計畫名稱 大乘瑜伽行派與中觀學派之知識論爭論及其宗教性意涵的研究
出國人員姓名
服務機關及職稱 林鎮國（政治大學哲學系教授）
出國時間地點 奧地利維也納，96 年 09 月 28 日至 96 年 10 月 07 日
國外研究機構 The Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia of the Austrian Academy of Sciences
工作記要：
此次赴奧地利維也納訪問奧地利科學院的「亞洲文化與思想史研究所」主要有二項任務，其 一是拜訪該所所長Helmut Krasser 教授，瞭解該所長期以來有關佛教知識論的研究進程，尋 求雙方合作的可能；其二是就本人執行的「哲學學門人才培育計畫-佛教知識論」計畫，接洽 講座人選。奧地利科學院亞洲文化與思想史研究所的前身由維也納學派祖師Erich Frauwallner 教授於 1956 年設立，以印度哲學和佛教哲學研究為重心。其後由 Gerhard Oberhammer 主持 所務，持續進行印度知識論和邏輯的研究計畫。1998 年，由 Ernst Steinkellner 教授接任所務。
2007 年，Helmut Krasser 教授接任所長。該所的研究領含括南亞、東南亞、東亞、中亞的研 究，其中特別著重在印度學和佛教學，尤其是佛教量論的文獻與哲學研究。該所是國際上有 關佛教邏輯與知識論研究的重鎮，擁有 11 名研究人員，其中來自台灣的釋自運(Nivita Tseng) 博士也側身其間。Helmut Krasser所長繼承Ernst Steinkellner 的志業，校定出版
Jinendrabuddhi´s
Pramanasamuccayatika, Chapter 1,
Part 1: Critical Edition. Part 2: Diplomatic Edition (2005)，帶動 新一波的陳那研究。我於 10 月 2 日上午在 Helmut Krasser 教授辦公室見面，談論他們最近的 研究動向，也說明在台灣我本人推動的相關計畫，建立了基本的聯繫管道。當天下午，在釋 自運博士的聯繫下，很高興有機會見到任教於萊比錫大學的 Eli Franco 教授（原亦任職於奧 地利科學院亞洲文化與思想史研究所）。Eli Franco 教授專長印度哲學和佛教哲學，特別是陳 那與法稱知識論，出版《知覺、知識和不信：賈耶拉希懷疑論研究》(1987)、《法稱論慈悲與 輪迴》(1997)、《史畢則寫本：最古老的梵文哲學寫本》(2004)以及六十餘篇論文。見面相談甚歡，我便當場邀請他訪台擔任「佛教知識論講座」，主持有關佛教邏輯和解脫論，止觀和形 上學關係的討論，並決定發表三場演講：(1) Inferring the future, producing the past. Proofs of rebirth and reverse causation in Buddhist philosophical analysis, (2) Hsuan Tsang's sophism in the proof of Vijnapatimaatrataa, (3) Meditation and metaphysics. On their mutual relations in South Asian Buddhism。這是本次研究之旅最為具體的收穫。
Dwelling in the Nearness of Gods: The Hermeneutical Turn from Mou Zongsan to Tu
Abstract: This article argues that, as the problem of Confucian religiosity is concerned, there could occur an interpretative turn from Mou Zongsan’s moral metaphysics to Tu Weiming’s religious hermeneutics. Some concluding remarks are reached at the end of this article: First, Tu’s hermeneutics is rooted in the ontology of self as
interrelatedness, which is completely different from Mou’s theory of true self as transcendental subjectivity. Second, Tu’s hermeneutics of self can be better
illuminated with the help of Heidegger’s notion of Dasein as Being-with (Mitsein).
For Tu and Heidegger, self can not be seen as something separate from community.
This article also points out that the paradigmatic shift is evidenced in another
similarity between the four categories of self, community, nature, and the transcendent in Tu’s hermeneutics on the one hand, and the four symbols of earth, sky, divinities, and mortals employed by Heidegger to interpret the meaning of dwelling on the other.
In such primordial situation of dwelling, gods are not supposed to be intellectually
known, they are rather to be neighboring in community.
Keywords: Tu Weiming, Mou Zongsan, Heidegger, Religiosity, Confucianism
Introduction
In this paper I will investigate the contrasting conceptions of Confucian religiosity, or “Confucian religiousness,”the phrase Tu Weiming prefers to use, in Mou Zongsan’s moral metaphysics and Tu’s religious hermeneutics.1 Before proceeding further, allow me to first explain the title of this paper. “Dwelling in the nearness of gods”is a phrase I took from Heidegger’s “Letter on Humanism,”where he translates Heraclitus’fragment “
ēthos anthrōpōidaimōn”as “
Man dwells, insofar as he is man, in the nearness of god.”According to Heidegger’s reading, “ethos”in the fragment means “abode,”“dwelling place,”or “the open region in which man1 I would like to express my gratitude to Yen-Zen Tsai, Huang Yong, Xingzhong Yao, Heiner Roetz, and Carlo Harris for their invaluable comments and suggestions.
dwells.”Radically different from the current understanding of ethics in terms of moral subjectivity, Heidegger interprets “ethos”as the existential life-world in which human beings live. Ethos is “the(familiar) place where is the open space for the presencing of gods (the unfamiliar one)”(Heidegger 1977: 234). It is in the everyday life-world, the ontological ground of Dasein, where one awaits the coming of gods. Gods are not
beyond the life-world. They are in the life-world, near to the place where man dwells.
Inspired by Heidegger’s radical thinking, I intend to utilize this metaphor of “dwelling in the nearness of gods”as a means reinterpreting Tu’s hermeneutics of Confucian religiosity. If the conclusions of this interpretative project are correct, as I believe my arguments will indicate, what emerges is a discontinuity within the seeming continuity from Mou’s metaphysics to Tu’s hermeneutics.
In his “Letter on Humanism,”Heidegger criticizes subjectivist humanism to the extent that even Neo-Confucian humanism would be included as one of his targets of criticism. Conversely, Mou Zongsan, and Tu Weiming as well, in turn totally rejected Heidegger’s phenomenological hermeneutics. Despite the apparent conflict between Heidegger and the Neo-Confucians (Mou in particular), however, I try in this paper to find some common ground between Tu’s religious hermeneutics and Heidegger’s ontological hermeneutics. I am going to argue that there could occur a hermeneutical turn in Tu’s writings which subtly deviates from Mou’s moral metaphysics.
The lineage of modern Neo-Confucian thought from Mou Zongsan to Tu Weiming is evidenced in the overlapping of their professional and academic lives at Tunghai University. In 1957, the young Tu began his undergraduate studies at Tunghai whereas Mou had moved to this newly established Protestant university the year prior.
Three years later, Mou left Tunghai for the University of Hong Kong. Since that time, Tu has often acknowledged his deep indebtedness to Mou’s influence (Tu 2002:
373).2 And as can be witnessed by Tu’s later writings, there is no doubt that the philosophy of Mou Zongsan has played an important role in the development of Tu’s thought.
For the time being, my investigation will be mostly confined to Mou’s
Intellectual Intuition and Chinese Philosophy (1971) and Tu’
s Centrality andCommonality: an Essay on Confucian Religiousness (1989). The reason for my focus
on Tu’s magnum opus is simply because it has been regarded as one of the most influential works on the subject. What may be unconventional is my emphasis on Mou’s Intellectual Intuition and Chinese Philosophy, instead of on his other mature works, like Appearance and Thing-in-itself (1975) or An Essay on Highest Good (1985). As we will see later, Mou’s critique of Heidegger in Intellectual Intuition is2 The rationale for my bringing Mou Zongsan into dialogue with Tu first arose from reading Tu’s dedication to Mou in his Centrality and Commonality where he describes his former mentor as “an original thinker and an inspiring teacher.”
decisive for deciphering the former’s understanding of religion.
The organization of this article is as follows: In the first section, I briefly review the onto-theo-logical trinity of Mind-Nature-Heaven found in Mencius 7a1, which is representative of the doctrinal context in which the meaning of Confucian religiosity was articulated in both pre-Qin Confucian and Song-Ming Neo-Confucian writings.
In the second section, I shift my focus on Mou’s philosophical engagement with Kant and Heidegger with regard to the problem of God and intellectual intuition.
Highlighted are Mou’s exegetical interpretation and philosophical arguments for intellectual intuition as being instrumental to the possibility of transcendental knowledge. In the final section of this article, I will attempt to bring Tu Weiming into dialogue with Heidegger and argue that Tu’s hermeneutics of religion can no longer be read through the lens of moral metaphysics.