| Abstract: | 本文以2000-2020 年為段落，探討香港佛教面對民族主義時政治表達上的演變。文章十年為一段，選取兩個時段數項具政治認同象徵意義的佛教事例，分析其事態、含義及演變。2000 年代是以佛寺建築「仿唐」說、消音香港佛像的混血藝術家、佛誕日列公眾假期，及佛教推動刑事取締民間佛教數例，來分析仍然是本地僧侶代表香港佛教時，除了在官式場合作審慎表達外，是如何迴避並讓路民族主義，以與之保持相當距離。進入2010 年代，「一帶一路」戰略涵蓋東南亞佛教地區，中國佛教有了需配合此戰略的政治統戰角色，而「中國香港」作為地緣上最靠近這地區的都會，其佛教在宗教外交或統戰上，需肩負建立中國海外「信仰版圖」的政治角色。因此香港佛教需要對民族主義有更明確的支持態度，從此前「讓路」以保持距離轉為表忠，改以宣傳英治歧視來高舉民族主義紅旗為「佛陀」開路。所以除了由政治上北京可信任，持海外高學歷的中國菁英僧侶接棒香港佛教的核心領導層，來展開對港和對外的宗教統戰工作外，亦需要藉《華人廟宇條例》、佛誕假期的政治含意，及香港東西方宗教差異等例，來宣傳佛教作為華人宗教代表，在英治時期如何深受歧視之民族主義論述，儘管這與事實不符。
This article is a study on Hong Kong Buddhism’s evolution of political expression during 2000~2020, regarding Chinese nationalism. Several symbolic events with certain implication of political identity respectively from these two decades, are put under further analysis. For the 2000s, the cases of “Tong style” discourse of wooden monastic architecture, silenize a local Eurasian artist’s contribution on Buddha statue, Buddha’s birthday as a public holiday, and Buddhist group’s legislative lobbying for the criminal bill against folk religion are picked up to indicate that the local monks disregard they regularly attend the official occasion, they carefully avoid be associated with far radical nationalism, to maintain a visible distance from the political viewpoint rarely admitted by the mainstream Hong Kong population. Yet, for 2010s, due to Beijing’s “Belt and Road” Initiative, Buddhism in P.R. China has a new political role in the state’s Southeast Asia strategy. Due to “Hong Kong, China” has her unique locus in the geopolitics between China and Southeast Asia, Buddhism of the city also assigned her task of Buddhist diplomacy, to participate in the overseas development of so-called China’s “religion territories”. Under this new circumstance, Hong Kong Buddhism is expected to uphold a more affirmative nationalist standpoint than usual. This standpoint shifts from “give way” to “come out” is actualized by a new term of monastic leadership assignment in Hong Kong. The monastic elites with China background but received decades of academic training in different countries. From Beijing’s perspective, their political reliability, religious and academic profession are able to ensure that the Buddhist diplomacy affiliated with the “Belt and Road” Initiative can be counted on, rather than the poorly educated and religious misbehaving local monastic leaders. Under this ideological context, Buddhism, as a “mainstream” religion of local Chinese, had gone through years of discrimination during the British colonial period, is emphasized by the authority and Buddhist circle, especially among the pro-Beijing monastic community. The claim is said to be proved by several other “evidences” such as Chinese Temple Ordinance and etc, but sincere studies on those cases find it is groundless and not correspond with the history. |
