朝鮮禪僧休靜及其《三家龜鑑》研究 ——十六世紀東亞世界中的朝鮮三教論

Abstract

本論文以十六世紀朝鮮佛教的存在樣態、休靜的法脈及思想問題意識為核心，綜合考察《三家龜鑑》的著述背景與目的、其引用文獻所呈現的當代朝鮮學術地形，以及休靜三教論的理論結構與思想意涵。十六世紀朝鮮在國家制度上全面刪除與佛教相關的條目，由此佛教的政治地位大幅削弱了。然而，佛教界內部持續展開自主性的活動，不僅建立起以禪宗為中心的修行體系，也伴隨佛書刊刻量的增加，展現出活躍的動態。在此時代生活的休靜，歷任了禪宗、教宗的判事，與士族階層的高位官僚及在野學人廣泛往來，深刻把握十六世紀朝鮮儒、佛、道三教學術思潮的構成。此種經驗促使休靜藉由《三家龜鑑》梳理當時思想界的紛擾，並以三教思想為途徑指引通往禪定的覺悟之道。 《三家龜鑑》由〈儒教〉、〈道教〉、〈佛教〉三篇構成，各篇的引用傾向與十六世紀朝鮮的思想格局有密切關係。《三家龜鑑》〈儒教〉篇不僅採錄《四書》的語句，亦包括朱熹《中庸章句》、蔡沈《書經集傳》、薛瑄《讀書錄》等在朝鮮廣為流行的朱子學核心文獻。又，〈儒教〉篇中屢次引用《明心寶鑑》一事，亦反映該書在朝鮮被重新編制為儒家倫理書的趨勢。其中，休靜特別關注《中庸》的「中」與朱子學的主敬工夫，進而提出反省「心」之「善惡之念」的工夫方法，可見其意在與當代儒者建立學術上的共鳴之處。 《三家龜鑑》〈道教〉篇除了《老子》、《莊子》之外，亦引述在佛教界廣為閱讀的《道家論辨牟子理惑論》、蒙山德異《直註道德經》等書。當時朝鮮知識分子閱讀道家經典時，多以林希逸《三子鬳齋口義》為重要詮釋依據，休靜亦受其影響。此外，休靜積極接納蒙山德異《直註道德經》中所展現的三教會通論，以此闡明三教的相互關係。他將道家之「道」轉化為「心」的作用加以說明，將「無為」重新詮釋為「虛心」，並強調遠離分別，體驗無善無惡的心體，反映出當時佛教界試圖理解道家思想、探索道佛融合的風氣。 《三家龜鑑》〈佛教〉篇則與臨濟禪的看話禪修行、提接法以及僧伽講學體系緊密相關，不僅引用《高峰禪要》、《大慧書狀》、《法集別行錄節要私記》、《禪源諸詮集都序》等的禪宗典籍，並兼取《圓覺經》、《華嚴經》等的教宗經典。休靜將〈佛教〉篇的內容分為「解」與「行」二部分，藉此說明由教義的知解開始，最終達至禪定境界的修行路線。換言之，休靜建立了「以禪為終極境界的禪教兼修」的結構，並試圖將其作為朝鮮僧伽教育的標準模式。 而休靜綜合〈儒教〉、〈道教〉、〈佛教〉三篇的內容，以「儒植根，老培根，釋拔根」之語，總結三教修行的互動關係與階序結構。儒家以善惡分別之上保持「中」，強調持敬與率性之修養；道家則使修行者遠離善惡之分別，進入「無念」、「虛心」的中階境界；佛家則超越一切知解、語言與分別識，實現「見性」的悟境。儒、道、佛三者皆以「心性」為主進行修養，最終超越三教文字的界限，抵達自在的禪定境界。 基於上述的分析，本論文將《三家龜鑑》的思想史意義歸納為以下三點：第一，《三家龜鑑》是立體地呈現十六世紀朝鮮學術動向的文獻，其記錄顯示朱子學的盛行、非主流知識群體的學術活動，以及佛教界相應的思想潮流。第二，休靜的三教論從佛教的立場出發，以「心」的作用重新詮釋儒家與道家的思想體系，並以禪宗超越三教的界線，提出會通之路。在以朱子學主流的時代中，休靜的論述展示佛教的自主性與思想深度，提出佛教的發展方向。第三，《三家龜鑑》基於朱子學、老莊思想與臨濟禪交錯的十六世紀朝鮮學術場域，提出不限於特定學派或宗派，可為諸修行者採用的修行指南，為東亞三教思想會通提供了可能的路徑。 綜上所述，本論文重新定位《三家龜鑑》在十六世紀東亞思想史上的角色與地位，並從新的視角闡明休靜如何以三教思想為基礎，構築其心性修行與悟境之體系。

This study focuses on the modes of existence of sixteenth-century Chosŏn Buddhism, the doctrinal lineage and intellectual concerns of Hyujeong, and conducts a comprehensive examination of the background and purpose of the Samgagwigam, the intellectual landscape of Chosŏn as revealed through its cited sources, and the theoretical structure and meaning of Hyujeong’s theory of the Three Teachings. In the sixteenth century, all government regulations related to Buddhism were removed from the state system, resulting in a marked decline in Buddhism’s political standing. Nevertheless, within the Buddhist community, autonomous religious activities continued to flourish: a practice system centered on the Linji lineage of Chan was established, and the printing of Buddhist texts increased significantly. Living in this period, Hyujeong served as adjudicator (p’ansa) of both the Chan (Sŏn) and doctrinal (Kyo) traditions, and maintained wide-ranging interactions with high-ranking officials of the scholar-aristocracy as well as with independent literati. Through these experiences, he gained an incisive understanding of the intellectual trends of the Three Teachings—Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism—in sixteenth-century Chosŏn. Such insight motivated him to use the Samgagwigam to clarify the conceptual turbulence of his time and to employ the teachings of the Three Traditions as a guide toward the awakened state of meditative concentration. The Samgagwigam consists of three chapters—“Confucianism,” “Daoism,” and “Buddhism”—each reflecting citation patterns closely tied to the intellectual configuration of sixteenth-century Chosŏn. The Confucian chapter cites not only passages from the Four Books but also key Zhu Xi–school texts widely circulated in Chosŏn, such as Zhu Xi’s Zhongyong zhangju, Cai Shen’s Shujing jizhuan, and Xue Xuan’s Dushulu. The repeated citation of the Mingxin baojian also reflects the way this text was repackaged and received as an ethical manual within Chosŏn Confucianism. Hyujeong paid special attention to the doctrine of “centrality” (zhong) in the Doctrine of the Mean and to Zhu Xi’s discipline of “reverential mindfulness” (zhujing). On this basis, he proposed practical methods for examining the “good and evil thoughts” arising in the mind, demonstrating his intention to establish an intellectual resonance with contemporary Confucian scholars. The Daoist chapter cites not only the Laozi and Zhuangzi, but also works widely read in the Buddhist community, such as the Daojia lunbian Mouzi lihuo lun and Mengshan Deyi’s Zhizhu Daodejing. At the time, Chosŏn literati commonly relied on Lin Xi-yi’s Sanzi yanjhai kouyi as a major interpretive framework for Daoist classics, and Hyujeong was similarly influenced. Moreover, he actively adopted the syncretic Three-Teachings perspective expressed in Mengshan Deyi’s Zhizhu Daodejing to elucidate the interrelationship among the three traditions. He reinterpreted the Daoist notion of “Dao” as the functioning of “mind,” explained “non-action” (wuwei) as “emptiness of mind,” and emphasized the experience of a mind free from discrimination—beyond good and evil. These features reflect the broader trend within the Buddhist community to understand Daoist thought and explore resonances between Daoism and Buddhism. The Buddhist chapter is closely related to Linji Chan practices such as kanhwa meditation, the techniques of spiritual guidance (tichie), and the institutional system of monastic teaching and study. It draws upon major Chan texts including the Gaofeng chan’ao, Dahui shuzhuang, Faji biehanglu jieyao siji, and Chanyuan zhuquan ji duxu, while also citing doctrinal scriptures such as the Yuanjue jing and the Huayan jing. Hyujeong divides this chapter into two parts—“Understanding” and “Practice”—describing a path that begins with doctrinal comprehension and culminates in the attainment of meditative concentration. In so doing, he established a structure of “combined cultivation of Chan and Doctrine with Chan as the ultimate goal,” seeking to use this framework as a standard model for monastic education in Chosŏn. Synthesizing the content of the three chapters on Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, Hyujeong summarizes the sequential and interrelated structure of the Three Teachings with the phrase “Confucianism plants the root, Daoism nurtures the root, Buddhism extracts the root.” Confucianism preserves centrality through moral discernment, emphasizing reverential mindfulness and the cultivation of one’s natural endowment; Daoism guides practitioners beyond distinctions of good and evil to reach the intermediate state of “no-thought” and “empty mind”; Buddhism transcends all conceptualization, language, and discriminative consciousness, culminating in the realization of “seeing one’s true nature.” All three traditions are grounded in the cultivation of “mind-nature,” ultimately surpassing textual boundaries to arrive at a liberated state of meditative absorption. Based on the above analysis, the intellectual-historical significance of the Samgagwigam may be summarized in three points. First, it provides one of the most multidimensional portrayals of sixteenth-century Chosŏn intellectual life, documenting the dominance of Zhu Xi learning, the activities of non-mainstream scholarly groups, and the Buddhist community’s corresponding discourses. Second, Hyujeong’s theory of the Three Teachings reinterprets Confucian and Daoist thought systems from a Buddhist standpoint—through the functioning of mind—and presents a path of integration that transcends the distinctions among the traditions through Chan practice. In an era dominated by Zhu Xi orthodoxy, Hyujeong’s arguments display the autonomy and intellectual depth of Buddhism and articulate a direction for its development. Third, grounded in a sixteenth-century scholarly environment where Zhu Xi learning, Daoist thought, and Linji Chan intersected, the Samgagwigam offers a practical guide to cultivation that is not restricted to any single school or tradition, thereby opening a possible path for the convergence of East Asian Three-Teachings thought. In conclusion, this study repositions the Samgagwigam within the intellectual history of sixteenth-century East Asia and clarifies, from a new perspective, how Hyujeong constructed his system of mind-nature cultivation and enlightenment on the foundation of the Three Teachings.