| Abstract: | 《肇論》向來被視為概念正確、文辭優美的中國佛教早期的中觀學派作品。 但由於〈物不遷論〉在駁斥「人之常情」的「有物流動」說時，得出了「事各性 住於一世」的結論，因此被唐代澄觀視為「濫同小乘」。印順法師則認為這個說 法與有部「三世實有」之說間有混同之嫌。有些學者甚至認為〈物不遷論〉根本 是以說一切有部為後設基礎下產生的學說。也就是說〈物不遷論〉並不是中觀學 派的作品，他只是以說一切有部為基礎，混同著一些般若思想的混和物。 當我們抽離《肇論》的其他篇章，單單只就〈物不遷論〉來分析「事各性住 於一世」的觀念時，可以發現僧肇所謂的「事」是一個非常短暫的存在，短暫到 只可以用剎那來形容，同時每一剎那的「事」都只能存在於它自己那短暫的剎那 中，彼剎那的「事」只能存在於彼剎那，此剎那的「事」也只能存在於此剎那， 彼此之間是互不混雜，互不重疊，也不相往來的，也就是說每個剎那都有它相應 的「事」存在。如此一來的確很類似於說一切有部的剎那生滅說。 但說一切有部的「剎那生滅說」，主張作用有生有滅，但其背後卻有一個不 變的「法體」。當作用進行中即是「現在」，當作用謝滅後即成「過去」，而可將 要發生的作用則是「未來」，然而背後的法體卻是「三世實有」恆存不滅的。 因此若說〈物不遷論〉有與說一切有部學說產生混同的地方，似乎並不過份， 但是若說〈物不遷論〉是以說一切有部為後設基礎下產生的學說，那麼就對必須 面對一個難解的問題，那就是〈物不遷論〉寫作的目的即是想要破斥「三世實有， 法體恆存」的「事物」，既然如此，那麼他為什麼會以自己所要破斥的對象，作 為自己學說的後設基礎呢？ 其次，一般而言中觀學派對說一切有部的學說並不陌生，他們通常視之為不 了義，或是待修正、待補充的學說。也就是說當僧肇以「事各性住於一世」作為 「昔物不至今」，這一連串推論的結論時，他應該明白這個結論當中帶有說一切 有部的成分，它與般若思想下那「遷而不遷」、「滅即不滅、生即不生」的理論有 著極大的差別才對。但他不但不以為自己的說法與般若思想有任何不同，還將他 們融合在一起，難道他真的對般若思想認識不清？。 最後是「事各性住於一世」的概念，真的只有涵蓋在說一切有部之下的那種 理解方法嗎？其他學派，尤其是中觀學派難道沒有這方面的論述嗎？如果有，他 們如何解釋？中觀學派對有關於「事各性住於一世」的解釋，與說一切有部間的 差別何在？與僧肇〈物不遷論〉間的關係何在？從中觀學派的觀點下看，僧肇「事 各性住於一世」的論點究竟應該如何解釋呢？ Written by Seng-Zhau , the four volumes within Zhau-Lun are considered to be the foremost work of the Madhyamika school. In this elegant masterpiece of early Chinese Buddhism philosophy, he countered the notion that transcendent qualities of human life transferring from a humanity realm to another state (samsara). He came to the conclusion that there is no inner presence within human body, He wrote “ every thing has its own existing moment and position”. If we analyse Seng-Zhau’s conclusion, we might find “every thing(物) has its own existing moment and position”, which means at that moment there is something exists, not emptiness. This opinion is similar to Sarva-asti-vadin school’s, for the school considered that each ‘thing’ (物)appears when its function works. When the function is over, it passed. If the function is coming, it will arrive in the future. In other words, ‘things’(物) exist forever, but whether it appears or not depends on the function present. He arrived at this conclusion, Seng-Zhau was regarded as similar to Hinayana’s thought by preeminent monk of the Tang-Dynasty named Cheng-Guan. Also, the modern monk scholar Ien-Suen wrote that Seng-Zhau’s conclusion mixed the two school’s (Madhyamika and Sarva-asti-vadin). Futhermore, the current scholar Luo-Ien argues that Seng-Zhau’s ‘meta-foundation’ is in fact based on Sarva-asti-vadin . That is to say U-Bu-Qian-Lun(物不遷論) controversial chapter within Zhau-Lun is not a work of Madryamika school as previously understood. When Seng-Zhau wrote U-Bu-Qian-Lun, he opposed the opinion of inner presence in human beings. Why did he took the opposite idea as his theory’s foundation? It is held that, the members of Madhyamika are well versed in the thoughts of Sarva-asti-vadin, They agree Sarva-asti-vadin’s theory is imperfect, needs revision. Thus when he wrote his conclusion, he must have known it was similar to Sarva-asti-vadin’s theory. And why did he made such conclusion? I was interesting in finding out the following questions: Did the idea only belong to Sarva-asti-vadin school? Did other school especial Madhyamika have the same idea? If it had, how did they explain it? What’s the difference about it between Madhyamika and Sarva-asti-vadin ? the perspective of Madhyamika, how Seng-zhau to explain the idea? |
