..續本文上一頁英年時(1911)，被指控叛國而招到極刑。[96]內川爲了和平和社會正義而犧牲自己，值得注意的是內川的這種菩薩行徑，其背後的理論基礎正是批判佛教所批判的佛性思想，而批判佛教認爲「場所佛教」思想影響下所導致的社會不正義和歧視，以及在「和」精神下所容忍的軍國主義、國粹主義、王法即佛法等，正是內川所極力批判的。
批判佛教的第二個錯誤是它陷入自家所批判的獨斷主義，而且忽略它自己極爲肯定的緣起思想。袴谷和松元將如來藏思想全盤判爲「僞佛教」，而「批判佛教」才是真佛教，如此專斷(authoritarian)的诠釋，Bernard Faure稱它爲「知的恐怖主義」(intellectual terrorism)[97]。殊不知「僞佛教」也好「真佛教」也好，都在緣起法中呈現。就如Peter Gregory所說，「在诠釋的脈絡之外，任何教義皆不能顯現其真義，就像在能思考的心之外無觀念可言。」[98]換言之，任何佛教的
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96. 內川愚童因受「大逆事件」(Taigyaku Jiken)的牽連而被處死。當時的曹洞宗在恪遵「尊皇護國」的保守意識型態之下，開除了內川的僧籍。直到1993年曹洞宗才承認當時屈服于政府的壓力，作了錯誤的處罰，再度恢複了內川的僧籍。參閱Kashiwagi Ryuho, “Taigyoku Jiken to Uchiyama Gudo(大逆事件與內川愚童). Tokyo: JCA Shuppan, 1979.
97. Charles Wei-hsun Fu and Steven Heine ed., Japan in Traditional and Postmodern Perspective, Albany :State University of New York Press, 1955, p.269.
98. Peter N.Gregory, “Is Critical Buddhism Really Critical
” In Pruning the Bodhi Tree, P.291.
頁43
教義，都會在衆多不同的時空因緣之下呈現不同義涵和作用。這也就是爲什麼「場所佛教」在某個曆史、社會、政治、文化的背景下被解讀爲禍首，而在另一個不同的背景下又成爲正義和和平的依據。因此，如果批判佛教只看到「場所佛教」被負面地意識型態化，卻漠視其正面的意義，而判它爲「僞佛教」，且只有批判佛教相信的教義才是「真佛教」，那麼它就正好落入自己所批判的獨斷主義中，因而應該受到批判。Peter Gregory就批評「批判佛教不夠批判」，因爲它缺乏自我批判的精神。
結論
日本「批判佛教」的最大特色不在于它的批判精神，因爲佛教傳統原本就蘊含批判性格。從佛教思想史中，可以很明顯看出佛教思想發展是由後期思想對前期思想的批判和反省衍生而來。批判佛教的最大特點乃是在于它把批判的層面，從過去的佛教思想理論延伸到現代佛教的社會實踐，但是，批判佛教將如來藏思想判定爲「僞佛教」，只有無我和緣起才是「真佛教」，顯示它不但沒有從緣起法中來審視如來藏思想的發展，也未從解脫論上去了解它的積極意趣。[99]
批判佛教將社會的苦難、不義和政治意識型態歸罪于「場所佛教」，果真如此的話，未受「場所佛教」影響的西方社會，就不應有那些苦難，可是事實不然。可見批判佛教過于獨斷，而沒有注意佛性思想如何被利用成爲社會或政治的意識型態。該被譴
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99. 誠如Sallie King所說：「佛性思想無意建構一個形而上學的理論，它是個解脫論的方法。」(Pruning the Bodhi Tree, p.188.)
頁44
責的應該是那些擅用者，而不是佛性思想。
批判佛教已發揮了佛教的批判精神，但是如果要有更大的影響力，則如何自我批判和接受批判將是它要面對的一大課題。
頁45
The Refutation on Critical Buddhism
Shih, Heng-Ching
Abstract
The so-called Critical Buddhism was originated by two Buddhist scholars at Komazawa University: Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shiro. It stirred up great controversy by its claims that the teachings of Tathagatagarbha, Buddha-nature, original enlightenment, and the philosophy of Kyoto School are not Buddhist, and aroused great interest and responses from Buddhists and Buddhologist in Japan, North America and Taiwan.
The criticism of Hakamaya and Matsumoto aimed at a number of different targets which touched on four levels: Buddhological, sectarian, social criticism, and philosophical. The main issues include: Tathaagatagarbha thought, Dhaatu-vaada, Karma, original enlightenment, "Wa" thought, "Topical Buddhism," social discrimination, etc.
These issues are too broad to be dealt with in a short article; therefore, this article focuses only on the issues in Buddhist doctrine and social discrimination. Hakamaya and Matsumoto maintain that Tathaagatagarbha thought goes against the most basic Buddhist teachings of causality (pratiityasamutpaada) and non-self (anaatman), and thus is a form of dhaatu-vaada. The first half portion of this article, based on the `Sriimaalaadevi Sautra, Mahaaparinirvaa.na Suutra, Ratnagotravibhaaga `Saastra and Buddha-nature Treatise, refutes their claims.
At the level of social criticism, Critical Buddhism blamed the idea of Wa (harmony), which derives from Tathaagatagarbha thought, for social discrimination and injustice. The second half of this article refutes this claim by giving examples in which Tathaagatagarbha (Buddha-nature) thought is in fact the bases of social equality, freedom and justice.
Key words: Critical Buddhism, Tathaagatagarbha, Buddha-nature; dhaatu-vaada, Topical Philosophy
《“批判佛教”駁議》全文閱讀結束。