首先我仍然要先跟大家說聲抱歉，我應該更仔細介紹這項爭辯，我仍然無法全面介紹，請無法閱讀英文論文者稍候，我回頭來譯介，而能閱讀英文者，請直接跳入水裡去試水溫。
-------
Alexander Wynne 偉恩是一位在原始佛教與巴利佛教領域頗為知名的學者，他似乎是英國牛津大學佛學研究中心的教授。
2018年偉恩在牛津《佛學中心學報》發表了一篇〈以經文為本的歷史，而非以註釋書為本---對無著比丘論文的回應〉(Text-critical History is not Exegesis --- A Response to Anālayo)，對無著比丘2016年在同一期刊發表的論文提出評論：〈「關於解脫的兩個理論」的簡短批評〉(A Brief Criticism of the 'Two Paths to Liberation' theory)，接著，無著比丘在《斯里蘭卡佛學學報》作出回覆：〈探討「關於解脫的兩個理論」，對評論的回覆〉("On the Two Paths Theory: Replies to Criticism")。
我們最擔心佛學界呈現一灘死水、毫不對話的狀態，當兩位武林宗師擺出「起手式」，互相比畫兩三式，讓我們外行者看來格外興奮。
其實，這一討論的源頭，可以追溯到1936年普辛(Louis de La Vallee Poussin)在《茂師羅與那羅陀》的探討，他認為在古代傳統佛教有兩種勢力相當的解脫道修證：一種是實證的或苦修的，也就是重禪定的﹔另一種是重法的認知的，也就是重義解的。在1996年，貢布理其(Richard F. Gombrich)的How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings（《佛教如何起源：早期佛法的創始》）書中有專章討論《SN 12.68 Kosambi 拘睒彌經》，他將此經當作主要是「重禪定的」和「重義解的」兩種主張的爭論。菩提比丘在論文中指出，這是出於對關鍵經文的誤解。
http://yifertw.blogspot.com/2009/04/sn-1268-2.html
https://www.academia.edu/37777105/Text-critical_History_is_not_Exegesis_A_Response_to_An%C4%81layo
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2F38132404%2Ftwopathstheory.pdf
-------
7. Arguing the Two Paths Theory
In the frst part of his article, Wynne (2018: 81–87) discusses three passages he considers to be “key texts” in support of the two paths theory: "SN 12.68, SN 12.70, and AN 6.46. Given his frequent emphasis on the importance of taking into account dissenting scholarship, as well as the need to do justice to the explicit testimony of the texts and avoid any circularity, it seems fair to employ these same principles to evaluate his own academic work." In fact, towards the end of his article, Wynne (2018:101) ofers general refections on proper academic research, as follows:
"Perhaps academic progress can be made even when
the objectivity of its practitioners is undermined or when
contemporary scholarship is ignored, or even when circular argumentation is deployed. But progress is surely impossible when the explicit statements of the texts are bypassed in favour of one’s own preferred ideas."
I wholeheartedly agree on the need to beware of reading our own ideas into the texts, to avoid circularity, and to make sure that all relevant academic publications are taken into account rather than ignored. The preceding pages will have shown that Wynne’s assessment of my work as failing to be up to these standards is contradicted by the evidence.
Turning to the three key passages in question, since Wynne has already provided details of each episode, sufce it for the present context to consider an aspect of their presentation, namely the level of awakening
attained, if at all, by chief protagonists in each discourse. These are Nārada in SN 12.68, Susīma in SN 12.70, and a group of scholar monks in AN 6.46.
------------
沒有留言:
張貼留言