..续本文上一页英年时(1911)，被指控叛国而招到极刑。[96]内川为了和平和社会正义而牺牲自己，值得注意的是内川的这种菩萨行径，其背后的理论基础正是批判佛教所批判的佛性思想，而批判佛教认为「场所佛教」思想影响下所导致的社会不正义和歧视，以及在「和」精神下所容忍的军国主义、国粹主义、王法即佛法等，正是内川所极力批判的。
批判佛教的第二个错误是它陷入自家所批判的独断主义，而且忽略它自己极为肯定的缘起思想。袴谷和松元将如来藏思想全盘判为「伪佛教」，而「批判佛教」才是真佛教，如此专断(authoritarian)的诠释，Bernard Faure称它为「知的恐怖主义」(intellectual terrorism)[97]。殊不知「伪佛教」也好「真佛教」也好，都在缘起法中呈现。就如Peter Gregory所说，「在诠释的脉络之外，任何教义皆不能显现其真义，就像在能思考的心之外无观念可言。」[98]换言之，任何佛教的
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96. 内川愚童因受「大逆事件」(Taigyaku Jiken)的牵连而被处死。当时的曹洞宗在恪遵「尊皇护国」的保守意识型态之下，开除了内川的僧籍。直到1993年曹洞宗才承认当时屈服于政府的压力，作了错误的处罚，再度恢复了内川的僧籍。参阅Kashiwagi Ryuho, “Taigyoku Jiken to Uchiyama Gudo(大逆事件与内川愚童). 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.
页43
教义，都会在众多不同的时空因缘之下呈现不同义涵和作用。这也就是为什么「场所佛教」在某个历史、社会、政治、文化的背景下被解读为祸首，而在另一个不同的背景下又成为正义和和平的依据。因此，如果批判佛教只看到「场所佛教」被负面地意识型态化，却漠视其正面的意义，而判它为「伪佛教」，且只有批判佛教相信的教义才是「真佛教」，那么它就正好落入自己所批判的独断主义中，因而应该受到批判。Peter Gregory就批评「批判佛教不够批判」，因为它缺乏自我批判的精神。
结论
日本「批判佛教」的最大特色不在于它的批判精神，因为佛教传统原本就蕴含批判性格。从佛教思想史中，可以很明显看出佛教思想发展是由后期思想对前期思想的批判和反省衍生而来。批判佛教的最大特点乃是在于它把批判的层面，从过去的佛教思想理论延伸到现代佛教的社会实践，但是，批判佛教将如来藏思想判定为「伪佛教」，只有无我和缘起才是「真佛教」，显示它不但没有从缘起法中来审视如来藏思想的发展，也未从解脱论上去了解它的积极意趣。[99]
批判佛教将社会的苦难、不义和政治意识型态归罪于「场所佛教」，果真如此的话，未受「场所佛教」影响的西方社会，就不应有那些苦难，可是事实不然。可见批判佛教过于独断，而没有注意佛性思想如何被利用成为社会或政治的意识型态。该被谴
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99. 诚如Sallie King所说：「佛性思想无意建构一个形而上学的理论，它是个解脱论的方法。」(Pruning the Bodhi Tree, p.188.)
页44
责的应该是那些擅用者，而不是佛性思想。
批判佛教已发挥了佛教的批判精神，但是如果要有更大的影响力，则如何自我批判和接受批判将是它要面对的一大课题。
页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”驳议》全文阅读结束。