耶佛首次论辩及其文化意义再省思

The First Debate Between Christianity and Buddhism and the re-Reflection on Its Cultural Significance

由利玛窦与雪浪法师首度开启、后来得到广泛深入展开的晚明耶佛论辩,最有意义之处或许不仅仅在于双方之策略、态度或立场,而更在于论辩的内容所揭示的中西文化之深刻差异。利玛窦事后对争辩进行总结,认为中国人没有逻辑学,不懂逻辑;不区分道德上的恶与自然界的恶;不区分人性中的先天因素与后天因素;不区分本体与依附体;争论时只会运用各种例子来证明,而非依据理性。这里处处把中国当成了西方的反面。从体用关系、世界观、灵魂观以及思维方式等四个方面入手,对耶佛论辩中所呈现的中西文化差异进行再度辨析,指出晚明传教士与佛教人士彼此采取对抗的姿态,致使"互动"失却了"同情的理解",并造成"聋子的对话",这是我们今日必须避免的。但由于"辨异"同样是比较文化研究的重要目的,故这场耶佛论辩依然具有深刻的文化与思想史意义,特别是结合马克思的著名论断——在特定的发展阶段里,"被曲解了的形式"是跨时空文化理解与接受的"普遍的形式"来考察,这段论辩所赖以发生的形式与机制,更值得我们去费心探究。

The debate between Christianity and Buddhism, first started by Matteo Ricci and Master Xuelang, had an extensive development in a deep-going way afterwards. The most significant point in this debate is perhaps not only the two parties＇ tactics, attitudes and positions, but also the profound difference between Chinese and Western cultures revealed by the contents of this debate. After this event, Matteo Ricci had made a summary of this debate, in which he believed that there was no logics in China and Chinese were ignorant of logic; that Chinese did not distinguish the moral evil and the natural evil, the innate factor（s） and the ac- quired factor（s） in human nature, and the noumenon and the accidents; and that Chinese could make a demonstration only by vari- ous examples rather than rationality. In his belief, China was taken as the opposite of the West in all respects. This article will differentiate and analyse the difference between Chinese and Western cultures presented in the debate between Christianity and Buddhism from the four respects of the relation between fundamental essence （Ti） and practical use （Yong）, world view, conception of the soul and the way of thinking, in order to point out that the antagonistic stance between Western missionaries and Buddhists in late Ming Dynasty results in the absence of ＂sympathetic understanding＂ in the ＂interaction＂ （between China and the West） and the ＂dialogue between the deaf＂, which is what we should avoid at present. However, due to ＂discriminating difference （s）＂ as one important purpose of comparative cultural studies, this debate between Christianity and Buddhism still has profound significance in the cultural and intellectual history. In particular, the generative form and mechanism this debate depended upon, combined with and investigated by Karl Marx＇s famous assertion that the ＂misinterpreted form＂ is the ＂universal form＂ of cultural understanding and acceptance across time and space in a specific stage of development, are more worth exploring seriously.