薩卡的密宗：超然實踐的比較與歷史回顧

Abstract

本研究分兩個部分。相較於密宗古魯（Sadguru）薩卡（Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar，又名Shrii Shrii Anandamurti）的脈絡化通史，第一部分進行怛特羅哲學（Tantric philosophy）的去脈絡化歷史研究。薩卡將濕婆密宗（Shiva Tantra）定義為始於西元前五五○○年、以解放人性（anthropic）意識為目標的超然實踐（transcendental praxis），怛特羅意識形態的當代詮釋深受其影響。第一部分將經典密宗常見的定義、歷史與目標，與薩卡詮釋下的濕婆密宗做比較；第二部分是東西超然實踐的脈絡化思維比較。薩卡的宇宙觀與心靈因果論與唯物物理有概念上的不同。標準化專有名詞的引介有助於在物質與超然宇宙觀的宏觀環境之中，針對二元論（duality）、一元論（monism）、意識與無限等的研究。最後，薩卡的密宗靜坐（sādhanā）與奉獻（bhakti）可分別與胡塞爾（Edmund Husserl）的超然還原（transcendental reduction or epoche）與蘇格拉底（Socrates）的愛洛斯（eros）作比較。本研究整體上有一個目標：闡釋靜坐的客觀解放（moksa）如何深受靜坐的止性或精神客體影響。 薩卡的密宗論述是公開的；然而，密宗靜坐的學習仰賴精神嚮導（Tántrikii diikśá）。薩卡於《密宗論述》（Discourses on Tantra）第二冊為密宗提供定義：「怛（tan）即『擴展』，特羅（tra）即『解放者』；密宗即為藉由擴展——擴展心靈，擴展存在——而解放修行者的科學」。（頁二十二） 本研究除闡釋密宗之外，首要主題是結合薩卡的理論與實踐，亦即拉森（Gerald Larson）所言「南亞研究中兩個極度令人困惑但又重要的詞，……『瑜珈』（yoga）與『怛特羅』」，兩者的共同核心為「自我（ātman）或心靈（citta）的研究」。（頁四八七） 本研究的引言綜述密宗為何、針對怛特羅瑜珈脈絡化與去脈絡的化印度學研究之急迫需求，以及修改印度神秘主義史的迫切性。本研究接著強調認知研究（cognitive studies）中，深諳靜坐與分析研究的修行研究者之重要性。第一章說明薩卡將密宗定義為苦行，以抗衡其為二元悖論享樂主義的常見誤解。第二章質疑吠陀哲學（Vedanta）與密宗瑜珈的爭論性歷史，並提出濕婆密宗始於西元前約五五○○年的觀點；本研究將梨俱吠陀（Rg̟ Veda）的證據和薩卡的分析，與廣為接受的西元前三○○年的起始時間做比較。第三、四章呈現薩卡的濕婆學，公開薩卡關於密宗與其始祖濕婆的獨特知識。薩卡對密宗節慶與神祇的歷史研究，提供濕婆密宗經採用、融合與變形而成為秘密大乘佛教（Vajrayana or Tantric Buddhism）的學術基礎。 相較於西方的超然論，本研究第二部分聚焦於薩卡的密宗與靜坐實踐，並在此引介新的學術用詞——「後設自我性」（metaseity），以結合真實無限、絕對真空、無條件真空（nirguńa）與道（śūnyatā）等跨領域概念。第五章將笛卡兒（Rene Descartes）的二元論與超然一元論作比較，以呈現物理學家想像的物質無限與超然無限。第六章詳述薩卡的心靈因果論以探究靜坐的客體與目標，並接著詳述密宗與佛教論述中的有條件出神（savikalpa）與無條件出神（nirvikalpa samādhi）。第七章將柏拉圖的《饗宴篇》（Symposium）和神媒狄奧提瑪（Diotima）的愛洛斯，與古希臘巫覡（iatromantis）巴門尼德（Parmenides）連結起來；後者的一元論與蘇格拉底的愛洛斯亦與密宗的奉獻有關。第八章討論薩卡的心靈抽離（pratyāhāra）對胡塞爾的現象學（phenomenology）與少為人理解的超然還原之重要性，二者之間的關連有助於自我性（ipseity）——即超然自我——的怛特羅分析。第九章為本研究的結論，重述薩卡兩位資深修行者關於靜坐的客體與無條件出神經驗的教學。

This study has two main divisions. Part One is an etic historiography of Tantra contrasted with the Tantric Sadguru Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar’s (Shrii Shrii Anandamurti) emic chronology. Contemporary exegeses of Tantric ideology are contextualized by Sarkar’s formal definition of Shiva Tantra as a 5500 BCE transcendental praxis leading to the liberation of anthropical consciousness. The introduction of standardized nomenclature facilitates researching duality, monism, consciousness, and infinity in the macro-environment of material and transcendental cosmology. Part One compares the commonly accepted definition, history, and aims of Classical Tantra with Sarkar’s exegesis of Shiva Tantra. Part Two is an emic hodology of transcendental praxes. Sarkar’s cosmology and causal theory of mind are ontologically differentiated from materialism. Finally, Sarkar’s Tantric sādhanā (meditation) and bhakti (devotion) are, respectively, compared to Husserl’s Transcendental Reduction and Socratic eros. The primary objective of this study is to elucidate how a meditator's quest for spiritual liberation ‘mok̟sa’ is profoundly impacted by cessative or numinous objects of meditation. Sarkar’s discourses on Tantric philosophy are public, but instruction in his Tantric meditation requires initiation ‘Tántrikii diikśá.’ Sarkar defines Tantra in Discourses on Tantra Volume 2: “Tan means “to expand” and tra means “liberator,” so the science that frees the aspirant from the fetters of bondages by expansion — by expanding the mind, by expanding the existence – is Tantra” (22). This study’s major theme, complementing its elucidation of Tantric meditation, is the convergence of Sarkar’s theory and praxis in what Gerald Larson states are “two of the most puzzling yet important terms in South Asian studies, . . . ‘yoga’ and ‘tantra’” whose nexus is “the study of the self (ātman) and mind (citta)” (487). The introduction overviews Tantra and discusses the critical need for emic and etic Indological studies of Tantra-Yoga. The importance of practitioner-researchers disciplined in both meditation and analytic research for comparative studies of consciousness is examined. Sarkar’s causal model of mind informs the terminology of this work. Metaseity, a new term introduced here, unites interdisciplinary concepts of t rue infinity, absolute void, nirguńa, śūnyatā, and Tao. Chapter 2 investigates Sarkar’s explication of tantric ascesis to counter Tantra's misconstruction as antinomian hedonism. Chapter 3 questions received histories of Vedanta and Tantra-Yoga, arguing Shiva Tantra arose in 5500 BCE. The evidence of the Rg̟ Veda and Sarkar’s explications are juxtaposed against the widely accepted 300 BCE date. Chapters 4 and 5 present Sarkar’s Shivology, detailing Sarkar’s unique knowledge of Tantra and its first Sadguru. Shiva Tantra’s transformation into Vajrayána Buddhism and other pan-Indian traditions vis-à-vis its adoption, integration, and distortion is contextualized by Sarkar’s historiography of Tantric festivals and deities. Part Two of this study focuses on Sarkar’s Tantra and meditative praxes compared to Western transcendentalism. Chapter 6 contrasts Cartesian duality to transcendental monism and compares physicists’ notions of material infinity to transcendental infinity. Chapter 7 investigates the object and objective of meditation, followed by Tantric and Buddhist accounts of savikalpa and nirvikalpa samādhi. Chapter 8 discusses the significance of Sarkar’s pratyāhāra to an evolution of Husserl’s Phenomenology and poorly understood Transcendental Reduction. This informs a Tantric analysis of ipseity — the transcendental self. Chapter 9 correlates Plato’s Symposium and the eros of the seer Diotima with the Iatromantis, Parmenides. The latter’s monism and Socratic eros is adduced to Tantric bhakti (devotion). Chapter 10 summarizes the major findings of a practitioner-research based study of Sarkar’s Tantra and transcendental philosophy.