http://mepopedia.com/forum/list.php?1468 Wed, 29 Apr 2026 11:33:05 +0800 Phorum 5.2.7 http://mepopedia.com/forum/read.php?1468,37691,37691#msg-37691 http://mepopedia.com/forum/read.php?1468,37691,37691#msg-37691

京都音羽山清水寺境內的隨求堂供奉大隨求菩薩，隨求堂以「環遊胎內」(胎內めぐり)體驗活動而著名，該堂地底下有一暗室，象徵大隨求菩薩之胎內，而其中無光，全然伸手不見五指，你可以入內繞行胎內一圈，全憑著手觸摸著一串巨大佛珠在黑暗中繞行，繞行到底會見到在微光中轉動的隨求石，石上刻有種子梵字，見者可以祈願，菩薩將隨所祈求滿其所願。

在胎內繞行之時，全然無光，視覺沒有作用，若沒有以手觸數著佛珠一顆一顆前行，還真的是令人不知所措。這讓我想到康德「純粹理性批判」的結論，其實並不真的是獨尊理性，他對理性的獨鍾，其實是個不得已的必然結局。深刻地在那哥白尼式的倒轉之中，證悟了理性有其侷限，而人之界域也隨而被侷限了，而壓迫出這個侷限來的，正是那頓入空性之前部份人會必須面臨的無來由的、無始無終的龐大恐懼，正是在這樣的情景中，他不得不緊依著理性，一步一步走在這孤絕的黑暗中。這不禁令我莞爾，若光憑表面印象而將他推向一種所謂單純日神型態的理性信仰者，豈不是一個極為粗心的理解？若不曾親灸絕對的黑暗，誰會懂得珍惜光明的寶貴；反觀鎮日將非理性掛在嘴邊的人，真正嘗過非理性的滋味的，恐怕寥寥無幾吧。

而山折哲雄觀察到兩次世界大戰之間這段時間裡，日本佛學研究圈子裡的一大酬對，也就是在木村泰賢所謂叔本華架構下的生命與意志為觀照地觀照「無明」與「緣起」，以及宇井伯壽與和辻哲郎以所謂康德架構下的「邏輯」觀點對木村的攻擊與超克，好像這三方也都沒有太多細緻的閒情。的確，木村也自以為是順從叔本華的思維方式去理解佛陀提起「無明」這個議題的本懷，而透過「緣起」各支之間的聯繫，引發一種對「生命發動的進展狀態」的明白。同時，宇井伯壽、和辻哲郎同樣也承認是從其所以為的康德的先驗邏輯觀點，將各支之間的關係看作是一種邏輯分析。這兩方，至少對康德的理解，沒有那遊走在胎內的閒情而流於粗心。而山折的評述，既然康德系統對於叔本華系統的壓倒性勝利已成一種哲學史實，木村的潰敗好像也有某種類似的合理性可被理解，以及他對木村所懷夢想的同情與唏噓，也沒能發現康德在日神表象之下，怎麼可能沒有酒神的精神作用著呢？

而解消無明的佛陀，之所以不用面臨恐懼，或許是因為不僅邏輯關係的緣起各支被揚棄，也不僅生命發動的進展也被揚棄，而是根本沒有揚棄的需要。而恐懼的啟發（若硬要說有啟發的話），怕是在這三點之間，還有幾多絲毫的牽絆而做不到徹底究竟，乾淨俐落吧。就像，走在隨求菩薩胎內，手中摸著的佛珠、心中紛雜的欲求、失去了視覺作用的空間世界、還有停也停不了的時間，亂成一團，而不能讓佛珠歸佛珠、黑暗歸黑暗，而讓心永遠於這兩者無關。


註：
山折哲雄。《近代日本人的宗教意識》，鄭家瑜譯。台北：立續，2000。]]> gustav 汪純瑩 Gustav Chun-Ying Wang Sat, 07 Dec 2013 01:51:39 +0800 http://mepopedia.com/forum/read.php?1468,37211,37211#msg-37211 http://mepopedia.com/forum/read.php?1468,37211,37211#msg-37211

(Photo source: SHIRAKAWA Shintaro, KUASU)

The way Professor Graham PRIEST instructed his lecture series at Kyoto University during 11 ~ 21, Nov., 2013 was a great encouragement to me. As a developing philosopher (wisdom lover), to see another matured truth seeker really cherishes and encourages the appreciation of the braveness and honesty for philosophy itself is always inspiring, especially in the rigidly professionalized global academic atmosphere. Beside of the inspiration of Professor Graham PRIEST’s talks on Madhyamaka philosophy and the logistic approaches to it, the exchanges and collaboration among the students from our neighborhood countries on that topic particularly impressed and influenced me. From there, I can see a model forming itself, a young and enthusiastic one, for establishing some real philosophical reflections and systems upon and inside Asia’s own cultures, religions and thoughts via close communications among young philosophers across this neighborhood, with deep considerations and understandings of the global (existing) philosophical traditions. The way Professor DEGUCHI Yasuo and KUASU Office arranged the whole event, and the relevant projects, say, the exchange plans between Kyoto University and National Singapore University which were accompanied with two synchronized reading clubs led by two correspondent sophisticated philosophers, Jay GARFIELD and DEGUCHI Yasuo, the focused lecture series in Kyoto with a small group of students of similar philosophical interests from the neighborhood countries, the annual Kyoto-Chengchi Workshops, etc., altogether promised us very fruitful outcome in the forth-coming years. The ideal demonstrated in these arrangements is so agreeable and actually quite meets the call of our era. After all, after all these imbalanced intellectual development in the past few centuries and its unhappy outcome we are all suffering now (in thought and in practice both), it’s about time to reconsider the appropriate disciplinary relocation. Should it be the case that humanity is subsumed under science? Should it be the case that the fundamental academic divisions like philosophy, mathematics are casted off by most of the so-called universities? Should philosophy, which should have spent time reflecting and talking about the intellectual systematics, go on staying weak and in dystrophy? Should it be the case that social engineering divisions like politics, policies, economics and technology deserve individual interest of its own without the background of moral, human or even cosmological/ecological considerations? Should it be the case that the theoretical employment and the practical employment of our collective intelligence remain confused and disordered? Should it not be the case that in front of all the empirical discrepancies we are basically belonging to the same kind, the human kind, with some same communicable starting points or positions, which shall be free from any prejudices and belief systems? According to what I have experienced in the two-week stay in Kyoto, I entrust the ideal to the practice happening in Kyoto University KUASU, and will be glad to take part in the practice!

Relevant websites:
Kyoto University - KUASU: http://www.kuasu.cpier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/english/
NCCU - Buddhica: http://buddhica.nccu.edu.tw]]> gustav 汪純瑩 Gustav Chun-Ying Wang Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:45:43 +0800 http://mepopedia.com/forum/read.php?1468,32701,32701#msg-32701 http://mepopedia.com/forum/read.php?1468,32701,32701#msg-32701
假如我們一致確定一個體制沒有改革的需要了，完全可以揚棄它，在可以一致理性的情況下，應該要穩靜地共議，在合意條件下將一個體制揚棄。

假如我們一致確定一個體制沒有改革的需要了，完全可以揚棄它，但卻在一個無法一致理性、且體制的宰制力龐大而不對等時，我們應該要「離開」體制，或者用力地衝破它。革命！

但，假如情況是複雜的。假如我們一致確定一個體制還有改革的需要，我們一致確定「還需要」這個體制，我們就應該尊重體制，在體制內進行改革；同時，必須保障人人皆有不受體制內角色限制的發言權，可以自由倡議。若此倡議的發言權被限制時，限制方（包含體制本身、體制的強制力執行者、或者發言社群中的多數）應該被約束、被譴責、被衝撞。除此之外，非體制的衝撞，都是不合理的。

為何改革要在體制內？那是因為，「一旦一個體制能夠被挑戰，總是因為它已經疲弱不堪，並不是因為反對勢力的偉大」！如果我們明確地不要這個體制，那順天承運，揭竿起義，完全沒有問題。但是，假如我們沒有辦法確定，把這個體制破壞掉，是否真的合於大眾的公益，我們豈能躁然而動呢？

此外，這個「一致確定」的共識，總是極為不容易達成，因為體制內、外的角色，各自有各自的利益與盤算。最怕就是，有心人士（不論是否隸屬於這個體制）趁隙，就著大家利益的矛盾處與方向的歧異處，興風作浪、阻擋「一致確定」的目標浮現，並趁亂收割己欲的私利。那麼，不明不白的改革，決定不會是「理想」的改革，而悲劇收場的機率，應該逼近100%。

試想，我們己所從出的長輩再怎麼樣的威權、霸道，假如長輩並非罪大惡極、慘絕人寰，有誰會在長輩虛弱疲累的晚年時，用盡力氣去鬥垮他、逼他走上絕路呢？

再試想，若我們的房子壞了，需要修繕，我們會不分青紅皂白地把整個屋子亂打一通嗎？對於支撐一棟房子的幾根主要棟樑，你敢像對待零件或者窗框、門板一樣不加思索就打掉嗎？你或許有別的住處可住，這個房子壞了對你來說或許不值得珍惜，但是同一屋簷下的其他人，就非得一起承擔這個共業不可嗎？

既要實踐理想，就得勇敢面對現實。真正順天應人，才能鼎革咸亨。

All rights reserved © gustav


延伸資訊：
康德論啟蒙 Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? (wikipedia) (德文)
《易經》：鼎卦、革卦、咸卦]]> gustav 汪純瑩 Gustav Chun-Ying Wang Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:10:22 +0800