08-禅宗

很多人一听说"早期佛教有禅法"，立刻想到的是禅宗：安静地坐着、话头、见性、"直指人心"。这个联想是可以理解的：禅宗的"禅"，字面上来自"禅那"（dhyāna，巴利语 jhāna），早期佛教里确实有禅那修行。但这个语源上的连接，掩盖了两者在修行目标、哲学预设、实践方法上的根本性差异。

Heinrich Dumoulin. Zen Buddhism: A History. Vol. 1: India and China. Trans. James W. Heisig and Paul Knitter. New York: Macmillan, 1994（Nanzan Studies in Religion and Culture；所据为此本，附中国北宗补编）。禅宗历史的权威英文通史，含达摩、惠能、唐宋各宗的详细记述。正文话头的英译括注 critical phrase 不出此书：该本自日文一系立名，作 wato、kanna-zen，critical phrase 该书零命中；此译法系英语禅学界通行者（Buswell 一系），正文照留而其所自志此。

神会的生卒，学界有两说并存，差着十四年。本书取 670—762 年，此说源出宗密所记，为汉语文献沿用最久的一种。两部旧传与之皆不合：《宋高僧传》卷八本传作上元元年（760）示灭，"受生九十三歲"，推之生于 668 年；《景德传灯录》卷五作"師於上元元年五月十三日中夜奄然而化。俗壽七十五"（T51 p.245a），推之生于 686 年。另一说作 684—758 年，英语学界多从之，McRae 前引二书即径作 Shen-hui (684—758)；其所据，McRae《The Northern School》(1986) 书内第 272 页注八自言"The dates given here for his life are based on information published in Japan just as this study goes to press"，是晚近新出的材料，本书未见其原件。两说所据的材料性质不同：前者出教内谱系的追记，后者若果出同时代的石刻，就史料层级论本该更硬。本书仍取前说，理由不在史料，在于两说至今谁也没能把对方的证据消化干净，而汉语读者手边的资料多按前说编次，改从后说反倒会让读者对不上号；此外，作者也乐意让这位一辈子在打官司的和尚多活几年。凡遇本书系年与英语论著相差十四年者，即此一处。

Robert H. Sharf. "Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience." Numen 42, no. 3 (1995): 228–283；机锋问答一层见书内 243 页：“this repertoire includes mastering vast selections from Zen koan collections and commentaries so as to be able to guide students through ritualized koan exchanges. Here too, prescriptive religious texts are treated not so much as practical guides for meditation, but rather as liturgies to be memorized for ritual performance.”同一层另见 John R. McRae. "Encounter Dialogue and the Transformation of the Spiritual Path in Chinese Ch'an." In Paths to Liberation: The Mārga and Its Transformations in Buddhist Thought, ed. Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Robert M. Gimello. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1992, pp. 339–369，书内 340 页断唐代的自发性只存于后世的神话意识，其记载当置于宋代已精确界定的仪轨语境中读。禅宗权威与机构表演的历史分析另见 Sharf. "The Zen of Japanese Nationalism." History of Religions 33, no. 1 (1993): 1–43；及 Sharf. "Experience." In Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Mark C. Taylor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, pp. 94–116.（须记一层负面所得：正文所列四项之中，此二文所论只及机锋问答与公案。Sharf 1995 通检 shout 零命中、stick 零命中、staff 一见而非此义，"把茶杯摔在地上"亦无；McRae 1992 同样不载棒喝。故正文已标明棒喝、沉默回应、日常禅意三项系本书循同一理路推及，不由此二文承担。）

Bernard Faure. The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991。序论书内第 10 页即立此判："Despite the claims of sudden or immediate/unmediated Chan, Chan masters were perceived as both masters in a spiritual hierarchy and mediators."；其推论一句尤关本节："immediacy is affirmed at the very historical moment when it is about to disappear, when mediations come to play an increasing role."（全书 mediation 一百零三见、immediacy 五十见，末章〈Epilogue〉终节即题〈The Paradoxes of Mediation〉，书内 314 页。）所谓多维度分析亦逐项可指：仪轨见第九章〈The Ritualization of Death〉与第十三章〈Ritual Antiritualism〉，性别见第十一章〈Images of Women〉诸节，身体见第七、八两章论舍利、肉身与顶相。

Dale S. Wright. Philosophical Meditations on Zen Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998（十章皆论黄檗希运《传心法要》，即《黃檗山斷際禪師傳心法要》一卷，唐河东裴休集并序，T2012A；裴休序自记会昌二年廉于钟陵、大中二年廉于宛陵两度迎请，“退而紀之十得一二”，署“唐大中十一年十一月初八日”。，二点验过）。须留意该书的立场与本节所述不同：其第四章题作 “LANGUAGE: the sphere of immediacy”（书内 63 页起）、第五章题作 “RHETORIC: the instrument of mediation”（书内 82 页起），全书主旨正是把禅的“直接性”看作由语言与修辞所构成，而非概念崩解之后所余。书内 70—71 页作：“Rather than being a limit that can be seen from the other side in ‘experience,’ language establishes this limit and holds the limit within it… they are never sufficiently separable that, from the side of experience, we could see how language has run up against its limits, without language already being there in the construction of those limits.”本节所述“概念框架崩溃、在那个瞬间直接照见本性”一说，另有来路，不出此书。

Hee-Jin Kim. Dōgen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen. Albany: SUNY Press, 2007.（道元禅学的详细研究）

语源一线：巴利语 jhāna 对梵语 dhyāna，见 T. W. Rhys Davids and William Stede (eds.). The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary，jhāna 条，题下即注"BSk. dhyāna"，并录觉音《清净道论》一五〇页的通俗释义"ārammaṇ'upanijjhānato paccanīka-jhāpanato vā jhānaṃ"（缘所缘而静虑、烧尽所对治，故名禅）。该条另有一句要紧的界定："Literally meditation. But it never means vaguely meditation. It is the technical term for a special religious experience, reached in a certain order of mental states. It was originally divided into four such states."，其下并列四禅次第。汉译一线见《翻譯名義集》卷四（T54, no. 2131）："禪那此云靜慮"，又引《大智度论》"秦言思惟修"，并列世间禅（根本四禅、四无量心、四无色定）与出世间禅诸目。惟差异一层不必外求，禅宗自己就把这个词改了定义。敦煌本《六祖坛经》（T48, no. 2007）："何名坐禪？此法門中一切無礙，外於一切境界上念不起為坐，見本性不亂為禪。何名為禪定？外離相曰禪，內不亂曰定……外禪內定，故名禪定。"；同篇前文并明拒静坐入定一路："此法門中坐禪，原不著心，亦不著淨，亦不言不動……若言看淨，人性本淨，為妄念故蓋覆真如"，又谓"若空心坐禪，即落無記空"。两造对读即见：巴利一线的禅那是有次第、有支分、可逐级判定的心的状态序列，汉地禅宗的禅则被重定义为对境不起念、见本性不乱的一种当下状态，且明白排斥以静坐澄心为务。本节所说的根本差异，指的正是这一层，不是说二者名号无关。