【作者】 吴丹；

【导师】 潘桂明；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 中国哲学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 《大乘大义章》是研究罗什与慧远佛教思想的重要著作,也是研究印度佛教思想和印度佛教中国化的重要著作。本文由慧远、鸠摩罗什二人讨论内容为线索,结合慧远与罗什现存的其他著作,力图对《大乘大义章》进行比较全面和客观地文本分析,还原慧远、罗什二人所以立论的基础,确切地反映二人在此书中所表达的思想。《大乘大义章》中所涉及的四大色法、法身、法界、法性等问题,为佛教宇宙论知识中的现象论以及般若实相问题;阿罗汉、菩萨、佛、涅槃等为境界问题,成佛、菩萨退转、授记成佛、菩萨遍学、修行住寿等为修行功夫问题。本文即以本体论、现象论、功夫论、境界论为架构,将《大乘大义章》中的重要概念进行解释分析,力图由现象论提供慧远、罗什二人所设想的世界构成图式,由本体论展示二人对于世界本质、生命价值的看法及可能在此基础上形成的心性论思想,由功夫论说明二人对佛教的禅修操作方法的见解,由境界论表现二人对佛教理想人格状态的体悟。同时,本文将从中国佛教思想发展史的角度着手,将《大乘大义章》置于印度佛学中国化的客观历史进程中,通过对慧远与罗什二人理论来源以及思想内容、思维方式的对比分析,展示《大乘大义章》对中国佛教义理发展方向的影响。《大乘大义章》中,关于法身的性质是慧远提问的重点,在书中所占比例很大。慧远尽管接受了中观学派破“有”破“无”的思维方式,却还是执著于业报的主体,试图解决成佛的依据和可能性的问题。因此,慧远在《大乘大义章》提出的问题主要围绕法身的性质展开。在慧远看来,法身没有任何具体形象,但又是不灭不穷的真实存在。“法身”实有、永恒存在,是轮回的承担者、报应的主体。鸠摩罗什本着般若性空的立场,强调“法身”、“法性”并不是什么独立自在的实体,所谓“法身”、“佛身”,只是为了适应对不同人的传法需要而作的方便假说。万法是由众因缘会聚而成,佛法身也是因缘和合而生,毕竟空寂。在讨论世间色法生成及性质的问题时,慧远立论的出发点是“因缘之生,生于实法”,所以分“有”为“因缘有”和“实法有”两类,并以“实法”作为“因缘法”得以形成的依据。罗什则突出“一切色皆以四大为根本”,目的在于引导慧远从其余“外道”、“邪见”中摆脱出来,而并未肯定“四大”是实。在关于禅修论之间的问答中,鸠摩罗什以中观般若性空思想统率禅法,强调在禅观中要用般若智慧去观照诸法实相。慧远在理解禅定的境界、佛身的属性时,总是倾向于追求空有之上的最高实在,认为佛身、佛所居住的清净国土都是实有,对印度佛教的大乘空宗思想表现出不自觉的抵制和抗拒。鸠摩罗什一方面强调了以般若智慧领悟义理的重要,另一方面,又强调修习的重要性,强调“遍学”的意义。慧远在关于菩萨“遍学”问题的理解中偏重“顿悟”的观点。慧远并不完全反对大乘般若中观学说,但中国传统文化思想的熏陶使他深切地认识到,只有直观具体、简易方便的修行方法才能满足中土社会和民众的需要,从而能够在社会中广泛传播。当涉及到“授记”问题时,慧远认为阿罗汉、菩萨、佛都是不同阶层的果位,是不同的修行导致的最终的实在的结果;而罗什则认为所谓“果位”也是毕竟空,只是修行毕竟空的不同阶段,修行的最终结果应该是“放舍止息”,“无所贪著”,即无作无为,无所挂碍。从慧远向罗什请教的一系列问题看,慧远的思想是复杂的,他的佛教思想是印度大小乘佛教思想与中国固有的实在论和有神论相融合而成的。慧远虽然对般若思想内容有一定的理解和接受,但一直在追求一个“至极无变”的、绝对的实体性的东西,并以这种实体的真实存在作为其佛学理论的基石。在《大乘大义章》中,慧远总在询问各种事物和现象的性质,肯定着现象背后本质的确切存在,追求对每个佛学概念做出明确的回答。罗什对慧远问题的的解答一以贯之地坚持着大乘中观学的思想内容、精神实质和思维方法。罗什从缘起性空的观念入手,认为本体自身不可思议,“实相”之说仅限在认识论范围。罗什采取彻底的否定式思维方式和认识方法,即对于事物的真实存在、对于语言和逻辑判断分析作出彻底的否定,认为必须以全面破斥的方式,才能达到对宇宙人生本质(实相)的认识。从慧远与罗什在《大乘大义章》的思想交锋中,可以发现印度佛教与中国传统文化结合的可能,这种可能预示着中国佛教思想的发展方向。因此,慧远与罗什的讨论对于中国佛教“涅槃佛性”说、判教理论、禅修论等理论的发展影响深远。更多还原

【Abstract】 The ultimate wisdom of the Mahayana is an important masterpiece not only for the study of the Buddhist thoughts of Kuma^raji^va and Huiyuan, but also for the study of the localization of Indian Buddhism in China.Based on the discussion between Kuma^raji^va and Huiyuan, and on the reference of other works of them, this thesis was conceived to make a relative thorough and objective analysis, revivifying the theoretical bases of Kuma^raji^va and Huiyuan, elucidating the ideas of the two pundits. The concepts of Four gross elements, Material existence, Reality body, Reality-realm and Dharma-realm are the problems on phenomenalism of cosmology and true original nature of Prajna; Arhan, Bodhisattva, Buddha and Nirvana are problems of Sphere or Visaya; Becoming a Buddha, the return from Buddha, the prediction of Buddhahood, etc are the problem of practice. The author interpreted and analyzed the important concepts of The ultimate wisdom of the Mahayana under the framework of ontology, phenomenalism, efforts and visaya. In addition, the author put The ultimate wisdom of the Mahayana in the historical procedure of localization of Indian Buddhism in China, compared the thoughts of Kuma^raji^va and Huiyuan, elucidating the influence of The ultimate wisdom of the Mahayana on the development of Buddhist doctrines.In The ultimate wisdom of the Mahayana, the nature of Reality body was one of the emphases of questioning, occupying a great part in the book. In the viewpoint of Huiyuan, the Reality body did not have any real image, but it was a undeniable and imperishable reality. In contrast, Kuma^raji^va held that Reality body had no absolute entity, and Reality body of Buddha was nothing but a reaction to the union of causes and conditions, also doomed to void and tranquil.On the generation and characteristics of material existence, Huiyuan divided the Existence into two: the Existence for direct and indirect causes, and the Existence for Real elements, with the latter as the prerequisite of the former. While Kuma^raji^va wanted to guide Huiyuan to avoid the misleading of outside teaching and wrong views, disavowing the entity of Four gross elements.In the discussion on cultivation, Kuma^raji^va guided the bodhisattva meditation with the idea of Ma^dhyamika Prajna features as emptiness, emphasizing that wisdom of Prajna should be used to analyze the true marks of all elemental constructs. In comparison, Huiyuan showed his unmindful resistance, in the obstinate believe of the pure dharma realm of Buddha really existed. Kuma^raji^va emphasized the significance of cultivation and extensive learning, without denying the importance of understanding doctrines with Prajna wisdom. Huiyuan declared the importance of Sudden Enlightenment in the extensive learning, for he was always seeking a direct and easy way of cultivation, especially for the need of the Chinese grass roots.About the prediction of Buddhahood, Huiyuan believed that the different Phala resulted from the different cultivation. Kuma^raji^va considered Phala an emptiness all in all, nothing but the different stages of cultivation. He claimed that people should be unconditioned and uncreated.From all the questions Huiyuan consulted to Kuma^raji^va, we can find that Huiyuan’s thought was a complex of Indian Mahayana & Hinayana Buddhism and Chinese theism and realism. Although Huiyuan had some understand on the Prajna thought, he kept himself in the stubborn seeking of absolute and eternal entity as the base of his Buddhist theory. To Huiyuan’s questions, Kuma^raji^va consistently held the thinking methods, content and virtuality of Mahayana Ma^dhyamika thought, because he doubted the reality of entity, with the idea of causes originating from emptiness. He believed that the thought of true original nature was only the matter of epistemology. Kuma^raji^va declared that the true recognition of the nature of cosmos and life could only be reached with the complete negation in the thinking and epistemic methods.In the conflict of Huiyuan and Kuma^raji^va on their different understanding on The ultimate wisdom of the Mahayana, we could find the possibilities of merging of Indian Buddhism and Chinese traditional culture, which predicted the direction of Chinese Buddhism development. As the conclusion, the discussion between Huiyuan and Kuma^raji^va had its vital importance on the development of the Nirvana buddha-nature theory, teaching classification theory, cultivation theory of Chinese Buddhism.更多还原