南北朝形神之辩与先秦道家
摘要
南北朝是佛教崛起、完成本土化的重要时期,由此引起了哲学史上比较集中的形神之辩。南北朝形神之辩主要是在佛教与中国传统的儒道哲学之间进行的,本文要论述的是这一时期佛道两家形神之辩与先秦道家的关系。
南北朝形神之辩主要发生在南朝,从晋宋之际至梁朝是其重点,主要人物有牟子、慧远、何承天、宗炳、郑鲜之、范缜等。北朝佛教传播的特点是重禅修而轻理论,形神之辩代表性的人物是杜弼与邢邵。本文以神灭派和神不灭派双方代表性人物为主要线索,着重阐发双方在论辩形神关系时对先秦道家思想的继承与利用。神灭派所持论点主要析取了先秦道家“道”本原论、气一元论、天道自然论,但其不足之处是,虽然认为神也是气,但以形神为二,不能有效地反对神不灭派形粗神妙观点。在缺点不断暴露的情况下,至梁朝范缜彻底对形神观加以改造,提出“形神相即”、“形质神用”的命题。神不灭派以佛教神不灭论为基础,而重点借用先秦道家思想对其进行加工,利用老庄等重神轻形以及由此导致的神不灭论的倾向,来说明形神为异、形粗神妙。同时他们也以先秦道家的本体论、本原论为范本,努力提高神的地位,逐步使神抽象化,成为脱离形体的超验存在。形神之辩的交结点是《庄子》的薪火之喻,双方在薪火之喻上的交锋集中反映了他们理论的进展状况。
The South—North Dynasties were important period that Buddhism emerged, finished the localization, therefore caused the concentrating debating of relation between shape and spirit in the philosophy history. The debating of the relation between shape and spirit in the South—North Dynasties was mainly carried on among Buddhism and a philosophy of China's traditional Confucianism and Taoism, this text expounds the fact is views of the relation between shape and spirit of Buddhism and Taoism of the pre-Qin period.In the South-North Dynasties, the debating of the relation between shape and spirit mainly took place in the South Dynasties, Song, Qi, Liang should be paid more attention on. Not Mou Zi, Hui Yuan, He ChengTian , Zong Bing, but Fan Zheng were intelligent personages. In North Dynasties, Buddhists paid more attention on how to do than on theory, the representatives are Du Bi and Xing Shao. The paper's clue is persons of both sides, and we paid attention to explain the both sides how to inherit and develop Taoist's theories of the relation between shape and spirit. Philosophers who kept that spirit must die out expressing a view and extracting a natural theory of monism of air, it taking Dao as highest noumenon of Taoism of the pre-Qin period more mainly a bit, but its weak point is, though think that spirit's essence is air, spirit and shape are two things, can't object to the view that shape is coarse and spirit is fine effectively. In a situation that the shortcoming was exposed constantly, in Liang Dynasty, Fan Zhen transformed the view of the relation between shape and spirit, proposed the proposition that "Shape and spirit are not depart from each other", "Shape is essence and spirit is function"; Philosophers who kept that spirit never dies out went from Buddhism, and used the thought of Taoism of the pre-Qin period and process it especially, utilized the theories of Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi, etc. that valued spirit more than shape, and obvious thought spirit does not die out, to proved shape and spirit are different, shape is coarse and spirit is fine. At the same time they studied ontology of Taoism of the pre-Qin period as the model, made great efforts to improve spirit's status, made spirit to be abstract to take progressively. The debating of the relation between shape and spirit jointed with the trope of firewood and fire in Zhuang zi, their explanations of the trope is a concentrated reflection of their progress state.
南北朝形神之辩主要发生在南朝,从晋宋之际至梁朝是其重点,主要人物有牟子、慧远、何承天、宗炳、郑鲜之、范缜等。北朝佛教传播的特点是重禅修而轻理论,形神之辩代表性的人物是杜弼与邢邵。本文以神灭派和神不灭派双方代表性人物为主要线索,着重阐发双方在论辩形神关系时对先秦道家思想的继承与利用。神灭派所持论点主要析取了先秦道家“道”本原论、气一元论、天道自然论,但其不足之处是,虽然认为神也是气,但以形神为二,不能有效地反对神不灭派形粗神妙观点。在缺点不断暴露的情况下,至梁朝范缜彻底对形神观加以改造,提出“形神相即”、“形质神用”的命题。神不灭派以佛教神不灭论为基础,而重点借用先秦道家思想对其进行加工,利用老庄等重神轻形以及由此导致的神不灭论的倾向,来说明形神为异、形粗神妙。同时他们也以先秦道家的本体论、本原论为范本,努力提高神的地位,逐步使神抽象化,成为脱离形体的超验存在。形神之辩的交结点是《庄子》的薪火之喻,双方在薪火之喻上的交锋集中反映了他们理论的进展状况。
The South—North Dynasties were important period that Buddhism emerged, finished the localization, therefore caused the concentrating debating of relation between shape and spirit in the philosophy history. The debating of the relation between shape and spirit in the South—North Dynasties was mainly carried on among Buddhism and a philosophy of China's traditional Confucianism and Taoism, this text expounds the fact is views of the relation between shape and spirit of Buddhism and Taoism of the pre-Qin period.In the South-North Dynasties, the debating of the relation between shape and spirit mainly took place in the South Dynasties, Song, Qi, Liang should be paid more attention on. Not Mou Zi, Hui Yuan, He ChengTian , Zong Bing, but Fan Zheng were intelligent personages. In North Dynasties, Buddhists paid more attention on how to do than on theory, the representatives are Du Bi and Xing Shao. The paper's clue is persons of both sides, and we paid attention to explain the both sides how to inherit and develop Taoist's theories of the relation between shape and spirit. Philosophers who kept that spirit must die out expressing a view and extracting a natural theory of monism of air, it taking Dao as highest noumenon of Taoism of the pre-Qin period more mainly a bit, but its weak point is, though think that spirit's essence is air, spirit and shape are two things, can't object to the view that shape is coarse and spirit is fine effectively. In a situation that the shortcoming was exposed constantly, in Liang Dynasty, Fan Zhen transformed the view of the relation between shape and spirit, proposed the proposition that "Shape and spirit are not depart from each other", "Shape is essence and spirit is function"; Philosophers who kept that spirit never dies out went from Buddhism, and used the thought of Taoism of the pre-Qin period and process it especially, utilized the theories of Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi, etc. that valued spirit more than shape, and obvious thought spirit does not die out, to proved shape and spirit are different, shape is coarse and spirit is fine. At the same time they studied ontology of Taoism of the pre-Qin period as the model, made great efforts to improve spirit's status, made spirit to be abstract to take progressively. The debating of the relation between shape and spirit jointed with the trope of firewood and fire in Zhuang zi, their explanations of the trope is a concentrated reflection of their progress state.
引文
1.王弼.诸子集成(第三册).老子注[M].北京:中华书局,1954.
2.陈鼓应.老子注译及评介[M].北京:中华书局,1984.
3.庄子著,郭象注,成玄英疏.南华真经注疏[M].北京:中华书局,1998.
4.上海古籍出版社.二十二子[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1986.
5.曾传辉主编.黄帝四经今译[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1996.
6.[梁]释僧祐.弘明集[C].大正新修大藏经.台北新文丰出版公司影印本:金陵刻经处本:上海古籍出版社1991年据《影印宋碛砂版大藏经》影印本.
7.[唐]释道宣.广弘明集[C].大正新修大藏经.台北新文丰出版公司影印本:上海古籍出版社1991年据《影印宋碛砂版大藏经》影印本.
8.[梁]沈约.宋书[M].北京:中华书局,1974.
9.[唐]姚思廉.梁书[M].北京:中华书局,1973.
10.[唐]李百药.北齐书[M].北京:中华书局,1972.
11.[梁]释慧皎.高僧传[M].北京:中华书局,1992.
12.[梁]释僧祐.出三藏记集[M].北京:中华书局,1995.
13.孙以楷、李霞等.道家与中国哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,2004.
14.孙以楷、陈广忠等.道家文化寻根——安徽两淮道家九子研究[M].合肥:安徽人民出版社,2001.
15.方立天.中国古代哲学问题发展史[M].北京:中华书局,1990.
16.葛兆光.中国思想史[M].第一卷.上海:复旦大学出版社,1998.
17.萧登福.道家道教与中土佛教初期经义发展[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2003.
18.郭沂.郭店竹简与先秦学术思想[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.
19.牙含章、王友三主编.中国无神论史[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1992.
20.刘笑敢.庄子哲学及其演变[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1987.
21.侯外庐、赵纪彬、杜国庠.中国思想通史(第三卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
22.任继愈主编.中国哲学发展史(魏晋南北朝卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1988.
23.汤用彤.汉魏两晋南北朝佛教史[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
24.潘桂明.中国居士佛教史[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000.
25.汤用彤.魏晋玄学论稿[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
26.刘立夫.弘道与明教——《弘明集》研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
27.[英]保罗·巴德汉、琳达·巴德汉著,高师宁、林义全译,何光沪校.不朽还是消亡?[M].成都:四川人民出版社,1998.
1.傅恩、马涛.范缜《神灭论》发表年代的考辨[J].复旦学报(社科版),1995年第1期,89-92、96。
2.马涛.论范缜与曹思文关于形神问题的争论[J].解放军外语学院学报,1995年第2期,102-105。
3.马涛.道家与范缜[J].哲学研究,1995年第3期,71-75、封三。
4.刘立夫.庄子的生命意识[J].衡阳师专学报(社科版),1995年第4期,15-19。
5.马建华:罗含的《更生论》与佛教的轮回说——《弘明集》研究之二[J].福建师大福清分校学报,1996年第1期,12-17。
6.尚志迈.北朝无神论思想家邢邵[J].冀东学刊,1997年第1期,66-67。
7.陈建清.范缜唯物主义无神论思想评介[J].福州大学学报(社科版),1998年第1期,62-64。
8.杨国平.试论慧远的形神观与政教观的关系[J].安徽大学学报(哲社版),1999年第1期,37-41。
9.李荣昆.中国无神论学说述评[J].云南社会科学,2000年第1期,46-53。
10.郭殿忱、郭一凯、张立.传统文化中的无神论刍议[J].北华大学学报(社科版),2000年第2期,17-20。
11.李静.重提古代的形神之辩[J].北京联合大学学报,2000年第2期,20-26。
12.叶苏珍.“形神问题”探讨[J].沈阳教育学院学报,2000年第4期,14-16、22。
13.顿嵩元.范缜生平事迹考辨[J].黄河科技大学学报,2000年第4期,113-118。
14.曾凯、杜胜利.现代系统论与中国传统形神观[J].南京理工大学学报,2001年第5期,26-31。
15.卿上涒.范缜《神灭论》思想新探[J].内江师范学院学报,2001年第6期,73-78。
16.李似珍.论中国古代形神观的现代概括[J].西安联合大学学报,2002年第1期,50-53。
17.胡遂.谢灵运与宗炳佛学理论的异同及其对文艺理论与创作的影响[J].三峡大学学报(人文社科版),2003年第3期,31-34、52。
18.陈群.魏晋南北朝的生死观[J].淮阴师范学院学报(哲社版),2003年第4期,503-508。
19.代金平.作为理论形态的有神论的终结历程[J].临沂师范学院学报,2003年第5期,40-42。
20.赵运喜.杰出的无神论者——范缜[J].天中学刊,2003年第6期,102-104。
21.臧宏.老子“功成身退”的现代诠释[J].安徽大学学报(哲社版),2004年第2期,44-48。
2.陈鼓应.老子注译及评介[M].北京:中华书局,1984.
3.庄子著,郭象注,成玄英疏.南华真经注疏[M].北京:中华书局,1998.
4.上海古籍出版社.二十二子[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,1986.
5.曾传辉主编.黄帝四经今译[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1996.
6.[梁]释僧祐.弘明集[C].大正新修大藏经.台北新文丰出版公司影印本:金陵刻经处本:上海古籍出版社1991年据《影印宋碛砂版大藏经》影印本.
7.[唐]释道宣.广弘明集[C].大正新修大藏经.台北新文丰出版公司影印本:上海古籍出版社1991年据《影印宋碛砂版大藏经》影印本.
8.[梁]沈约.宋书[M].北京:中华书局,1974.
9.[唐]姚思廉.梁书[M].北京:中华书局,1973.
10.[唐]李百药.北齐书[M].北京:中华书局,1972.
11.[梁]释慧皎.高僧传[M].北京:中华书局,1992.
12.[梁]释僧祐.出三藏记集[M].北京:中华书局,1995.
13.孙以楷、李霞等.道家与中国哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,2004.
14.孙以楷、陈广忠等.道家文化寻根——安徽两淮道家九子研究[M].合肥:安徽人民出版社,2001.
15.方立天.中国古代哲学问题发展史[M].北京:中华书局,1990.
16.葛兆光.中国思想史[M].第一卷.上海:复旦大学出版社,1998.
17.萧登福.道家道教与中土佛教初期经义发展[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2003.
18.郭沂.郭店竹简与先秦学术思想[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.
19.牙含章、王友三主编.中国无神论史[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1992.
20.刘笑敢.庄子哲学及其演变[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1987.
21.侯外庐、赵纪彬、杜国庠.中国思想通史(第三卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
22.任继愈主编.中国哲学发展史(魏晋南北朝卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1988.
23.汤用彤.汉魏两晋南北朝佛教史[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
24.潘桂明.中国居士佛教史[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2000.
25.汤用彤.魏晋玄学论稿[M].北京:人民出版社,1957.
26.刘立夫.弘道与明教——《弘明集》研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
27.[英]保罗·巴德汉、琳达·巴德汉著,高师宁、林义全译,何光沪校.不朽还是消亡?[M].成都:四川人民出版社,1998.
1.傅恩、马涛.范缜《神灭论》发表年代的考辨[J].复旦学报(社科版),1995年第1期,89-92、96。
2.马涛.论范缜与曹思文关于形神问题的争论[J].解放军外语学院学报,1995年第2期,102-105。
3.马涛.道家与范缜[J].哲学研究,1995年第3期,71-75、封三。
4.刘立夫.庄子的生命意识[J].衡阳师专学报(社科版),1995年第4期,15-19。
5.马建华:罗含的《更生论》与佛教的轮回说——《弘明集》研究之二[J].福建师大福清分校学报,1996年第1期,12-17。
6.尚志迈.北朝无神论思想家邢邵[J].冀东学刊,1997年第1期,66-67。
7.陈建清.范缜唯物主义无神论思想评介[J].福州大学学报(社科版),1998年第1期,62-64。
8.杨国平.试论慧远的形神观与政教观的关系[J].安徽大学学报(哲社版),1999年第1期,37-41。
9.李荣昆.中国无神论学说述评[J].云南社会科学,2000年第1期,46-53。
10.郭殿忱、郭一凯、张立.传统文化中的无神论刍议[J].北华大学学报(社科版),2000年第2期,17-20。
11.李静.重提古代的形神之辩[J].北京联合大学学报,2000年第2期,20-26。
12.叶苏珍.“形神问题”探讨[J].沈阳教育学院学报,2000年第4期,14-16、22。
13.顿嵩元.范缜生平事迹考辨[J].黄河科技大学学报,2000年第4期,113-118。
14.曾凯、杜胜利.现代系统论与中国传统形神观[J].南京理工大学学报,2001年第5期,26-31。
15.卿上涒.范缜《神灭论》思想新探[J].内江师范学院学报,2001年第6期,73-78。
16.李似珍.论中国古代形神观的现代概括[J].西安联合大学学报,2002年第1期,50-53。
17.胡遂.谢灵运与宗炳佛学理论的异同及其对文艺理论与创作的影响[J].三峡大学学报(人文社科版),2003年第3期,31-34、52。
18.陈群.魏晋南北朝的生死观[J].淮阴师范学院学报(哲社版),2003年第4期,503-508。
19.代金平.作为理论形态的有神论的终结历程[J].临沂师范学院学报,2003年第5期,40-42。
20.赵运喜.杰出的无神论者——范缜[J].天中学刊,2003年第6期,102-104。
21.臧宏.老子“功成身退”的现代诠释[J].安徽大学学报(哲社版),2004年第2期,44-48。