論儒佛交涉與宋代儒學復興--以智圓、契嵩、宗杲為例

Abstract

摘 要 宋代是儒學復興的時代，也是儒者排佛最劇烈的時期，同時也是士人參禪學佛以及儒佛交涉極為頻繁的時代。在儒佛頻繁的來往中，不但促進彼此思想的交流與融合，佛教徒也實質參與了宋學之開展的重要任務。 孤山智圓、明教契嵩、大慧宗杲這三位宋代高僧，不但是宋代天台宗、雲門宗、臨濟宗的重要大家，同時都具有極淵博的儒學涵養。他們的年代，分值宋代學術演變的三個重要階段，包括宋初尊儒復古、北宋中期古文運動達至顛峰而理學開始萌芽期、南宋理學成熟之前期的三個階段，其儒學思想不僅具體回應了當時的儒學復興，也與宋代學術思想的發展與演變密不可分。 就智圓的「尊儒復古」之儒學思想而言，除了「宗儒」、「尊孔」、「好古」之外，主要表現在「尊韓」、儒家之「道」與「道統」的提出、表彰《中庸》等三大點。就「尊韓」而言，智圓不僅表彰韓愈「以文扶儒道」的歷史成就，並繼承韓愈「文道合一」的思想，從而提出「宗古道以立言」的古文創作理論。且為了修正宋初的「文衰道弊」，他反對華而無根的雕章麗句，主張文章應具有「訓世」的實用價值。至於他的「道論」，主要以「五常」為立論核心。「五常」上通天道下達人事，既是立人之道，也是政治之術；既是性善之本，也是復性之工夫。其「道論」亦如「文論」，也特別強調「道」的實用意義，故明道以經世、明道以救世不僅是歷代聖賢的共同成就，也是捨我其誰的淑世責任。再就其「道統系譜」而論，主要以「堯、舜、禹、湯、文、武、周公、孔子、孟子、荀子、揚雄、王通、韓愈、柳宗元」為主。他認為孔子以後的傳道聖賢，都生於文衰道弊之亂世，他們都是亂世的時代領袖，其功業足堪列入聖賢的傳承，而其歷史智慧也能領導宋初的儒學復興與社會秩序之重建，故其儒學思想充滿了「致用」及以「外王」取勝的學術特色。 除此，智圓還以「中庸子」自號，以「過猶不及」的中道自惕，並以「中庸之道」來會通儒佛，以「中道」來平息佛門內部的空、有之爭。智圓豐富的儒學思想，不僅聞名於當世，也見證了宋初儒學蓄勢待發的活潑生命力。故論推動宋初儒學之復興，智圓的重要性不亞於柳開及穆脩等儒者。 至於明教契嵩的儒學成就，包括「非韓」、「道論」、「道統論」，乃至於闡述《中庸》等，幾乎都是立基於抗衡儒者的非毀佛教而產生。就契嵩「非韓」的形式方法而言，為了有力說服儒者其非韓的正確性與正當性，他廣引儒家經典為自己的論點作證明，並承接著韓愈所提出的「道論」、「道統論」、「性情論」等議題作深入探討。他將韓愈提出的學術課題帶回儒家經典之內來探討，不但呼應了北宋中期回歸儒典的學風，也將上述等哲學議題，指向回歸《中庸》、《易傳》、《孟子》、＜樂記＞等而探尋之先機。再就「非韓」的論述內容而言，契嵩以其飽含佛教素養的思惟方式，重新閱讀並詮釋理解儒家的經義，因而為韓愈所提出的諸多儒學議題，賦與了形而上的哲學思考。例如，他發揮《易經》的陰陽哲學，提出以「在陰陽而妙之者」的思惟內容，重新詮釋儒家的「道」；他還從《論語》、《孟子》、《中庸》、＜洪範＞的「中道」思想，提出以「中道皇極」作為聖聖相傳之道的核心思考。再就契嵩的調和思想而言，為了會通儒佛二家，他發揮了《中庸》的「至誠」之道，與佛教的「實性一相」、「萬物同一真性」、「法界常住、不增不減」等本體論相互會通，正式承認並宣示《中庸》的內聖哲學。其儒學思想不僅呼應了北宋中期的學術思潮，也開啟了北宋中期儒學形而上化的重要契機並與稍後的理學相呼應。 至於宗杲，則是一位活躍於士大夫間的著名禪師，二程的後學中，有不少人都是他的座上客。宗杲的禪門雖以接引參學悟道為目的，但在士大夫大量參禪與儒佛交遊的盛行風氣裡，其禪門形同時代之論壇，儒家之義理不斷的被談論，因此，宗杲的禪法大量吸收了儒家的義理，包括「韓愈參禪問道」、「一貫之道」、「朝聞道，夕死可矣」等話頭，而其禪門更是流行著各種「儒家公案」，包括孔子與曾子的對話，「唯」與「忠恕」的不同境界，還有「為學」與「為道」的不同論題。至於與宗杲交遊的理學家，其思想都烙印著大慧禪法的深刻影子，足見二教之交流對儒佛思想的影響。 孤山智圓、明教契嵩、大慧宗杲各自站在不同的歷史階段，具體回應宋學在各個時期的不同面貌，也各自扮演推動宋學之發展的不同角色。儒佛的交涉，不管是智圓尊儒復古的情懷，或契嵩抗衡儒學的護法思想，還是宗杲儒佛交遊的思想合流，都為宋學帶來不同階段的發展成果。三位大師豐富的儒學素養，確實為宋代儒學寫下精采的扉頁。

Abstract The Song dynasty saw a resurgence of Confucianism that was also marked by a strong antipathy towards Buddhism. And yet this period also saw a strong interest in Buddhism among the literati and constant interaction between Confucians and Buddhists. In addition to prompting exchanges and integration between these two systems, this interaction also opened the way for Buddhists to play an important role in the development of Song Neo-Confucianism. The three Song dynasty monks, Zhiyuan 智園, Qisong 契嵩, and Zonggao 宗杲, in addition to being important thinkers of the Tiantai 天台,宗 Yunmen 雲門宗, and Linji 臨濟宗schools of Buddhism, respectively, were also steeped in Confucian thought and traditions. The periods they lived in correspond to three important developments in the scholarship of the Song dynasty, namely the re-emphasis on classicism and Confucianism at the beginning of the dynasty, the birth of Neo-Confucianism at the height of the guwen 古文movement during the middle of the Northern Song, and the maturation of Neo-Confucian thought at the beginning of the Southern Song. The thought of these three monks in effect constituted a concrete response to the resurgence of Confucianism at the time and was closely connected with the development of thought during the Song dynasty. Zhiyuan’s idea of “respecting Confucianism and a return to antiquity”, Zhiyuan, in addition to being reflected by his emphasis on Confucian thought and enthusiasm for things classical, can be seen primarily in the importance he attached to Han Yu 韓愈, his notion of an orthodoxy 道統 embodying the dao 道, and the privileged position he gave to the text of the Doctrine of the Mean 中庸. Qisong’s accomplishments in terms of Confucianism, which included his criticism of Han Yu, his theory of dao and an orthodoxy, and his interpretation of the Doctrine of the Mean, were for the most part an attempt to overcome Confucian attacks on Buddhism. Zonggao, for his part, was a famous Chan monk who was also very active in literati circles, and many students of the Cheng brothers 二程 were associated with him. As such, Zonggao’s Chan teachings borrowed heavily from Confucian sources, and the thought Neo-Confucian scholars who were familiar with Zonggao were clearly influenced by his form of Chan philosophy. These three Buddhist monks lived at different periods and offered up responses to developments in thought systems during the Song dynasty and played different roles in promoting the development of the scholarship of the Song dynasty. The interaction between Confucianism and Buddhism embodied in the persons of these three monks steeped in Confucian traditions corresponded to different stages of development in thought during the Song dynasty and helped to enrich the Confucianism on the period.