视觉史视域之中的云冈18窟主佛所持之物辨析并包巾柱、束藤座说驳议

Analysis on the Object Held by the Main Buddha of the 18th Cave of Yungang Grottoes in Visual History and the Refutation to the Argument of Towel Wrapped Pillar and the Bundle Rattan Seat

几乎所有关涉到云冈18、19窟研究的文章著作,在面对18窟主佛手持之物、19窟主佛膝上摊放之物时,都不约而同地采取了回避的方式,这种审慎态度值得关注。也有个别学者莽撞地认定为是"僧祇支"。然而,当我们将这个手持之物与方山永固陵柱式、云冈石窟之中菩萨、外道、主佛就坐的"座式"相联系的时候,便发现它们之间的密切关联:都是软质的,都是有对折弧度呈现的形式。加之18窟手持物一侧所雕刻的立佛与身前匍匐童子造像所表现的"定光佛授记"典故,便可以发现,这个物件不是世俗经验可以理解的器物,而是"神佛世界"中特定意义的符码系统。我们因此命名为"天衣袂",以及"天衣束缚柱""天衣束缚座",旨在提示它是一个"化生空间"的涵义。这三个视觉形式所包含的意义为:可以与过去佛会见,可以穿越未来,存在于现在。而本文所关涉的"视觉史"视域更倾向于一种方法论,首先是关注被历史匿名,被佛学义理覆盖的制作家情况,包括他们创作的心理结构与文化倾向;其次便是从视觉语言结构出发,关注视觉形式、视觉语汇、视觉修辞的综合性;再次便是注重文献的逻辑关联,并放置到视觉应用语境之中进行判断,考掘其历史深处的文化心理结构,打捞沉积在历史河床深处的知识碎屑,重建其整体的意义系统。

Most articles related to research on Yungang caves 18 and 19 have remained rather evasive when it comes to the object held by the main Buddha of cave 18, and the object on the lap of the main Buddha in cave 19, which are both worthy of attention. Some scholars have related these with the "five-stripped robe"(samkaksika). We have been able to find a close relationship between these objects and the Fangshan Yonggu Mausoleum Pillar, as well as the Bodhisattvas, lay Buddhists and main Buddhas in the Yungang caves : all of them are represented as soft, curved shapes. Based on the scene of the "prediction of Dipankara Buddha", represented by a standing statue Buddha flanked by a small boy, we think that this item cannot be explained in a secular context, but must fit in a symbolic system in the "world of gods and Buddhas". We have named this item "sleeve of celestial garment", or "pillar wrapped in sleeve of celestial garment" and "seat wrapped in sleeve of celestial garment", and suggest this item belong to a space of transformation. These three visual forms grant access to the Buddhas of the past, they allow one to travel towards the future, and to exist in the present. This article proposes a novel methodology within the perspective of "visual history". First of all, it pays attention to the makers of Budhdist images, who were anonymized by history and the Buddhist doctrine, and to their mindset. Secondly, through a structural analysis of visual evidence, this article hopes to elucidate its visual syntax, vocabulary and rhetoric. Thirdly, this article is grounded in textual sources, which are confronted to its visual context, in a quest for deep psychological structures in ancient culture, and fragments of knowledge scattered in the riverbed of history, which we aim to replace in a coherent system of meaning.