四、结语
　　僧肇〈物不迁论〉成了现代佛学研究的一个公案，学者们从不同角度来探讨这篇论作，或给与称颂，或加以批判，可证知理解此论的复杂性。将时间往前推，明末的镇澄应是历史上最早质疑〈物不迁论〉的人，他的论辩缜密，引据赅博，以致当时佛教大师如云栖株宏、紫柏真可、憨山德清等不得不起而回应其说。莲池大师指出〈物不迁论〉是对俗而谈，顺着一般人的观念和用语来论说，以扭转他们的错误见解，其中含有方便的成分，所以非难此论的人并非完全没有文字上的根据。但〈物不迁论〉不能作单独的理解，须配合《肇论》中的其它三篇，始可掌握僧肇立论的真正意旨。紫柏老人的响应富有禅人的趣味，提出实践体悟的重要性，以〈物不迁论〉的批评者和维护者都非亲证圣境的人，他们的言论往还不过是戏论罢了！依他的看法，欲了知事物的迁动与否，最根本的方法就是证入无生之境。憨山大师的解释立场跳脱表面字义的局限，直陈僧肇这篇论作的根本思想，他的诠解明确而直接。他强调〈物不迁论〉指向诸法「当体之实相」，以般若智慧来观照缘生性空的一切万法，则法法当体本来就是不迁的。

　　《肇论》诸篇的论说精辟，唯独〈物不迁论〉可谓大醇而小庛，部份文字或有表意上的问题，但深悟性空之旨的僧肇当不会以实有论来观看世间诸法。因此，纯粹从语言文献或逻辑思辩的层面来非难〈物不迁论〉，挑剔部份内容的表面字义问题，虽非全无根据，却有以部份来概括全篇之嫌，且该部份恐非全篇的立论核心所在。莲池、紫柏和憨山三位大师皆未执着文字的浅层意义，他们确信僧肇悟入实相，撰述的旨趣不会与空宗教义相左，也从这个较为全面的视角来阐释〈物不迁论〉。三位大师的诠释立场并不完全一致，理解的内容有共通点，也各有独到之处，他们都努力于掌握僧肇立论的根本精神，于〈物不迁论〉的阅读来说，有着某种提示作用。

Hinayana or Mahayana ?
Analyzing the interpretive positions of
the three masters of the late Ming on Things Do Not Move
Huang Kuo-ching

Assistant Researcher,

Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies

Summary
　　Seng-zhao has been honored as being the "best Chinese interpreter of wunyata" and having a profound understanding of prajba and emptiness, as shown in the Book of Zhao, which is his interpretation of the scriptures expounding emptiness.  However, the T'ang Dynasty monk Cheng-guan criticized as "essentially Hinayanist" the viewpoint of Seng-zhao's essay Things Do Not Move that “the natures of things exist in a single moment".  Kong-yin Zhen-cheng of the late Ming criticized it as a non-Buddhist heresy, and many contemporary scholars also doubt whether it matches the doctrine of emptiness.  In this paper I will analyze the positions taken on Seng-zhao's Things Do Not Move by the "three masters of the late Ming," Yun-qi Zhu-hong, Zi-bo Zhen-ke, and Han-shan De-qing.  I will show that they refrain from fixating on the phraseology of individual sections, but interpret the contents of Things Do Not Move from a relatively comprehensive perspective and with an eye to exploring the fundamental spirit of the text.  Zhu-hong emphasized that the essay was written in response to conventional understandings of the Dharma, rather than as a direct manifestation of the meaning of emptiness, and thus embodies elements of skillful means.  He felt that Things Do Not Move should be read in conjunction with the three other essays in the Book of Zhao.  Zi-bo felt that contemporary figures on both sides of the dispute about Seng-zhao’s interpretation lacked profound understanding, and he criticized their arguments as superficial, suggesting instead that one could only appreciate the Seng-zhao’s inspired words through self-cultivation.  Han-shan specifically pointed out that the ultimate truth of all the dharmas was the import not only of this one essay, but the Book of Zhao as a whole.  The three masters’ interpretations have points of commonality, yet each is unique and can be used to appreciate the differences of their approaches and the complexities of the original text.

Key words: 1. Things Do Not Move　2. late Ming Dynasty debate regarding Things Do Not Move　3. Yun-qi Zhu-hong　4. Zi-bo Zhen-ke　5. Han-shan De-qing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

批注
 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [1][1] 佛教论书有释经论和宗经论之分。释经论，是依经文次第解说的，如《大智度论》与《十住毘婆沙论》。宗经论，是依一经或多经而论究法义，如《中论》。参见释印顺：《空之探究》（台北：正闻，1985），页209。
 

 [2][2] 据牧田谛亮的统计，中、日两地历代为《肇论》所作注疏计存者十种，佚失者十三种。参见氏着：《中国佛教史研究》（东京：大东，1981），册1，页85～页96。
 

 [3][3] 见汤用彤：《汉魏两晋南北朝佛教史》（台北：商务，1968年台版），上册，页333。
 

 [4][4] 《高僧传．释僧肇传》记载僧肇先撰〈般若无知论〉、次作〈不真空论〉与〈物不迁论〉，最后作〈涅盘无名论〉。（《大正藏》卷50，页365上～下）与现行本《肇论》次序不同。冢本善隆指出《出三藏记集》卷12的陆澄《法论目录》与《高僧传．释僧肇传》皆将四论作个别的排列，可能是在南朝梁、陈时代由三论宗学人编纂为现行本《肇论》的次第，也许是陈代小招提寺的慧达将四篇论作编纂在一起。见〈佛教史上肇论意义〉，收于冢本善隆编：《肇论研究》（京都：法藏馆，1955），页102～页121。