簡介
此文之目的在於簡介佛陀時代的印度六種主要外道，並且與佛教加與比較。
婆羅門教不在此研究範國之內，只有在討論諸宗外道時才會簡要地提一提吠陀經及優婆尼薩經的哲理。本文僅限於研究婆羅門之外的六種外道。這六種外道，或是反對婆羅門教，或是不屬婆羅門教的範疇。言其外道，在於它們都挑戰吠陀經及優婆尼薩經以及吠陀經的婆羅門譯者的權威性，並以自己的獨立理論取而代之。言其外道，以佛教的觀點，佛教經藏，或是巴利文經藏，或是大乘經藏，都對這些外道加以批斥。佛經上每言及這些外道時，都加以駁斥。由此，我們可以推知在那時代這些外道所具的影響力了。
本人挑選這六種外道來講，是因為佛教經藏中皆提到過這六種外道。現在介紹其教義宗旨，其與佛教的相同點與不同點。再者，佛陀對其理論的評論，諸如梵行的重要性，因果律、業律、無我、依原生性，亦略作概要性地簡介。本文最末將討論佛教之『楞嚴經』與『法華經』中對於這些外道的觀點與評判。
作此研究之目的，意在更好地瞭解佛教，研究異教，更能體會佛教的智慧與其獨特性。佛教非從玄幻中而來。因此欲瞭知佛教，須略知佛教產生時代的一些宗教與哲學背境。佛教徒中有一種傾向一一即將所有非佛教的教課籠括一處，統稱外道，而少知其中的區別。事實上，本文所涉及的印度外道所倡揚的理論，涵蓋面甚廣。有一些理論完全互相背道而馳。我們若了知其理論如何地偏激，可以佐證佛教之中道。
一一佛陀時代印度各家學派之總觀一一一
佛陀時代印度的學術思想甚是發達，除了婆羅門僧侶階層之外還有很多其他的教師、遊方化士、沙門，各自開闡其教。其教者，有那時在印度甚興盛之輪迴理論，或許體現出當時人們對於畢生之中生命哀樂不定的不滿，而寄望於有一個定律，可以確保最終的正義。大部份印度哲學家認為生命多半是不幸福的，所以最好是不要再有來生。因此自然而然地，誰去受生，誰得解脫，這一問題就出現了。許多學派提出一個生生受生的永恆的自我的存在，並探討這一個自我存在的範疇。巴利文Brahmajala-sutta列舉出六十二種此類玄而上學的邪見。Jaina經述之更詳細，將三百六十三種非吠陀教的敵對教源分為四大類：承認業力者、不承認業力者、懷疑論者、道德學者。
佛典中，非佛教思想宗源可分為三類：
一、上帝創萬物論之信仰者。
二、過去業方決定論之信仰者。
三、萬物無因自然而生論之信仰者。
這三種思想皆為佛陀所棄，因為它們都不承認人類後天之力，所以在事實上否定了人類通過修行而得成就的可能性。佛陀教導因果之律，超越了這些狹隘的思想。
有「定運」之種種不正見，亦可分為三類：
一、Maskari Goshaliputra 所教的生命存在無因之宿命論。
二、Purana Kashayapa所教的動之無功論。三、Ajita Keshakambala所教的虛無論。
有人相信Ajita Keshakambala與Kakuda
Katyayana所認為的自我與世界是由永恆元素之集合體而組成的。這一理論的創議者不曾意識到單一的完全，因此他們反對正統婆羅門教已確立的觀點一一即自我與世界皆從單一理體一一婆羅門而來。
印度的學術宗添可分為三類：即傳統源、理性派、實驗派。每一派皆強調其獨特的認知方式。傳統派即婆羅門。他們的知識全都於吠陀書典及其解讀中而來。理性派的知識從推理與思索中來。懷疑論者、唯物論者，與大部份的Ajivikas皆落入這一類之中。當地的Dravidian苦行之風讓大約公元前一五00年的亞利安人的入侵而受壓制，但是最終它又在占領導地位的婆羅門教儀式與祭典的影響之下，又得以復興。這些遊方苦行者與森林居住的禪修者，即是依其自身的直接知識與經驗的實驗派者，其直接的經驗亦包括第六感知覺。
釋迦牟尼佛曾從兩位瑜珈禪師Arada
Kalama與 Udraka
Ramaputra修習瑜珈定觀。釋迦牟尼佛很快證得那兩位老師能證得的所有的打坐境界，直至色界的第四天一一非想非非想處天。而後他又超越他師父達到滅受想定之境界，這使得他師父對他刮目相看，欲以領袖之席相讓。但是釋迦牟尼佛知道這些靜坐的境界無論多高，都於了苦無益。所以他離開他們，去自己悟道。
佛陀悟道之後，他所教者，對於當時的人們來說，不是完全陌生的，或是奇特的。佛陀繼承了許多理念，諸如業、輪迴、涅槃。這些在當時印度的宗教思想是很稀鬆平常的。但是同樣的概念，佛陀卻有不同的詮釋。宣公上人解釋如下：
「佛所說的法，是對當時外道所說的法的整理，或是增，或是減，或是全盤推翻。佛陀繼續使用他們的一些理論，並保留了許多用語，例如：當時外道所使用的一詞一一涅槃。但是佛陀對於這詞的解釋不同。」
A.六種主要外道
佛典中提及佛陀時代印度有六位頗具影響力的沙門。每一位都有一群信徒。至少有兩派Ajivikas和Jainas組織成僧團。並與佛教一樣，都廣泛地吸取信眾。
Ajivakas教派
第一宗外道教主是Purana Kashayapa(公元前503年歿)，他否認道德之因。他說行善與行惡
，於其做者沒有影響；對其將來亦無影響。「殺搶偷之人，不會招致厄運的。慷慨、節制、誠信亦無善報。即使是謀殺與偷盜亦不一定壞，因為不產生道德效果。行善與行惡就根本無所謂行。」因此，Purana提倡非行動論。
第二宗外道教主是Maskari Goshaliputra(公元前488年歿)，是一位宿命論者，否認因。他的名字從梵文而來，意即古印度修苦行者所拿得一種竹杖，而後延伸為goshala的朝聖杖：oshali--putra說一個人在生死輪迴中的升沉取決於一個人的命運，而非取決他的行為或前因。解脫最終是不依因緣，而是依其本身而定的：
「眾生之染淨，是無定因，亦無不定因的。(不管緣是什麼)它既不依賴自身的行為，也不依賴別人的行為，也不依賴眾生的行為，是既無有力，也無意志，也無人類的影響與行為。所有的眾生，所有的生命、種類，其自身都無控制的力量、功能與自身的意志。都受命運、環境、與他們自性的控制。他們是根據他們在六種階層的位置而感受快樂與痛苦的。」
他的追隨者稱為Ajivikas。他們行成一個頗具規模的團體。這宗學術思想發源於公元前489年。一些學者將Purana亦看作為Ajivika的教師，如Goshaliputra。佛教巴利文典中言及前兩位教師一
─ Nanda Vaccha與Kisa Samkicca亦被稱為Ajivika的先知。雖然Ajivika教迅速衰弱，在十四世紀最終消亡。但是直至阿育王時代(公元前268-232年在位)，他們在印度都與佛教與耆那教為主要的宗教之一。阿育王之父甚是支持Ajivika；阿育王及其孫子及繼承人Dasaratha，於Bihar一地贈予Ajivika幾座廟。以上種種皆證明該教之盛。阿育王主要擁戴佛教，但是在他的王國境內，他對於所有的大宗教一一如佛教、婆羅門教、Ajivika教、耆那教皆能包容，尊敬。這都有事實可以證明，在他的詔書之中他亦要求他的臣民效法而行。
待續
|
|
Introduction
The aim of this study is to present a
brief outline of the teachings of the six major heterodox
philosophical schools (or, in Chinese, wai dao, 'external
paths') in India during the time of the Buddha, and to
compare and contrast their doctrines with basic Buddhist
teachings. The Brahmanic tradition falls outside the scope
of this study, so the philosophy of the Vedas or the
Upanishads will only be briefly alluded to in discussing the
other schools. This essay is limited to investigating the
teachings of a half a dozen shramanas who opposed the
Brahmanic tradition or existed outside of it. Their
doctrines can be called heterodox in two senses. They were
heterodox in challenging the authority of the Vedas and the
Brahmins who interpreted them, in supplanting tradition with
independent inquiry. They were also heterodox from the
Buddhist point of view, as various Buddhist Sutras of both
the Pali and Mahayana canon refute many of these doctrines.
From the fact that these doctrines are mentioned in the
Sutras and needed to be refuted we can infer that they were
influential in their time.
These six schools have been chosen,
because they are all mentioned in canonical Buddhist
sources. The key teachings of these schools will be
introduced, including their similarities with Buddhism and
also the points where they disagreed with Buddhism. Also,
the Buddhist answers to these various theories will be
outlined--the importance of morality, the principles of
karma and cause and effect, of no self and dependent
origination. The last section of this essay will discuss
some of the Buddhist refutations of and attitudes toward
these heterodox teachings as presented in the Shurangama
Sutra and the Dharma Flower (Lotus) Sutra. The reason for
undertaking this study is to understand the origins of
Buddhism better. By investigating the rival schools of
philosophy one can come to appreciate more deeply the wisdom
and uniqueness of the Buddha's teachings. Buddhism did not
originate in an intellectual vacuum, and therefore a
thorough understanding of Buddhism requires at least some
knowledge of the religious and philosophical climate that it
arose from. Among Buddhists there is sometimes a tendency to
lump all non-Buddhist, heterodox, or 'externalist' teachings
together, with little awareness of their differences. In
actual fact, the Indian schools covered in this paper
promoted a wide range of doctrines, some of which were
diametrically opposed to each other. If we realize what
these extreme positions were, we can then understand in what
sense the Buddha's teachings presented a Middle Way.
-- An Overview of Indian
Philosophical Schools at the Time of the Buddha —
The time of the Buddha was an extremely
fertile period in Indian thought. In addition to the
priestly class of Brahmins, many other kinds of teachers,
mendicant wanderers and shramanas expounded their views.
Many theories at the time concerned the possibility of
rebirth, which was a widely accepted doctrine in India. This
perhaps reflected a dissatisfaction with the apparently
arbitrary measures of happiness and unhappiness that people
experience within a single lifetime, which would give rise
to a wish for an universal law ensuring eventual justice.
The majority of Indian philosophers saw life as mostly
unhappy, and concluded that the best thing was to not be
reborn at all. This naturally led to the question of who or
what undergoes rebirth or is liberated from it. Many schools
posited the existence of a eternal self that was reborn and
discussed the realm that this self existed in. The Pali
Brahmajalasutta lists altogether sixty-two of these deviant
metaphysical views. Jaina Sutras are even more detailed:
they list 363 contending non-Vedic schools that are
classified into four basic groups: those who recognized
karma, those who did not recognize karma, the sceptics, and
the moralists.
In Buddhist texts, the non-Buddhist
schools are divided into three categories:
1. those who believe that everything is created by a god,
2. those who maintain that everything is predetermined by
past karma, and
3. those who believe that everything occurs by chance,
without a cause.
The Buddha rejected all three of these
alternatives because they denied the efficacy of human
effort, and in fact denied the possibility of achieving
anything by cultivation. The Buddha transcended all these
limited views by teaching a moral law of cause and effect.
Another Buddhist classification
concerns the so-called 'wrong views concerning fixed
destiny' These are:
1. The fatalistic 'view of uncausedness' of existence,
taught by Maskari Goshaliputra.
2. The 'view of the inefficacy of action,' taught by Purana
Kashyapa.
3. Nihilism, taught by Ajita Keshakambala.
Believers in elements such as Ajita
Keshakambala and Kakuda Katyayana argued that both the self
and the world were composed of collections of eternal
elements. The proponents of this doctrine did not recognize
a single Absolute. They thus opposed the established
position of orthodox Brahmanism, which saw the self and the
world as derived from the one unitary principle, Brahman.
Indian philosophical schools can be
divided into three main groups of traditionalists,
rationalists, and experientalists, each of which stressed a
particular way of knowing. The traditionalists were the
Brahmins, whose knowledge came entirely from the Vedic
scriptural tradition and its interpretation. The
rationalists derived their knowledge from reasoning and
speculation. The sceptics, materialists, and most of the
Ajivikas would fall into this class. The native Dravidian
ascetic tradition had been suppressed by the Aryan invasion
of about 1500 BC, but eventually it re-emerged from under
the dominant layer of Brahmanic ritual and sacrifice. These
wandering ascetics and forest-dwelling meditators were the
experientialists who depended on direct personal knowledge
and experience, which also included extrasensory perception.
Gautama Buddha studied yogic
concentration under two meditation masters of the ascetic
tradition, Arada Kalama and Udraka Ramaputra. Gautama soon
attained all the meditational states his teachers knew, all
the way up to the fourth formless realm of Neither
Perception Nor Nonperception. Later he went beyond his
masters and reached the state of Cessation of Perception and
Feeling. Impressed by his progress, his teachers offered
Gautama leadership of their group. But Gautama knew that
however high these meditational states were, they were not
conducive to the ending of suffering. So he left his
teachers to achieve enlightenment on his own.
The doctrines that Buddha taught after
his enlightenment were not entirely new or strange to his
contemporaries. The Buddha took over many concepts--karma,
rebirth, Nirvana--that were common in Indian religious
thinking of his time, but gave them a new interpretation. As
Master Hua explains:
The Dharma spoken by the Buddha was an
adjustment of what was being said by the outside ways of his
time. He added to it in some places, and eliminated or pared
down in other places. The Buddha carried over and used some
of their theories, and he retained many of their terms. For
example, the term "Nirvana" was current among externalists
of the time, and the Buddha used that term too. However, the
explanations are different.
A. THE SIX MAJOR HETERODOX
SCHOOLS
Buddhist scriptures mention six famous
shramanas who were influential in India around the time of
the Buddha. Each of them was the leader of a group of
disciples. At least two of these groups, the Ajivikas and
the Jainas, were organized into regular religious
communities, sanghas, that vied for the support of the
Indian populace along with Buddhism.
The Ajivikas and Related Teachings The
first of the heterodox teachers was Purana Kashyapa (died.
c. 503 BC) who denied moral causation. He stated that good
and bad actions had no effect on the person performing them
and did not influence the future. "To him who kills, steals,
robs etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity,
self-restraint and truthfulness etc., no reward is to be
expected." Even murder and stealing could not necessarily be
considered bad, since they resulted in no moral effects.
'Good' and 'bad' actions are in fact no actions at all. Thus
Purana advocated the doctrine of inaction.
The second heterodox teacher, Maskari
Goshaliputra (died 488 BC), was a fatalist who denied
causality. His name may have originated from the Sanskrit
word maskara, the bamboo staff that an Indian ascetic would
carry; the name would then refer to "Goshala of the pilgrim
staff." Goshaliputra stated that whether a person rose or
fell in the cycles of rebirth was determined by fate, not by
his actions or by any other causes. Release finally happens
not due to causes and conditions but by itself:
There are no direct nor indirect causes
for living beings to become defiled [or] (…) purified.
(Whatever the condition) of living beings, it does not
depend on one's own actions, the action of others, nor upon
human effort. There is no force, no volition, no human
influence nor human endeavour. All existents, all living
beings, all species and all life lack control, power and
volition of their own but rather are controlled by fate,
circumstances and their inherent nature; and it is according
to their position in anyone of the six classes that they
experience pleasure and pain.
His followers were called the Ajivikas--also
spelled Ajivakas--who formed a sizable community in the time
of the Buddha. Originally this school had been founded in
the state of Koshala in 489 BCE. Some scholars also consider
Purana an Ajivika teacher, along with Goshaliputra. Pali
Buddhist sources mention two previous teachers, Nanda Vaccha
and Kisa Samkicca, who can be considered Ajivika prophets as
well. Even though the Ajivikas rapidly declined and
eventually died out in the 14th century, up to the time of
Ashoka (ruled 268-232 BC) they were a major religion in
India, along with the Buddhists and the Jainas. Ashoka's
father Bindusara patronized the Ajivikas and both Ashoka and
his grandson and successor Dasaratha presented cave temples
to the Ajivikas at several sites in Bihar; all this
testifies to the popularity of the sect. Ashoka's chief
patronage went to the Buddhists, but his tolerance is
indicated by the fact that he honored and respected all the
major religions of his empire-- Buddhists, Brahmins,
Ajivikas, Jainas, and "others"--and in his edicts he called
on his subjects to do the same.
~ To be continued |
