《老子》與《中論》之哲學比較──以語言策略、對反思維與有無觀為線索

Abstract

《老子》和《中論》分別是道家與佛教的重要典籍，本文即藉由二書之比較，來探討其間的異同，乃分別就語言策略、對反思維以及有無觀三個課題作探討。 對《老子》和《中論》而言，道及空性皆是不可言說的，因而其試著以一定的言說策略來因應此不可說。而語言策略所回應的不可說，就《老子》而言，可關乎世間對反關係的微妙運作；就《中論》來說，乃是涅槃空性之雙遮二邊、超脫一切分別思維。其中可從「有無」之對反概念，進一步看出其哲學觀點與關注課題之差異。如此，語言策略、對反思維以及有無觀三個線索，可統貫為本文探討兩本哲學典籍的主軸。以下除首、末兩章外，逐章說明本文比較所得之綱要。 在第二章語言策略部份，《老子》與《中論》的語言策略分別可以正反對演與立破兼施作為理解的方式。於此正反對演與立破兼施的言說策略，可歸納出四點共通處，分別為：一．兩者語言策略皆為回應不可說；二．在語言策略的視域下，皆顯示說與不說的微妙與弔詭；三．兩者之語言策略皆具有動態、靈巧之特質；四．策略詭奇之運用易於引起誤解。關於這些共通性其中可能的意義，在本章裡也進行了討論。 在第三章對反思維部份，本文指出，對於世間的對反概念，《老子》與《中論》分別提出兩種不同因應的方式。如就《老子》而言，萬物皆由兩對立面相依而成，此兩面會往其對立面轉化，而互有損益、消長；因此，如何在這些兩兩對立的世間中進退得度、取得平衡，並得以保全長生、無為而無不為，應是其所關心的。《中論》卻從對反二邊相即相離、雙是雙非的思路中，使揚棄一切二元性思維。由此可知，同樣面對世間相對二法，《老子》和《中論》提供了兩種迥然不同的理論模型，恰可作為對照。在本章第三節中，即對諸多相異處作出對比，包括兩者在對反語詞定位、用法上的不同，以及運思模式、中道思想上的差異，乃至二者重整體、重分析以及重批判、重和諧之別等方面的相互對比，來顯示出兩者間的區別。 在第四章有無觀部份，《老子》視有無為天地萬物之本，要人從玄之又玄的有無兩者，去洞觀道的深意，使能在此人世間保全長生；相對於此，《中論》卻以有無二見為顛倒妄執之顯現，並從有無二見的徹底破除，走向涅槃解脫的境地。對於兩者不同的有無觀，在本章第三節分別從有無的用法、有無觀背後的理論基礎以及其間的實踐性意涵，此三方面作出比較，其中涉及道家消長律與佛教因緣法的探討。

藉由本文之對比，雖然得知《老子》和《中論》皆以「善說」來回應不可說，也皆著重靈動、無執與善巧的語言策略來展現智慧；但同時也得知兩者在思想、智慧的特點及根本處上，有著實質的差異。換言之，兩者除了在「思想形式」上有些許相近之處，其「思想特點」及「思想基礎」卻大有所別；而藉由《老子》和《中論》兩本典籍的比較，可推斷出中國道家與印度佛教的思想核心原是南轅北轍的。其中《老子》象徵中國哲學的思想傳統，與莊、易二書合稱三玄，而開展出陰陽、有無等的兩儀、兩極、兩全或兩行之道，重視兩兩關係間的變化、辯證以及和諧、統一等。而《中論》上承阿含、般若等思想，表達印度佛學中道不二的意旨，使能捨離二邊而從苦難中解脫。就此而言，老學及道家哲學的兩兩、兩儀之道，與中觀學和佛教思想的不二中道、不二法門，各自成為不同面向的智慧典範。 總之，本文以《老子》與《中論》為依據，溯源於老子和龍樹的哲學，從中探究道、佛思想的基本觀點與洞見，可發現道家、道教的始祖老子，與素稱「佛陀第二」、「八宗共祖」的龍樹，兩者思想有實質的差異，乃分別指引人走向長生久視或寂滅無生的路，而各自開創一片境地。儘管如此，兩者也在因緣際會下，跨越時空，於中國這塊土地相遇，並在後人牽針引線與創新繼承中，共同影響中國佛教的發展。

Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika are two important classics of Daoism and Buddhism respectively. This study compares the two texts in terms of the following three topics: Linguistic Strategy, Oppositional Thinking, and the Viewpoint of Being(you) and Non-being(wu). According to Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika, the meaning of ‘The Way’ (Dao) and ‘Emptiness’ (wunyata) cannot be fully expressed in words, yet both texts employ certain linguistic strategies by which they convey the inexpressible. To Laozi the inexpressible could be ascribed to the subtlety of the operation of opposites. To Mulamadhyamakakarika on the other hand, one of the reasons that Emptiness is inexpressible is because it transcends all dualistic thinking. By looking at the two opposites of being and non-being, we can further distinguish differing viewpoints and pivotal subjects from the two scriptures. The clues of linguistic strategy, oppositional thinking, and the viewpoint of being and non-being, therefore, constitute the axis of my discussion of the two classics. In what follows, I shall briefly list the conclusions from this research as contained in chapters 2 to 4. In chapter 2, I take the contrasting methods of recto/verso and confirmation/negation to be the linguistic strategies employed by Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika. From this I conclude that four similarities can be distinguished from their usage: firstly, both of strategies are responses to the ineffable Dao and wunyata; secondly, both reveal the paradoxical trickiness between expressible and non-expressible in terms of use of strategies; thirdly, both linguistic strategies display dynamics and ingenuity; and lastly, the ingenious application of these strategies at times causes a certain degree of misunderstanding. In chapter 3, I point out that Laozi and Mulamadhyamakakarika take entirely different standpoints with regard to the worldly oppositional concepts. In Laozi, the universe consists of dualistic components which stand in opposition to each other. While constantly changing, each of these oppositional factors remains subject to the vicissitudes of growth and decline between itself and its opposite. The questions of how to maintain balance in this dualistic world so as to save ourselves from decay, how to attain immortality, and how to accomplish everything without action are Laozi’s main philosophical concerns. By contrast, Mulamadhyamakakarika aims to get beyond all duality by way of examining identity/confirmation and difference/negation between oppositional sides. Hence, it is clear that the two scriptures develop vastly differing theoretical models with which to view the worldly opposites. In chapter 4, I take the oppositional terms of being (you) and non-being (wu) as instances of comparison. Laozi views you and wu as the origins of all things in the universe and advises us to pierce through the mysterious Dao by observing the profundity of you and wu in order to realize an everlasting life. By contrast, Mulamadhyamakakarika considers the views of being and non-being as manifestations of mental attachment. To realize nirvana will require the eradication of these two views. In section 3, I compare these two vastly differing viewpoints of being and non-being, including their usage, theoretical foundation, and practical implications, involving the discussion of the Daoist law of vicissitudes and Buddhist theory of dependent arising (pratitya-samutpada) . Though both classics reveal skillful ways of responding to the inexpressible and laying emphasis on the flexibility, detachment, and ingenuity of linguistic strategy, at the same time we find that their foundations of thought and wisdom are quite divergent. By contrasting these two scriptures, we discover that the core philosophies of Chinese Daoism and Indian Buddhism are diametrically opposed. Laozi represents the tradition of Chinese Philosophy which, along with Zhuangzi and Yi embodied in the thought of ‘Three Profound Books’, puts forward a kind of dualistic philosophy that emphasizes change, dialectic, harmony and unity of the opposites. Mulamadhyamakakarika, however, follows the philosophy of the Agama and Prajbaparamita sutras and propounds the pursuit of liberation through eradicating attachment to dualistic concepts by way of the Indian Buddhist Philosophical systems of Non-Duality and the Middle Way. Hence, early Daoism and Buddhism are proved to be two dissimilar models of wisdom. In sum, having investigated the fundamental insights of Daoism and Buddhism via the philosophical systems of Laozi, as the first patriarch of Daoism, and Nagarjuna, as the ‘second Buddha’ or the ‘common patriarch of Chinese Buddhism’, this study concludes that these two philosophers propose two totally different philosophical views which shed light on the divergent goals of attaining a long life and attaining nirvana respectively. Through the inheritance of later generations, however, the two systems meet and converge on the Chinese mainland to shape the overall trend of Chinese Buddhism.