如何engage,怎樣左翼?

2009-08-02 Lau Yu-kwong 018

(何啟龍攝)

翼佛教的講座終於完成了,真謝謝劉宇光,更感謝從四方八面而來,認識的與更多不識認的聽眾。

前陣子常說覺得能從佛教中借取激進的思想資源與更切實的行動力量,把遠在二戰前後南亞國家的engaged Buddhism古老當時興,又把engaged Buddhism與華語界的人間佛教張冠李載。只不過是兩三個月前的想法,現在回看,覺得幼稚得慚愧。但這種望文生義的創意詮釋,不正好映照出這一波佛教熱想要回應現代社會的熱切渴求麼?也好的,先去除了「佛教=保守」的想像;再去除「佛教=和平」的妄想─那我們就可以真正的談佛教了。聽罷劉宇光開講所得到的最強烈訊息,是:1.engaged Buddhism兩面受敵─既被嫌不夠左、更被疑不夠如法(既不是社會運動、又不是宗教運動)2. 而華語界因為和稀泥特性,或出於現實的政治處境,對engaged Buddhism的左閃右避或刻意扭曲,就更加耐人尋味。3. 以國族主義(或宋立道指出的「教族主義」)為軸心的政治光譜,一旦失去了共同的敵人(殖民者),便又跌入後殖民的陷阱,以企圖恢復「原有」的國家傳統,佛教一下子又被扯回到國家佛教(State-Buddhism)的模式。劉教最近幾年最着力的,就是佛教的右翼轉向,可惜時間不多,講座上未能好好開展。

到聽眾之中來了一些基督徒朋友,我不知道他/她們是不是也帶着和我相同的疑問:資本主義挾部着部份基督教教派在後殖民的香港社會混合成宗教右派i,能否以另一種「相對本土」的宗教作為參照,尋找出路?講座上輕輕帶過而沒有進一步引伸的,是:1. 佛教在社會參與的義理基礎,如「無明」的制度化及「末法」思想。(前者在劉的論文中有較充份的解析)2.佛教在資本主義和社會主義之間,在義理上到底與那一方較接近?緬甸前國防和礦業部長吳巴瑞為緬甸作的歷史抉擇是─依據「捨」的精神境界而成立的僧伽組織,是社會主義的楷模;而佛教與社會主義的共同處大於與資本主義的共同處。ii 可惜的是佛教研究在這些課題上的成績仍然遠遠追不上時代的詰問,甚至有關engaged Buddhism的幾本專書,都只能籠統地把由日本的創價學會、到比丘尼僧團;由一行禪師的人道組織、到斯里蘭卡的扶貧計劃(Sarvodaya Shramadana)─共同的教理基礎仍在起步階段。佛教基本教理對貪、嗔、癡既有深切的剖析,但如果僅能停留在心靈雞湯層次,趁金融海嘯才能發揮一點心靈安慰的作用,而對現代化為人類社會種種問題以至對自然萬物的破壞,只能局限在私領域作少修少補,連像台灣佛教領袖作為社會良心的角色也未能做到─這樣的佛教,試問又能為當下的香港社會提供出路麼?

真的希望我們能為香港做的更多。

下一次的講座,由劉錦華老師主講,題為「佛教不是什麼?」,會從幾本著作等入手,以信仰的角度談佛教。829日,下午三時至五時,acohttp://www.aco.hk/blog/

宗薩欽哲仁波切, 姚仁喜 (譯者):《近乎佛教徒》http://www.douban.com/subject/1915094

及尚方斯華何維爾馬修李卡德(賴聲川譯)僧侶與哲學家》(Jean-Francois Revel & Matthieu Ricard , Le Moine et le philosophehttp://www.douban.com/subject/1769975/

另,roundtable在序言書室也有講座:

佛教思想中的我、我、我、我……

日期:811日(星期二)

時間:下午230分至430

地點:序言書室

主持:伍棟英先生〔雲水網站網主、《思考‧人生的路向》作者〕

佛教思想中所說的「我癡、我見、我愛、我慢」〔統稱為「我念」〕是所有佛教思想根本要處理的課題。我們如何在愛情、成長、人際關係等日常生活中體認「我念」及其所造成的障礙?又,我們可怎樣減除「我念」?

(本來的「萬般將不去,惟有業隨身」的佛家哲學取消,由另一活動代替,不便之處,敬請見諒)

延伸閱讀:

七、《佛陀的啟示》 羅睺羅‧化普樂著 顧法嚴譯

八、《菩提樹的心木》 佛使比丘著 鄭振煌譯

九、雲水網站:「學佛偶得」、「禪學塗鴉」

http://www.npc.edu.hk/staff/~ngtungying/index.htm


——————–

i(參《明報》「星期天生活」「城市裝修系列」2009719日及26日,一連兩星期,安徒、楊穎仁、劉劍玲、吳國偉等文章。轉載:http://www.ln.edu.hk/mcsln/city.shtmlhttp://www.ln.edu.hk/mcsln/city.shtml)

ii宋立《神聖與世俗─南傳佛教國家的宗教與政治》。北京:宗教文化出版社,2000年,236-239

————–

附回應(8月6日)

謝謝諸位。

我當然沒有所有問題的答案,所以更加要問,engaged Buddhism的基礎在那。而改變自己與改變世界,並不是用來對立的東西─何況,再追問下去,世界與自我,又有什麼分別呢?

很同意「種因」非常重要,要是所謂「搞社運」的,都能把眼光放遠點,不要太計較眼前的成「果」,百折不朽,沒有敵人。正如劉宇光文中所講,無明的制度化,可能要幾生幾世地種因,才有改變的可能。

雖然我讀書讀的很慢,還是很想盡快與大家分享。剛開了Ken Jones, The New Social Face of Buddhism: An Alternative Socioplitcal Perspective來讀。先節錄幾句,與大家分享:

一,對「業」(karma)的一般誤解,應為佛教是一種反對積極行動的宿命論:

Most people view karma as an experience of misfortune that is the consequence of misdeeds done in the past- as an adjustment on a cosmic balance sheet, so to speak. […]For individual as well as cultures, misfortune may seem disturbingly arbitrary. This is especially so when fate seems to strike a random blow of adversity, perhaps resulting from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. " Why me?" we ask. And so, out of a craving to make sense of an unjust world, the Buddhist doctrine of karma, a subtle teaching involving a specific dimension of the law of cause and effect, was perverted into a belief in retributive justice. (p. 23)

Retributive notions of karma flourish in traiditional and fatalistic cultures – and sustain them. […] The fate of whole peoples and nations has thus been explained simply in terms of a retributive karma, whether they be Jews or Cambodiams. (p. 24)

Some understanding of karma – stripped of crude notions of retribution – is essential in order to make sense of our lives. Karma is willed mental activity (which may or may not be behaviorally expressed) that leaves a trace, or “karmic residue", in the personality. Such a residue is usually accompanied by dispositional tendencies to act according to as “karmic complexes." (p.25)

二,engaged Buddhism在後發展國家的使命:
“Socially engaged Buddhism developed as a “synthesis combining the best in their traditional cultures with the best of modernity. Radical conservatism recognizes the need for radical change, but also acknowledge the complexity and slow momentum of social development and is sensitive to the potential growth points of a new society, and thus seeks change that goes with the grain. It is an example of the Buddhist ‘middle way’, which is a higher, third way, rather than mere compromise. (p.26)

改善社會的物質條件,改變讓眾生受苦的制度,是engaged Buddhism對現代的回應。

三,個人的改變能幫改制度的改變,制度的改變能幫助個人的改變:

Buddhists teaching rightly gives priority attention to the individual person. But for how much longer can it continue to ignore the delusive social forces with which that individual has to engage from birth, conditioning our lifestyle and our life-world more than we know? […]Lifestyle change is a good start, but it can never be enough without a commitment to radical structural and institutional change. The Buddhist teaching, if it is to be sustained into the next millennium of our crisis- ridden planet, must be socially and ecologically engaged. (p.39)

四,既言無我,那誰去擔當行動的主體呢?

The doctrine of no self is emphasized in order to put in question our strong attachment to a solid self-identity, which the Buddha saw as the origin of suffering. However, the Buddhist scholar D. T. Suzuki argues in The Field of Zen that it is equally possible to take the contrary view: " Without self there will be no individual; without an individual there will be no responsibility. Without the idea of responsibility morality ceases to exist; so the idea of self is deeply involved in our idea of moral responsibility… We must in some way have a self, but when self is analyzed… and the senses and the intellect are taken away, no self exists."

[…] The self that accepts phenomena without the least reserve and becomes totally at one with phenomena no longer stands out as a separate self. (p.33)

這不禁使我回想到《金剛經》裡以無我作為滅度眾生的基礎:

佛告須菩提。諸菩薩摩訶薩。應如是降伏其心。所有一切眾生之類。若卵生。若胎生若濕生。若化生。若有色。若無色。若有想。若無想。若非有想。非無想。我皆令入無餘涅槃而滅度之。如是滅度無量無數無邊眾生。實無眾生得滅度者。何以故。須菩提。若菩薩有我相。人相。眾生相。壽者相。即非菩薩。

讀Ken Jones與讀David L. McMahan, The Making of Buddhist Modernity,高下立見。Ken Jones不單直指現代的核心,行文與辯析還可見他禪修底子。

四, Engaged Buddhism不只是要求外在的、他人的、集體的、制度的改變,同時也是一種內在的、個人的、靈性的修行:

這點在劉宇光的論文中也有提到,不過在講座上沒有加以引伸。這裡且摘錄一段一行禪師在David W. Chappell, Buddhist Peacework: Creating Cultures of Peace的記述:

[拯救被各國推回海上的難民被新加坡發現,一行禪師被下令在二十四小時內離開]此時我雖然身在陸地,卻如同在海上漂流一樣;我們的性和船上的八百人結成一體,要在二十四小時之內解決他們的問題似乎是不可能了。[…]我這一生,只要還活着,就永遠都不會忘記那天晚上打坐、行禪、數息的每一分每一秒。因為我直接面對問題,所以才能成功。我曾經發誓,如果那一刻我無法保持平靜,我這一生將永遠無法平靜。如果置身於那種危險狀況時我無法保持平靜,在平常比較輕鬆的時侯做到的平靜就不算什麼了。」

朋友,我們還有很遠的路要走。

(想買這些書可到aco,不要只幫襯amazon)

廣告

3 thoughts on “如何engage,怎樣左翼?

  1. 我想,佛法很好,不過,心急見到改變的人很多,肯進去學習佛法的人不多,誤會佛法的人太多。

    要說社會參與,方法不只拿著橫額走上街叫喊,我記得有人說過,改變自己都那麼難,何況要改變他人!

    佛教講種因,很多社會問題發現時,已在「果」的階段,要改變,很難很難而且介入的果效不大,所以要種因,要看長遠,如在教育方面(如培訓教師)下手,及在看似不關事的沒參與運動的人方面的心靈教育下手,這都不是一時三刻會看到的改變,但隨著時間這股人心的力量會愈來愈增強!

  2. The Budhhism in itself is purely religion. How much political ideologies were inside the doctrine of Buddhism. The core of Buddhism is liberation, the Eightfold Path, loving-kindness and compassion. What was the motivation of Gotama Buddha to save his clan and nation during a war attack ? A political agenda or out of compassion. But if the Gotama Buddha’s did not react, could he not be complained as cold-blood to the destruction of his nation. Besides, how could his non-aggressive and peaceful action was interpreted as Politics.

    Are Buddhism and Politics are equivalent ?

    What are and were the contents of Politics.

    Please do not forget to mention a important fact the the Buddhism was almost erased from Sri Lanka during being colonized from European countries for many hundred of years.

    This was very important to understand that there was no religious war in the history of Buddhism.

    Please be very alert that the some scholar in the west are try to separate the religion from politics due to the destruction of religion wars amount Christainity, Catholic, Isalm and Jews for many hundred of years. Did you or others look at this facts carefully. Did you know them completely when you want to lead a reform. Or you just see a bit and piece information.

    Content of Politics, social administration, international relationship: conflict, war, allies, manipulation and greenpeace, awareness, co-operation, exploration, freedom, human right, equality etc.

    Content of Buddhism: Suffering and liberation of Suffering by Eightfold Path, compassion and loving-kindness.

    Be alert that not to use the knowledge/skill of politics and social administration, etc, to transform a society and then mix the ideology of Buddhism and politics together.

    The “Black Swan" – the exceptional case. If there is/are political involvement of some Buddhists, could this be equivalent that Buddhism=Politics.

    Buddhist, such as other humans, can join political event.

    But Buddhism are not equal to Politics. Because they are different paradigm.

    In our modern society we have the university, political and law system, cultures that can perform the major functions of social administrations. How
    much percentage of our Buddhism doctrine that can fulfil functions and code of practice of social administration or transformation, e.g. could the doctrine Four Noble Truth put into the system of political belief.

    What is the root problem of the our human races?

    Should we be increase our wisdom at first?

    Understand the fact before participate in action.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s