，中國。
我還沒細讀此一篇，從名稱看來似乎也是相關：
Anālayo, Bhikkhu, (2010), “Saccaka’s Challenge", Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, 2010, issues 23, p. 39-70….＂
Yifertw 2011.4.21 AM 10:35 PM 回應
The Buddha and the Jains: a reply to Professor Bronkhorst.＂
Asiatische Studien XLVIII 4 1994, 1069–196.
上面是 Richard Gombrich 的文章
GuoBing 2011.4.21, PM 5:03 回應
很期待學長的新文章！不知此篇新文章討論的重點為何？是否會討論到佛／耆之間的議題？
其實在閱讀關老師的文章時，讓我想起黃柏棋老師討論耆那教「四法」的文章，在文中黃老師認為佛教經典中所陳述的耆那教四法（cātu-yāma-saṃvara）其實是種諷刺性的陳述，藉此諷刺性的陳述來突顯耆那教的嚴苛苦行，進而闡述世尊教法的中道精神。
雖然耆那教本身經典所提及的四法（cāujjāma）與佛典所詮釋的完全不相同，而且也並非大雄的主張（其主張為五法），但是在耆那教初期經典Isibhasiyaim 29.19b中，我們就可見佛典所謂的「sabbavārivārito」了，該偈作：
savvattha viraye dante | savva-vārīhiṃ vārie /
savva-dukkha-ppahīṇe ya | siddhe bhavati -īraye
||19||
一切根處調伏，一切待洗淨之罪業洗淨；
（他將）捨離一切苦，獲得最高的成就。
此偈的內容其實與佛典Dhp. 360, 361的精神很相近，然佛典將「savva-vārīhiṃ vārie」延義做四法，甚至藉此「invention（套關老師用語）」的教法來諷刺耆那教──這種把他人教法推到極端之後批判的方式所陳述的教法是否真代表耆那教教法，也就值得去深思了。
另外，Isibhasiyaim 29的說法者為耆那教教主Vaddhamāṇa，而佛典Theragatha 40中收錄了一位Vaḍḍhamāna長老的偈子，據註釋所稱，其為吠舍離城離車王族出身，似乎也與耆那教大雄出身有所重疊（有說其母為離車公主，舅舅Cetaka為吠舍離國王），這部份的雷同是否僅是純屬巧合也頗耐人尋味。
黃柏棋Jainism and Buddhism in interaction What does"nigantho catu-yama-samvara-samvuto hoti"mean?世界宗教學刊 卷期：12期, 2008 109-156 http://203.72.2.115/Ejournal/4082001204.pdf
GuoBing 2011.4.21, PM 5:05 回應
回到學長提及的兩難，我以為多多思辯是較保險的，全然相信經典或是權威，那會是場賭博，運氣好或許有機會踏上解脫道，但我相信絕大多數人都不會是這樣幸運的吧。
不知學長手邊有Richard Gombrich的那篇文章嗎？
Yifertw 2011.4.21 PM 6:16 回應
黃柏棋老師討論耆那教「四法」的文章:
《巴利佛教思想的交涉--從聖典到教史》明目文化公司出版，2009年，
〈第二章、「尼乾子為四禁戒所制御」意旨為何？---論耆那教與佛教之互動〉
1. 前言
2. 尼乾子為四禁戒所制御
3. 耆那教徒苦行之教內與教外觀點
4. 佛教與耆那教之互動
5. 結論
我有兩本(黃老師贈送)，有需要我幫你寄去一本。
GuoBing 2011.4.22 AM 11:38 回應
如果學長願意分享，那當然是很樂意囉，謝啦！
Yifertw 2011.4.24 AM 8:22 回應
不知你是否讀過呂凱文教授此文:
<當佛教遇見耆那教—初期佛教聖典中的宗教競爭與詮釋效應>
中華佛學學報第19期 (pp.179-207)： (民國95年)，
中華佛學研究所http://www.chibs.edu.tw
另外仿照此例，請寄給我你的住址:
http://yifertw.blogspot.com/2010/04/yifertw.html
以下引自 "Sujato's Blog" by bhikkhu sujato
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/on-the-32-marks/On the 32 marks
This post is in response to James’ question about the notorious 32 Marks of a Great Man, especially as found in Digha Nikaya 30 Lakkhana Sutta. (James’ post referred to DN32, this is a mistake, also found in Wikipedia; I’ve corrected it there.)
D30 is clearly a late sutta. The verses prove this – they are in late metres, and the commentary says they were composed by Ananda – and even the prose sections have no Agama cognates.
The concept of the 32 marks, however, is widely found in the Suttas, although D30 is the only place that links the marks to specific kammas.
There is plenty of incidental detail in the Suttas and Vinaya that show that the Buddha was normal in appearance, so any freakish or supernatural interpretation of the marks must be wrong. Leaving a few of the bizarre elements aside, most of the marks are straightforward signs of physical beauty: black hair, white teeth, gold skin, and the like.
The Suttas themselves attribute the marks to ancient Brahmanical texts, although strangely enough they are not found in any extant Brahmanical works.
There is some suggestion that they may be Babylonian in origin: one of the early texts that features them (Parayanavagga) speaks of a Brahman called ‘Bavari’, which is just the Pali spelling of ‘Babylonian’; marks and omens of all kinds are rampant in Babylon and related cultures. In addition, the 32 marks are closely connected with the idea that the Buddha is a ‘Great man’, who has to choose between spiritual and royal dominion. This choice is first expressed in the myth of Gilgamesh, thousands of years before the Buddha, the most famous myth throughout the Babylonian region.
It is quite normal to have a child inspected for various auspicious marks, and so on, and so there is little reason to doubt that this happened to Siddhattha. It is also normal, indeed, essential, for the hero to fulfill ancient prophecies. While we can’t say what marks the Buddha actually had, we can be sure that if he did not fulfill an ancient prophecy, one would have been invented for him.
Myth evolves from facts plus imagination. When the baby Siddhattha was born, he would have been inspected, and since he was in fact healthy and physically excellent, he would have been pronounced as such by the soothsayers. It’s possible that other ‘auspicious’ events coincided with the birth – favorable stars or the like. As the child grew into a world-renowned spiritual teacher, the tales would have grown and been retold. They would have been shaped by, and in turn shaped, the prevailing mythos. The originally human details acquired a halo, polished and embellished by countless storytellers. When they have been sufficiently removed from their historical basis, they come to serve a universal, spiritual purpose – an expression of faith and awe; and in addition they can be leveraged for doctrinal purposes, as in D30.
What moderns fail to understand about myth – and I have spoken of this in Sects & Sectarianism – is that in the ancient world myth was widely accepted as an expression of universal truth. We are empiricists, at least in theory – we start with data and infer conclusions. But mythic truth tells of things that always have been and always will be. It is not subject to mundane inconveniences like facts. The mythos tells us that great spiritual beings have special physical signs that are an external manifestation of their inner perfection. Therefore, the Buddha must have had such marks. The only question would be the manner in which the marks were expressed, which would reflect the philosophy of those telling the story; hence the marks are interpreted as cosmic, not literal, in the Mahayana texts.
The compilers of the Buddhist texts sometimes invented passages to conform with prevailing patterns. We know this; there are explicit instructions in two Vinayas that the monks should do this, together with details as to how it should be done. So when we see a clearly mythic notion like the 32 marks, which contradicts the known facts that the Buddha had a normal physique, then we know it is an invention, whose basis is to be explained by the needs, wishes, and motivations of the redactors.
This does not mean that the marks should be dismissed: on the contrary it means that we have an invaluable method of understanding earlier generations of Buddhists, and how their beliefs influenced the form in which the Dhamma has been passed down to us. If we don’t understand those people, how can we hope to understand the texts that they formed as a vessel for the teaching of the Buddha?
We might scoff at the irrationality of the texts, but consider this: all ancient religious texts contain some material that we consider irrational. They survived against all odds, while countless other texts perished, because there was something in them that motivated people to devote incredible energy and dedication to their preservation. Would a purely rational, empirical Buddhism have survived? We have no examples to show that this is possible.
By all means, question the mythos: the insistence that myth is history is the seed of all fundamentalisms. But don’t throw them out: learn to understand myth as myth, and whole new vistas of meaning will open before you.
-
Kanchana / Apr 6 2011 8:10 pm
Is that what you meant by “But don’t throw them out: learn to understand myth as myth, and whole new vistas of meaning will open before you.” ?
I wasn’t sure what you meant by that when i read it.
Now I’m wondering…do you mean that we can have access into different ways of viewing and perceiving the world because we might get ‘inside the heads’ (so to speak) of those who authored these myths?
Bhante, would you mind very much sharing something that was new and meaningful to you that you learned from exploring myth?
Metta
-
sujato / Apr 7 2011 8:22 am
Oh, dear, that’s a hard one. There’s too much, i wouldn’t know where to start. One of the things about stories is that they have an effect in the telling, even though often the ‘message’ may be very simple, and sound trite when all on its own.
But here goes one example. Myths are always taken as being a ‘moral’ guideline. Yet all true heroes will do something normally considered highly immoral in order to achieve their quest. For Siddhattha, this was when he abandoned his family. The point of these junctures is to cause a moral crisis: to show that conventional morality is not the highest value the we can aspire to. Such moral crisis always precede a shift in the level of the story, as our hero’s quest takes on a deeper existential significance. This is not just a storytelling device, it is a demonstration of the limits of conventional morality. It is quite possible to live a ‘good’ life, to do all the right things and never harm anyone; but at the same time, to never question, to never understand who you are and why you do these things. For a life to be truly profound, not just conventionally ‘good’, there comes a point when conventions must be broken.
沒有留言:
張貼留言