Ch'an Dao Links:
|
Hu Shi, Cen Xue Lu & Xu Yun’s AgeLong before the time of his death in 1959 at the venerable age of 120 on Mount Yun-ju, Jiangxi Province, Master Xu-yun’s name was known and revered in every Chinese Buddhist temple and household, having become something of a living legend in his own time. His life and example has aroused the same mixture of awe and inspiration in the minds of Chinese Buddhists as does a Milarepa for the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, remarkable in view of the fact that Xu-yun lived well into our own era, tangibly displaying those spiritual powers that we must otherwise divine by looking back through the mists of time to the great Chan adepts of the Tang, Song and Ming Dynasties. They were great men whose example still inspires many today, but in many cases, we have scant details as to their lives as individuals, outside their recorded dialogues or talks of instruction.
(Richard Hunn: Introduction to Empty Cloud (1988) the English translation of Master Xu Yun’s Autobiography) Xu Yun’s life story was the stimulus for an incident that occurred in the Chinese academic community shortly after his death; an incident that possessed such cultural meaning and emotive power that it spread very quickly throughout the Chinese diaspora, and later found its way into the West. This incident directly questioned the validity of the ancient thought of China, and represented a clash between indigenous Chinese wisdom and knowledge as conceived through the conceptual structures of Western modernity. This situation was not caused by a Western thinker, but rather by a Chinese academic influenced by Western philosophy (particularly pragmatism) and scientific theory. The name of this Chinese academic was Hu Chuan (胡傳) [1891-1962], who became popularly known as Hu Shi (胡适). Hu Shi was born into a traditional Chinese family from the eastern province of Anhui, and had an arranged marriage with a young woman with bound feet. The ordinary peasant population in north China had rebelled against the oppressive presence of Western imperialist and religious forces during the Boxer Uprising (1898-1900). This movement, premised upon traditional Chinese spiritual and martial practises, directly clashed with modern Western military forces, and despite initial victories was eventually defeated. Tens of thousands of Chinese people died in this attempt to rid China of the unwanted foreign presence. Western countries (such as the USA, Great Britain, and Germany), combined forces with imperial Japan, and worked together to prevent a resurgence of Chinese self-determination. The unequal peace treaties the Western forces enforced upon Chinainvolved the paying of huge sums of money as compensation for the inconvenience caused by the Chinese action. This involved the creation of the so-called ‘Boxer Indemnity Scholarship Program’, whereby the Chinese government was forced to pay for Chinese citizens to travel to the USA and attend university. This was part of the deliberate Western policy of converting Chinese people to Western thinking, (which involved the embracing of Christianity), whilst simultaneously rejecting traditional Chinese religion and culture as inherently inferior. Hu Shi’s behaviour toward Chinese culture maybe viewed as a manifestation and continuation of this policy, as he benefitted directly from the Western presence in China. Hu Shi travelled to the USA and studied at Cornell and Colombia Universities– funded entirely through the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship Program. Ch’an master Xu Yun passed away on the 13th of October, 1959. This was a time of great sadness throughout China as the country mourned the passing of one of its greatest spiritual practitioners. Just over a month later, on the 29th of November, 1959, Hu Shi delivered a lecture at the National University of Taiwan, criticising the autobiography of Xu Yun. Taiwanat this time, as the Republic of China (ROC), was the focal point for a US foreign policy hostile to the mainland Communist regime, and a place of overt ideological resistance to it. Hu Shi’s behaviour, which was designed to cause the greatest possible offense to Chinese cultural sensibilities, can not be viewed as isolated from the political situation of his time. Indeed, it is exactly the socio-economic conditions, and the political climate existing in Taiwan at the time, that created the physical conditions for Hu Shi to express himself in this way, safe in the knowledge that he was protected from any personal or professional censure by the presence of US influence in the region, and the general Taiwanese antipathy toward the mainland regime. In no other circumstances could Hu Shi have behaved in this manner and escaped all consequences. Hu Shi stated in his lecture that it was his opinion that the facts recorded in the first edition of Xu Yun’s biography were wrong. Hu Shi questioned Xu Yun’s age of 120 years old, stating that although such an age was conceivably possible, it could not be proven as correct in this instance. This lecture elicited a very robust response from the Buddhist communities of Taiwan and Hong Kong, as well as a generally negative response throughout the overseas Chinese community. After receiving this negative response to his lecture, Hu Shi was besieged on all sides and demanded that the scientific method be applied to the situation so that evidence could be gathered to prove that Xu Yun was actually in his 120th year at the time of his death. If evidence could not be produced, Hu Shi stated, then the ago of 120 years must be clearly false. This criticism of Xu Yun is considered to be motivated by Hu Shi’s well known anti-Buddhist attitude, and sparked a profound crisis of confidence within the Chinese Buddhist community, which was accused by Hu Shi of spreading superstition and ignorance in the name of religion. This debate transcended purely academic areas of contention, and involved the questioning of the validity of traditional Chinese cultural attitudes toward religious belief, in the light of rational thought. This debate also had important ramifications for the development of political ideology. The autobiography of the Ch’an monk Xu Yun was hastily gathered together in the early 1950’s, following Xu Yun being beaten so badly by the authorities that his disciples feared that he would die. In fact, despite his extensive injuries, Xu Yun recovered and lived for another 7 years, giving time for the biography to be extended, corrected and finessed. It was smuggled out of China to Hong Kong, (then a British colony), and delivered to Xu Yun’s trusted lay disciple – the scholar Cen Xue Lu (1882-1963) – who gathered the pieces together and edited the material into a coherent autobiography. In this text, Xu Yun states that he was born in 1840 and that his father – Xiao Yu Tang (蕭玉堂) – was an officer in the local government of Fujian province. The evidence for this appears to stem not from Xu Yun himself, (although, of course, he is presented in the autobiography as if he were the source), but rather from a set of documents that he received from the nun named Bhiksuni Qing Jie (formerly known as Miss Tan, one of Xu Yun’s two wives) in 1910. These documents are comprised of: 1) Qing Jie’s letter 2) Qing Jie’s Gatha 3) Miao Jin’s Gatha Bhiksuni Qing Jie’s letter included news of the passing of Xu Yun’s stepmother (formerly Madam Wang) now known as Bhiksuni Miao Jin. Miao Jin appears to have entrusted Qing Jie with her spiritual poetry before she died, and this is how it eventually got into Xu Yun’s hands as part of Qing Jie’s letter. This letter, (preserved in full in the autobiography), offers corroborating evidence for the chronology of Xu Yun’s life, and might well have been used by Xu Yun (or his disciples) as a means to ascertain the exact date of his birth, and record the earliest incidences in his life, including biographical gathas (spiritual poems) written by his stepmother; giving this important document a definite aurora of authenticity. Charles Luk translates this revealing text as follows: Bhiksuni Qing Jie’s letter Salutations from afar, Revered One. I have not ceased thinking of you since you left us, but due to the cloud-wreathed mountains that separate us, I have been unable to obtain news of you. I trust that you have established good health in the Dharma-substance and that you have harmonized the state of stillness and activity. Over fifty years have passed since you left home, but since you are as elusive as a rustic immortal, I regret that I have been unable to come and serve you. In the first month of this year, I heard indirectly that you were living a free and easy life of retreat somewhere in Fujian Province. I was half sad and half happy when the news came, but I was most puzzled as to just where you were living. The more I think of your inability to pay back your debt of gratitude to your parents, and of your casting aside all feelings towards your wives, the more I am at a loss trying to understand how you have been able to bear all this. Moreover, as you had no brothers and since your parents were old when they had you, we are unfortunate in that we have not been able to continue the family-line. At home, there was no one to support the family which was thus left without a successor. Whenever I think of all this, I cannot refrain from tears. The Confucian teaching stresses the importance of the five human relationships and filial conduct. Formerly, even the immortal Han-xiang still thought of saving his uncle, Han-yu, and the latter’s wife. As to our Lord Buddha, he treated both friend and foe alike. He first liberated Devadatta (his cousin and opponent) and his own wife, Yasodhara. Is it really true that there is no karmic affinity between us? If you cannot be moved by the thought that we are fellow natives of the same district, you should at least remember the debt of gratitude you owe your parents. I feel obliged to give you some news of the family affairs. After you left home, your father sent out messengers to search for you - but in vain. He was very sad and because of his declining health, he resigned his post and returned home to seek for a cure. Over a year later, he passed away on the fourth of the twelfth month in the year Jia-zi (1864/65). After his funeral, your stepmother, Miss Tian and I entered a convent and joined the Sangha under the respective Dharma names of Miao-jing (Profound Purity), Zhen-jie (True Cleanness) and Qing-jie (Clear Chastity). The affairs of our family were entrusted to the charge of your uncle and aunt who gave away most of our possessions as alms. After four Dharma-years, Miss Tian vomited blood and passed away. In the year Yi-hai (1875/76), your uncle died at Wenzhou. My elder brother is now Prefect at Xining. Your cousin, Yong-guo, went to Japan with Miss Tian’s third brother. Your cousin, Hun-guo, has been made your successor; and as to your cousin Fu-guo, no news has been received from him since he left with you. An ancient said, ‘Those of great virtue have no descendants.’ In your past life, you must have been a monk who has now reincarnated, but you have been responsible for the discontinuity of two family lines. Although you are a Bodhisattva seeking the liberation of all living beings, you cannot prevent the ignorant from slandering you because of your failure to fulfil your filial piety. I have also failed in my filial duty, but I admire the genuine roots of your spirituality and your unshaken determination which is like a lotus flower that cannot be soiled by the mud from which it grows. But why should you leave your native province and thus forget all about your origins? That is why I am writing you this letter. Last winter, on the eighth of the twelfth month (19 January 1910), your step mother, Bhiksuni Miao-jin, departed for the Western Land (of Bliss); she sat cross-legged and chanted her gathas before passing away. She departed immediately after chanting the gathas and the convent was filled with a rare fragrance which lasted for a few days during which her body, erect in the sitting position, looked exactly as if she were alive. Alas! Although this world is like a dream and an illusion, even a wooden man could not refrain from tears under the circumstances. This letter is to keep you informed of your family affairs and I do hope that upon receipt of it, you will return immediately along with your cousin Fu-guo. Moreover, the holy teaching is in decline and you should know that it is your duty to restore it. Could you not follow Mahakasyapa’s example and send forth the golden light so that I can be your Dharma companion? I am full of tears and will cherish this hope for the rest of my life. Talk is cheap and even a thousand words could not convey all my feelings, the meaning of which must be inferred. You are like a goose that has left its abode Preferring to soar in the sky, flying south alone. Pity its companion deserted in the nest whose grief Is deepened by the distance separating them. My gaze pierces the moon on the horizon And my eyes are filled with tears that never cease. On the banks of the River Xiang I have stayed long And the bamboos are marked with many joints. You will surely realize the great Dao And your wisdom-sun will brightly shine. Once we were companions in the burning house, Now we are relatives in Dharma-city. [Respectfully written by Bhiksuni Qing-jie, choked with sorrow on Guan-yin Mountain, this nineteenth day, the second month of the year Gen-shu (29 March 1910).] (Empty Cloud: Luk & Hunn [1988] Pages 79-81 – see Appendix I for original Chinese text) Included with this letter were Bhiksuni Miao Jin’s spiritual poems (gathas). Xu Yun explained that Upasaka Chen Yung Chang, (described in the text as the chief secretary for the central government), had Miao Jin’s gathas inscribed on a stone tablet, together with the following biographical information: Bhiksuni Miao-jin’s lay surname was Wang. She was the stepmother of Master Xu-yun, who’s other Dharma names were Gu-yan and De-qing. He was a native of Xiangxiang and his surname was Xiao, his family being descendants of Emperor Liang Wu-di. His father Xiao Yu-tang was an officer of Quanzhou Prefecture in Fujian. His mother’s family name was Yan. When she was over 40 years old, she prayed to Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva for the birth of a son and became pregnant. One night both she and her husband saw in a dream a man with a long beard wearing a blue robe, carrying the Bodhisattva’s statue on his head. He came riding upon a tiger which jumped upon their bed. His mother was scared and awoke, finding that their room was filled with unusual fragrance. When the Master was born, only a fleshy bag was visible and his mother was bitterly disappointed to see it, succumbed to her desperation and died. The following day an old man selling medicinal herbs came to the house, cut open the fleshy bag, taking out the male child who was to be Master Xu-yun and subsequently raised by his stepmother. Master Xu-yun did not like eating meat as a child. As he grew up he received his schooling but disliked the Confucian classics, his penchant being the Buddhist Sutras. His father was disappointed and severely reprimanded him. When he was 17, as he was also heir to his uncle, his father chose two wives for him from the Tian and Tan families. The Master did not want to be married and fled to Mount Gu in Fujian, where he followed Abbot Miao-lian as a disciple. In the year Jia-zi (1864/65), after the death of his father, his stepmother - together with his two nominal wives - entered a Buddhist convent where they joined the Sangha order as Bhiksuni. Miss Tian, who had previously suffered from tuberculosis, had a relapse four years later and passed away. As for Miss Tan, she is still living and is staying on Mount Quan-yin in Xiangxiang, where she is known as Bhiksuni Qing-jie. In her letter to the Master, she informed him of the death of his stepmother in the year Ji-yu (1909/10), who sat with crossed legs, chanted the following gathas and passed away: First Gatha What use was there in rearing A son who fled once he was strong? His pregnant mother’s life hung by a thread, So thanks were only offered after he was born. Diligently was he suckled; despite ordure and urine He was treasured like a ball by the unicorn. When he grew up and left his stepmother To whom could she look in her older years? As you had no brothers when your father died, On whom could your stepmother and two wives depend? You did not know how troublesome it was to rear A child: the more I think of this the sadder I become. Though willing to be a ghost mother searching for her son, The fabulous unicorn is represented in China as always embracing or chasing after a ball which it treasures. How can I be when parted by mountains wreathed in cloud? Thinking so hard on birth and death, you did not Recall that Pang-yun stayed at home. Worldly feelings and love of Dharma, are they not the same? Even mountain birds know they must roost with the setting sun. Though our calling’s the same to fulfil our vows, Each day we wash the cold mountain of its blue-green. Being a son of the void’s king, you should know That the Bhagavat freed His mother’s sister. I hate this troubled world and set my mind At rest for my return to the Land of Bliss. Second Gatha If one stays in the world for love of it, delusion And desire will cause one to forget the real self. For more than eighty years my life has been a delusion and a dream. Naught will remain when the myriad things return to the void. Free now from my past life’s entanglements, I will put On a pure and wondrous body in the Lotus Realm. Those who can recite the Buddha’s name to return to the West Should not permit themselves to sink in the bitter-ocean. (Empty Cloud: Luk & Hunn [1988] Pages 78-79 – see Appendix II for original Chinese text) Five key biographical points of interest can be discerned from the content of this letter and its enclosures: 1) Bhiksuni Qing Jie’s letter is dated as being written on the 29th of March, 1910). At this time, Xu Yun was in his 71st year of life. 2) Miao Jin’s gathas were carved on stone by Upasaka Chen Yung Chang – an important government official – and the included biography states that Xu Yun’s mother was over 40 years of age when she conceived Xu Yun, and that she died just after his birth. 3) Xu Yun’s stepmother Bhiksuni Miao Jin (formerly Madam Wang) passed away in 1910. Miao Jin’s gathas (spiritual poems) were forwarded to Xu Yun within Qing Jie’s letter. His stepmother could not have been the same age as Xu Yun (71) in 1910 – the year of her passing – and it is logical to assume that she was probably at least 20 years older than him at this time. Indeed, Miao Jin describes her age as being ‘more than eighty years’ just prior to her passing. 4) Qing Jie states that it has been over 50 years since Xu Yun left home. This tallies with master Xu Yun’s statement that he left home (with his cousin Fu Guo) at the age of 19, in the year 1858-59, and went to Gu Shan (Fuzhou), where his head was shaved by the elderly master Chang Kai. 5) Qing Jie gives the death date of Xu Yun’s father (Xiao Yu Tang) as 1864/65 – Xu Yun was 25 years old at the time. Hu Shi stated that if evidence could be produced that proved the age of 120 years – he would believe it to be true – but if no evidence could be produced, then he could not accept the claim as being true. Xu Yun had an autobiography, and given that he was very well known in China, Hu Shi said, the facts of the life story could be tested through objective investigation. Hu Shi’s intention was to discredit Xu Yun, and through so doing, discredit Chinese spirituality and traditional beliefs. One such belief concerns the idea that a sagely person is virtuous and insightful, and that this unique combination of goodness and sound judgement often results in a lifespan beyond that ordinarily expected. To undermine the ‘specialness’ of Xu Yun’s age, Hu Shi had to target his criticism at the statements made by Xu Yun, concerning the details of his birth and the assertion that his father was a government official based in Fujian province. For Hu Shi, this information served as evidence through which the trustworthiness of Xu Yun’s life details could be assessed, and through this analysis their reliability declared either ‘true’ or‘false’. Hu Shi believed that this type of questioning was correct and firmly within the ‘spirit of science’ (科学精神 – Ke Xue Jing Shen). The place that Hu Shi’s investigation began was with Xu Yun’s father – Xiao Yu Tang. Xiao Yu Tang is recorded in the autobiography as a local government official, a post that usually required the passing of an examination. Generally speaking, the details of the holders of such an important post are recorded locally, and if these records survive into the modern day, the facts can be checked. In this case, Hu Shi was searching for records dating to 1840 in Fujianprovince. The local government records, according to Hu Shi, made no mention of Xiao Yu Tang as a local government officer. Based upon this finding, Hu Shi declared that he could not accept that Xu Yun had lived for 120 years, and was of the opinion that as Xu Yun was respected as a Buddhist monk, people were reluctant to question his statements, but instead accepted ‘nonsense’ as ‘truth’. The modern academic Chen Jinguo (陈进国), of the History Department of Xiamen University, produced a research paper in 1998 entitled ‘Hu Shi and Xu Yun’s Autobiography; Avoiding Nonsense Through Thinking and the May Fourth Movement’, which defines Hu Shi’s theoretical stance on this matter as: Hu Shi’s discourse implies the following reasoning: Judgement A If the statement made by Xu Yun’s claiming that his father – Xiao Yu Tang – was a local government officer in Fujian – is false, then it follows that; Judgement B Xu Yun’s statement that he was 120 years old is also false. (Chen Jinguo: Hu Shi and Xu Yun’s Autobiography; Avoiding Nonsense Through Thinking and the May Fourth Movement – See Appendix III for original Chinese text) Or in other words, if ‘A’ is false, then ‘B’ must also be false. This analysis demonstrates that despite Hu Shi being a Western educated expert in philosophy, his thinking in the matter of Xu Yun’s age is obviously flawed, and therefore illogical, despite its inherent claims to possess a unique and superior logic. The simple fact is that there is no causal link between a record of the existence (and professional status) of Xiao Yu Tang, and the chronological age of Xu Yun. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hu Shi’s scepticism, far from being motivated by a search for objective truth, was obviously motivated by some other consideration. Cen Xue Lu, the scholar entrusted with the compiling and editing of Xu Yun’s autobiography in Hong Kong, wrote an open letter to the Chinese press in 1960, criticising Hu Shi’s disrespectful behaviour, and explaining that government records are often notoriously incomplete, or non-existant. With regard to Xu Yun, Cen Xue Lu had a chance to ask him whether the facts were correct – that his father was an official and that he was born in 1840 - to which Xu Yun responded by saying that these facts were correct and not errors of memory or the product of faulty recording. Furthermore, Cen Xue Lu draws attention to Hu Shi’s deliberate misrepresentation of the matter of Xu Yun’s father being a local government officer (perhaps equivalent to a County Magistrate). Cen Xue Lu clearly explains the many different kinds of ‘official’ ranks that existed within Chinese imperial bureaucracy, and explains that even if the official examination was passed, a successful candidate needed access to considerable wealth to pay the required gratuities to his superiors in an attempt to earn their favour. In this way a number of people (distinguished by age, time served, and good social connections) may appear to hold the same official post simultaneously, or participate in the everyday functioning of an official duty, despite not being known as the actual official who performs these tasks. Cen Xue Lu clarifies the issue by stating that usually only the most powerful and well connected individual officers have their name recorded in the government records, giving the false impression that they do all the work, when implications are to the contrary. The work load for an area was managed by an extensive team of civil servants – but despite their often meticulous attention to duty, very few would have been officially remembered. Such was the official system of scholarly governance in operation at the time of Xu Yun’s birth. Hu Shi makes no reference to this system at all, but merely declares that he could not find one name among hundreds. Cen Xue Lu’s research demonstrates that it is more likely not to find official evidence of an individual, than to find evidence of them. This knowledge suggests that Hu Shi’s statement highly suspicious, and motivated by something other than the search for objective truth. Cen Xue Lu had this to say to Hu Shi about his attack on the legitimacy of Xu Yun’s age: At this time, when the bright pathway of Xu Yun’s life should be remembered with respect, the gentleman Hu Shi, (who is the President of the Research Institute of China, and considered an expert on the contextual analysis of philosophy), nevertheless, delivers a derogatory lecture in Taiwan on the 29th of November, 1959. He states that now Xu Yun has passed away, his age of 120 years old can be doubted due to one or two errors inadvertently included in the two early editions of his autobiography. What is odd is that this ‘expert’ on philosophy failed to mention that a new third (and fully corrected) edition of Xu Yun’s autobiography was available in print prior to his lecture. This is deliberately disrespectful behaviour is tantamount to throwing ‘a plate of cold water’ over all the male and female Buddhists Chinese Buddhists, and the hundreds of thousands of Xu Yun’s disciples around the world! This kind of statement has sent shock waves around the world, and has been designed to deliberately attack Xu Yun’s reputation, and cause doubt in those whose strength of mind is not strong. It also seems designed to placate those who do not believe in the value of religion, because Hu Shi's statement has enabled them to clap their hands and cheer with delight. The majority of anti-religious people, such as Mr Zhang Ling, and other suitable gentleman, have enthusiastically booked seats for this spectacular show! The point of Hu Shi’s statement is that it represents a vicious attack against the very essence of Buddhism, at a time of great sorrow. I would not dare to do this. The autobiography has been around for seven years, and yet it is at this precise moment that Hu Shi chooses to make his move with this deceitful discussion. Hu Shi’s true motives are well hidden! (Cen Xue Lu – An Open Letter to the Public – See Appendix IV - FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE) Hu Shi’s methodology is also flawed in other aways. For instance, whilst dismissing Xu Yun’s account of his own life, Hu Shi displays a distinct lack of knowledge of the literary terrain of Xu Yun’s autobiography. His lack of knowledge regarding what amounts as his subject matter is stark considering the kind of damage he is attempting to cause, or the type of‘truth’ he is trying to establish. This is why Hu Shi has to keep the focus of his criticism very narrow indeed, and not deviate from its premise through fear of being exposed. Either this, or Hu Shi is revealing himself to be a very poor philosopher, which is difficult to believe when viewed in the light of the large amount of money the Chinese state was forced to pay (on his behalf) for the privileged education he received in the USA. He never mentions the letter preserved in Xu Yun’s biography which was written by Bhiksuni Qing Jie, or the other biographical details provided by Bhiksuni Miao Jin – Xu Yun’s former wife and stepmother respectively. The knowledge contained in this letter entirely supports Xu Yun’s recollection and could be viewed as objective evidence other than for the fact that it is contained in the very fabric of the autobiography itself. The traditional editing of Chinese texts has always involved the standardisation of the presentation of knowledge, facts, and figures. There is always the possibility that this letter served to remind Xu Yun of the facts of his birth and upbringing, or served as a reference for the original gathering of biographical details in the early 1950’s. It could also be possible that Xu Yun remembered the facts about his life independently of Qing Jie’s letter, and merely viewed his former relatives as stating the obvious. Whatever the case may be, Cen Xue Lu did not change any of the information he was given during the editing process, and Xu Yun confirmed in the 1950’s that the facts about his life story were all true. Hu Shi’s example sets a very dangerous precedent and raises many issues regarding the definition, value and validity of knowledge. On the face of it, it is not unreasonable to question established narratives and to test hypotheses; however, the manner in which the process is undertaken is very important. Hu Shi did not appear to be questioning narratives or testing hypotheses in a serious manner, and could be said to be genuinely involved in a search for true knowledge. What was happening at this time that was motivating Hu Shi’s behaviour? Cen Xue Lu (and other Chinese scholars) were of the opinion that Hu Shi, although a good scholar in the modern sense, was expressing his thoughts through the European Enlightenment paradigm of the ‘personal self’, (or ‘individual being’)forming the centre of the universe, and consequently the only legitimate cause for concern. As modernism was sweeping through China at this time, traditional Chinese scholars were calling for modern scholars to restrain, discipline and moderate their behaviour in the face of new developments. No matter how modern China was becoming, its culture was and remains firmly rooted in group orientated social organisation, and blatant individualists, like Hu Shi, were causing a great offense to Chinese sensibilities. An extension of the ‘offense through Westernisation’ idea involves the notion that Hu Shi had become a pawn in the USA’s aggressive anti-Communist policy aimed toward China, and that through his behaviour toward Xu Yun he participated in its application. By attacking the relatively soft target that Xu Yun offered, Hu Shi was by default attacking the Chinese people through his invalidation of Buddhist forms of knowledge acquisition and decision making. Despite this possible motivation, at the same time it must be acknowledged that his ‘attack’ was not particularly sophisticated and lacked the true mark of a professional thinker. Nevertheless, as an instrument designed to raise ‘doubt’ about an important issue surrounding traditional Chinese thinking, his simple campaign was very effective. Following hundreds of years of foreign domination, the Chinese people had been taught that they were racially inferior, and that their culture was not sublime, rather the product of a backward thinking process. Hu Shi’s behaviour can be understood when viewed in historical context as a simple assault on Chinese self-confidence, very much in the model of Western imperialism and Eurocentric racism. The attack on Xu Yun was an ideological attack against mainland Communist China, initiated, perpetuated and fulfilled by a Chinese thinker who was trained and politically influenced in the West. The ramifications of Hu Shi’s duplicity still ripple through the world, even in the West, where articles written in English can be found that question the validity of Xu Yun’s age simply due to the faulty methodology employed by Hu Shi. Perhaps the last word is best left with Xu Yun himself: MY 1ST YEAR - (1840/41) I was born at the headquarters of Quanzhou Prefecture on the last day of the seventh month in the year Geng-zi, the twentieth of the Dao-guang reign (26 August 1840). When my mother saw that she had given birth to a fleshy bag (presumably she had suffered a prolapsed of the womb) she was frightened and thinking that there was no hope of bearing child again, she succumbed to her desperation and passed away. The following day an old man selling medicine came to our house and cut open the bag, taking out a male child which was reared by my stepmother. (Empty Cloud: Luk & Hunn [1988] Page 1 – see Appendix V for original Chinese text) APPENDIX I Bhiksuni Qing Jie’s Letter 清節尼來書 拜違 尊顏。時深繫念。奈雲山阻隔。音問難通。疏慢之愆。職是之故。遙維 德公大和尚。動定綏和。法體康健。曷勝遠祝。憶君遁別家山。已五十餘年。寤寐之間。刻難忘懷。未審道履何處。仙鄉何所。未獲衛侍左右。實深歉仄。今春正月。側聞高隱閩海。優遊自得。聞之不禁悲喜交集。然究未知的實下落。真令懸戀難測。因念上離父母養育之恩。下棄吾等結髮之情。清夜思惟。其心安忍。況今兄薄弟寒。父母年邁。吾等命乖。未能興宗繼嗣。家中無倚靠之人。宗嗣無接續之丁。每憶念及。未嘗不涔涔淚下也。儒以五常為道。昔湘仙尚度文公及妻。且我佛以親怨平等。調達耶輸。盡先度之。想吾等與君豈非緣乎。既不動鄉關之念。還須思劬勞之恩。吾等無奈之何。今將家事。略述大概。自駕別後。 慈父令人四探無著。慟念於懷。常感有病。告老回家。養病一年餘。至甲子年(同治三年)十二月初四日巳時逝世。喪事辦妥後。姨母(即庶母王氏)領我並田氏小姐。同入佛門。姨母法名妙淨。田氏鵝英法名真潔。我名清節。家事概交叔嬸料理。多作善舉公益。餘不煩敘。鵝英吐紅。披緇四臘。撒手西歸。乙亥年。伯父在溫州病故。我大哥現牧西甯府。榮國(從弟)偕鵝英三弟赴東洋。華國繼續君嗣。至富國從君去後。未見信音。古謂大善無後。君雖僧伽再世。然頓絕二祠香煙。雖是菩薩度盡眾生。未免使愚迷謗無孝義。吾本於孝義有虧。常慕君之靈根深厚。志昂誓堅。若蓮花之不染污泥。又何必遠離鄉井。頓忘根本。吾之所以痛苦呈書者。特為此也。去冬(宣統元年)己酉歲。十二月初八辰時。姨母王氏(即比丘尼妙淨)告辭西歸。在彌留時。跏趺說偈。(偈見留偈記碑中)偈畢。歛視寂逝。異香數日。端坐巍巍。儼然如生。嗟乎。世雖夢幻。木人也感涕矣。今寄數語。使知家中事務。信到之日。速請束裝就道。萬勿遲延。並將富國一同回家。不枉清節傾渴翹冀。竭盡愚忱。是吾所深幸也。況茲聖教凋凌。楚夏風俗。 君豈不知。伏祈我師如迦葉尊者。放紫金光。同作法侶。滿腔蓄淚。盡形一望也。鄙語千言難盡。意義在不言中。匪朝匪夕。盼禱無涯矣。肅此敬叩慈安。伏乞丙鑒不宣。 君亦鴻雁別故鄉 沖霄獨自向南翔 可憐同巢哀哀侶 萬里秋風續恨長 望斷天邊月 淚泉瀉滿睛 我棲湘江上 竹痕已成斑 君必成大道 慧業日當新 昔時火宅侶 原是法城親 觀音山尼弟子清節頂禮百拜哽咽泣書《時(宣統二年)庚戌二月十九日》 (Xu Yun He Shang Nian Pu: 71st Year 1910 - Compiled and edited by Cen Xue Lu) APPENDIX II Upasaka Chen Yung Chang’s Stone Inscription 比丘尼妙淨者。俗姓王氏。雲公之庶母也。雲公法名古巖。字德清。號虛雲。湘鄉人。俗姓蕭。梁武之後也。父玉堂。佐治福建泉州府幕。母顏夫人。年踰四十無子。禱觀音大士得孕。父母夢一長鬚青袍人。頭頂觀音。身騎猛虎。跳入床上。母驚醒。異香薰室。既生雲公。落地乃一肉球。母大失望。氣壅而絕。越日有賣藥翁來。剖肉球得男。即雲公也。庶母撫育之。雲公性不喜茹葷。稍長就傅。不嗜儒書。性好佛經。父滋不悅。嚴責之。年十七。以兼祧故。父為娶二媳。一田氏。一譚氏。雲公不欲也。遁於閩海鼓山。禮妙蓮長老為師。同治三年甲子歲父去世。庶母遂領二媳入佛門為尼。田氏舊患咯血。披剃四臘即病歿。譚氏尚存。為湘鄉觀音山尼。法名清節。嘗寄書雲公。稱己酉臘八庶母西歸。當彌留時。跏趺留偈而逝。其偈曰。 Bhiksuni Miao Jin’s 1st Gatha 人生養子有何益。翼硬展翅便沖飛。懷胎命若懸絲險。既生得安謝神祇。 乳哺不倦尿屎苦。如獅捧球不暫離。待得稚雛成鵬去。慈親衰老猶靠誰。 兄薄弟寒父亡故。棄我婆媳竟何依。癡情難解鞠育念。益想益悲令人啼。 欲作鬼母尋子去。舉目雲山萬重圍。汝能志辦生死事。不見龐蘊把道違。 俗情法愛何殊義。山禽尚曉棲落暉。雖獲同願奉佛寺。日洗寒山冷翠微。 兒既早為空王子。世尊昔曾度阿姨。恨茲娑婆盡煩惱。休心今向極樂歸。 Bhiksuni Miao Jin’s 2nd Gatha 每因恩愛戀紅塵。貪迷忘失本來人。八十餘年皆幻夢。萬事成空無一人。 今朝解脫生前累。換取蓮邦淨妙身。有緣念佛歸西去。莫於苦海甘沈淪。 雲公得書悲喜交集。悲者悲撫育之恩未報。喜者喜庶母出家四十餘年。命終心不顛倒。留偈而逝。即生西之兆也。 (Xu Yun He Shang Nian Pu: 71st Year 1910 - Compiled and edited by Cen Xue Lu) APPENDIX III Chen Jinguo: Hu Shi and Xu Yun’s Autobiography; Avoiding Nonsense Through Thinking and the May Fourth Movement 作者:陈进国,厦门大学历史学98级博士生,厦门大学台湾研究所历史研究室 。 一、 前胡适堪称是20世纪中国学术思想史上的一位灵魂人物。在诸多学术和思想领域里,他皆“但开风气不为师”,做了令人瞩目的开拓工作。但自从胡适在新文化运动中“暴得大名”之后,围绕他的赞毁和聚讼就此起彼伏。1959年11月29日,胡适应台湾“教育部科学教育委员会及中华科学协进会的邀请,在台大法学院礼堂讲《科学精神与科学方法》”,借题质疑《虚云和尚年谱》初版(岑学吕居士编)史实有误,并表示虚云和尚年龄亦不大可信,由此引发了台港佛教界及海外侨僧界的剧烈反弹,反胡声一浪高过一浪,与当时中国大陆方兴未艾的批胡风潮形成了有趣的对照。本文主要依据“缅华佛教僧伽会”于1960年7月发行的《辟胡说集》 ,拟对这场公案的缘起、双方争论的焦点及实质作扼要的分析 。文中不妥之处,敬请专家斧正。 二、《虚云和尚年谱》的编纂和胡适的“胡说”为何胡适的一个很普通的演讲,竟然会掀起台港佛教界及海外的侨僧界的讨胡声浪?这必须从岑学吕如何编纂和修订《虚云和尚年谱》,以及胡适如何质疑并考证《虚云和尚年谱》的失实问题等,入手来考察。岑学吕曾谈及年谱初版的编纂经过:“壬辰春,云门事变后,师于重伤病中,目不能视,耳患重听,语音艰涩,神志昏沈,诸弟子虑有变也。伺师稍清醒时,环请述生平事迹,备编年谱,匆遽集多手分录草稿,拆开旧经书一本,录于纸背,复装订成册,密交学吕编辑;以港中乏书参考,乃四出搜集,其中整篇文字,多由诸方丛林辗转录出,至于法语及事迹,亦多同师之弟子于曩日亲闻者,分别寄来。惟年谱中之重要事实及向所蕴而未彰者,皆为师之口述,故仍称自述年谱也。” “当我编辑年谱之时,港中缺乏志书,无可查考。仅将寄来资料整理。” 这说明岑在编纂年谱时,客观上无法对相关史实进行详细的考订。此外,岑学吕称,编纂年谱是为了突出虚云一生“弘法利生”之事,至于其他不关该事的,“我随随便便,懒于考究了”。这说明岑在主观上亦不热衷于年谱个别事实的考订。因此,不能排除年谱初版有史实不实之处。 早在1956年7月10日和7月19日,胡适就从纽约写信给定居加拿大的詹励吾居士(自号“半痴”),称查了《漳州府志》和《福宁府志》,发现所录道光年间的知府并未有姓萧名玉堂(虚云父)的,故年谱初版有关萧玉堂曾任福建知府的说法并不可靠 。詹励吾当时认为“老人尊翁官居何职,和他自己年龄多少,在我主观上,是觉得毫不在乎的” 。同年7月25日,詹氏抄胡函寄给香港的岑学吕居士,岑回函请詹代“致意胡先生道仰企之忱”。可见二位居士对胡函最初并未持异议。但胡适是否对虚云的年龄(道光己亥年生)表示怀疑,因资料未录此信,不得而知。从二居士的态度及胡适后来的自陈辞推断,胡函应属商讨性质的,且是私函,尚不足掀起佛教界的讨伐声浪。1957年7月,岑学吕对年谱作了修订(第三版)。他自称“甲午,自己查出错误多端,乃四出奔走,寻求更正资料”,并“急驰书询问虚云和尚,经数月后,得其第一复书,内言:‘云是生在泉州府署,父任何官职,无所了知,出家后,全抛俗事,更不复记。’云云”,而后旧友刘蕃质疑年谱载萧“任永春州知府”“似有疑问”,岑“因此将第一版年谱拆开,分成十份”,寄往上海友人,以转交给住鍚江西云居山的虚云和尚,“嗣得第二复书,即现影印在三版首页之虚云老人亲笔。我乃将签出处参考更正,逐于丁酉七月印行增订年谱第三版;增是增加后来的事迹,订是订正初版误记的一二事”。1961年中秋,岑学吕和宽贤合撰的年谱《序》文,亦提及上述之编纂经过,只是简略些 。以下是三版年谱中与胡适的质疑内容相关的记载:(1)“父玉堂……。道光初年,父以科举出身,宦游闽(初版“父以举人出身,官福建”),戊戌己亥间,佐治永春州事(初版“任永春州知州”)。”(2)“翌年(道光二十年---笔者按),父调佐泉州府(初版“父擢泉州府知府”)。”(3)删初版“道光二十四年,甲辰,五岁,予父调任漳州府知府”句。(4)删初版“道光二十七年,丁未,八岁,予父调福宁府知府”句。(5)“道光三十年,庚戌,十一岁,父复回泉州府(初版“父复回任泉州府”)。”(6)“咸丰五年,乙卯,十六岁,父任厦门关二年,调回泉州(初版“调回泉州府任”)。”(7)“父玉堂,为福建泉州二守(初版“为福建泉州太守”)。”(此为年谱附记之《尼妙净留偈记》文。)这些修订是否符合史实,也有待考订。1959年11月29日,胡适在台大的演讲算是捅马蜂窝了。该演讲被刊在台湾省各大报刊上,影响颇大。胡适强调“‘科学精神’的四个字就是‘拿证据来’。……给我证据我就相信,没有证据我就不相信”,并举了《虚云和尚年谱》例子:“前些时候,报上登了大陆死了一个很有名的佛教大和尚,他死的时候,一百二十多岁。一个人活了一百二十岁,并不是绝对不可能的事,但这个和尚生前有一本年谱,详细记载了他一生的事迹。年谱里他俗姓萧,他的父亲名叫玉堂,做过福建三府的知府。这位大和尚出生时,他父亲正做某一府的知府,他就生在知府衙门里。他三岁时,父亲调某府知府;他五六岁时,父亲又调某府知府。这些话是很容易考据的。在他所说的这三府的府志,曾查了两府。这两府志对那大和尚所说的他父亲在任的年代都有明白的记载,但知府的姓名中并没有姓萧名玉堂的。因此,我就不敢相信这大和尚真是活了一百二十多岁了。”胡适的话语暗含这样的推论:由判断A “虚云之父萧玉堂做过福建知府”是假的,进而推测B“虚云活了120岁”也可能是假的。对于那些景仰虚云“坚节苦行,禅定功深”的佛教徒而言,这可能意味着对虚云之修持与人格的否定,堪称是不容质疑的“胡说”了。事实上质疑虚云年龄者亦非胡适一人 ,胡适是为名所累了。11月30日,张龄和蔡克辉二居士率先投书《中央日报》,对胡适所用年谱版本及推理的逻辑提出质问 。该报社长胡建中将张蔡二函转给了胡适。胡适方知第三版已刊行了 。12月2日,胡适致函胡建中(此为《一勘虚云和尚年谱》),指出张蔡将“台湾印经处”1958年9月版的年谱,同香港1953年刊出的原版年谱相混淆了,其实台湾所印版本者乃年谱之第三版,该版有关“佐治”和“二守”之说,亦是假的。他是用“拿证据来”的常识逻辑,来判定虚云的年龄很可疑的,“只有他《自述年谱》是唯一的证据,只他自己是唯一的证人。所以我不能不考考这唯一的证据是否可靠,不能不考考这唯一的证人是否可信”。胡适在该函中还辩称:“詹居士把我的信钞寄给香港的朋友岑学吕居士,后来才有“三版”的修改,才有虚云和尚承认‘其中不无误记之处’的亲笔信。我细看‘三版’修改之处,大概都是因为我指出三府知府并无萧玉堂其人而修改的。……我们看虚云和尚丙申八月的亲笔信,应该可以相信这些修改之处都是他老人家‘令侍者签出’的了。”针对胡适的说法,岑学吕则强调他在致胡函中“并不曾说明我已于一年前查出错误,及所得资料以自矜炫;盖亦学修持人之风度也。后我于一九五七年重订年谱为第三版;此次增订出版,并非受到胡适之先生所指示,因我已所查出之……史料,均非胡适之先生函所列有者也”。按不能排除胡函对于岑氏修订年谱有所帮助,但若说岑修订年谱全是胡适的提示所致,亦未客观。胡适的说辞未免有自我抬高的嫌疑,未必符合史实 。12月3日,胡适又致书胡建中,并将年谱初版送呈《中央日报》编辑部,以便他们对照初版和三版之异同 。12月7日,胡适从田炯锦(内政部长)处借阅到《永春县志》(民国十九年铅印本) 。9日夜,他致书“民主斗士”雷震,是为《二勘虚云和尚年谱》,胡曰:初版说玉堂“任永春知州”是假的,三版改为“佐治永春州事”,也是假的。同夜他在复田炯锦书中亦提及此考证结果。1960年初,雷震以《虚云和尚年谱讨论》为篇名,将胡适致胡建中函及《二勘虚云和尚年谱》,刊在鼓吹民主自由的喉舌---《自由中国》杂志上 。宣扬西化之知识界的关注,多少意味着这场争辩有扩大化的趋势。12月12日夜,胡适又作《三勘虚云和尚年谱》,从《福建通志》(同治七年刻)、《永春县志》(民国十六年修)、《漳州府志》(光绪三年修)中,再考证初版有关萧任知州及知府之记载都是假的,三版的“佐治”及“二守”之说都是假的,初版和三版的“予诞生于泉州府署”之说亦是假的 。据现有的史料看,在《三勘虚云和尚年谱》之后,就未见胡适在报刊杂志上有针对虚云之“胡说”了,他甚至私下表示对继续争辩的不屑 。 三、佛教界的“辟胡说”风潮 在胡博士反驳张蔡之后,台湾佛教界最初并未提出异议。1959年12月5日,主导台湾佛教界的“中国佛教会”就称“不拟随便表示意见” 。但在胡适声称不能不考考虚云“这唯一的证人是否可信”,并出笼有“较劲”意味的二勘三勘《虚云和尚年谱》后,问题似乎有些复杂化了。再加上新闻界的热情炒作,佛教界“辟胡说”热就骤然升温了。这热浪甚至掀到香港及海外的地区与国家。 《中央日报》对这场争辩倾注了相当的热情。该报最先刊登了胡适的台大演讲词、一勘和三勘年谱之文,以及张龄、蔡克辉的投书等。此后又刊了《真与善--虚云年谱之争》(言曦,1959年12月11日,副刊)、《虚云和尚事迹年代补正》(单以诚,1960年2月23日〈学人〉副刊)、《关于〈虚云和尚年谱〉问题》(岑学吕,1960年2月23日)等讨论文章。好事者甚至在《中央日报》涂打油诗,揶揄胡适竟在一个太空时代埋首于故纸堆中 。此外,香港及海外的报刊杂志也开始关注这场争辩:如台港的《工商日报》都报道了这场争辩,香港《星岛晚报》“浮生夜谈”专栏刊有《学者应有的新风度》(吴怀珍),越南的《大夏日报》发表了《舍本逐末》(超尘,1960年2月12日,副刊)等等。岑学吕的《关于〈虚云和尚年谱〉问题》一文,更为“港越星槟各报各佛教杂志”频频转载,流传甚远。台湾佛教刊物亦争相刊载讨论年谱事件的文章。如《今日佛教》先后发表了《从虚云和尚年谱谈佛学与科学》(周伯达,1959年33期)、《论我自己信仰的根据--并表示我对胡适先生考证虚云和尚年谱事件的意见》(半痴,1960年35期)、《从良知论胡适的偏见与东方文化》(半痴,37期)、《胡适博士:放下吧!》(乐观,38期)等;《菩提树》除作了《胡适何其冒失不知年谱三版信口胡说》的报导(1959年12月,85期)外,还刊发了《向胡适先生恭进一言》(苏芬,1959年12月,86期);《觉世》刊发了《我对胡适博士考证虚云和尚家世的看法》(唐湘清,1959年,96期);《觉生》发表了《我的一个看法--从虚云和尚年谱谈起》(陈三井,1960年,32期);《人生》亦不甘示弱,特意发表了《纪念虚云长老并论胡适的观点》之社论(1960年,12卷1期)。同时,香港及海外的侨僧界,也掀起了“纠正胡适谬见,卫护佛教”行动。如香港佛教界群情激扬,争相拜访或致函岑学吕居士,欲询问个究竟 。越南的超尘法师主张对胡适“要有一个强有力的实际行动”,但侨僧界普遍认为“此刻不宜对胡有过激的行动”。1960年4--5月,在缅甸乐观法师的倡议下,“缅华佛教僧伽会”决定采用“温和方式”,联合“海外各地诸山大德”(越南、印度、星洲、菲律宾、香港),“决意将此段公案经过,凡各报刊杂志刊登驳胡论文,全部搜集,于短期内,印成专册,命名曰《辟胡说集》,普遍散发,予胡以精神制裁,使胡适此番反佛举动,成为永久罪案,成为渠之荒唐历史,且为惩一儆百计,藉使社会讥嫌佛教一般狂徒有所警诫,知我佛教僧徒之不可侮,以显示我海外侨僧同道卫护佛教之精神”。1960年6--7月,“护教特辑”----《辟胡说集》编辑出版,共发行了三千册,其中捐印该书的佛教寺院或社团,香港达71个,缅甸24个,菲律宾10个,越南8个,印度4个,星洲1个。此外尚有缅甸和印度的“云水客师”多人捐印该书。侨僧界“围剿”胡适的反响可谓浩大深远。辟胡运动,自此也告一段落。这些“辟胡说”文,虽对胡适有关虚云家世的考证异议不多,却基本反对他对虚云年龄的质疑。其中当然学理性探讨,如吴怀真、周伯达、言曦、唐湘清、陈三井等非缁衣人士的文章,主要是从逻辑学和方法论角度同胡适进行商榷的,属于“辟胡说”中的“无诤之辩”派。更多是属怒目金刚类型的,姑且称之“作狮子吼”派,主要由僧众及居士组成。浓烈的“卫教护法”热忱,代替了理性客观的批判,而融释于笔墨之中,兹分述如下 : (一)指责胡适吹毛求疵,是别有用心来诽谤佛教。譬如: 1、 岑学吕(香港):“适之先生……不采取新订三版新年谱,而硬指七年前之有一二错误之旧年谱为口实,由怀疑以至不信,并牵及虚云和尚之年龄问题,‘一盘冷水’,向中国整个佛教徒,及虚云弟子千百万众之善男信女兜头淋下!……年谱出版,前后已经七年,而适之先生于此时此际,才拈出来公开讨论,岂时然后言哉!高深莫测矣。” 2、 乐观法师(缅甸):“大概是胡博士看到虚云和尚圆寂后,国内外成千成万的佛弟子,热烈举行法会,干得轰轰烈烈,香港的信徒们,又派人去大陆迎请他火化后遗留下的‘舍利子’,建塔供奉,胡博士看着有点刺眼,不自在,于是妒火中烧,冲昏了头,所以在讲《科学精神与科学方法》的时候,故意拉扯到虚云和尚身上来,给一般佛弟子们泼一桶冷水,恶生生地在佛弟子头上打一棒。” “十年来,大陆佛教不断受共匪摧残,僧徒不断受共匪逼害,此日此时,想不到住在自由中国的胡博士,居然在学府中也来一手‘清算’和尚的表演,遥遥呼应,我不知道他怀的什么鬼胎。” 3、 “缅华佛教僧伽会”致海外各地诸山大德公函:“胡适其人,乃系人妖,渠外挂学者面具,内怀政客阴胎,标奇立异,翻云覆雨,是其一生之惯技,此番荒谬举动,察其动机,惟在巩固他现有之地位,故不惜用种种手腕去攻击声望地位较其崇高者,(云公在生之日胡不敢攻击云公死后胡才大放厥词)然而他真正的意图野心并不在此,不过藉此继其‘五四’运动打倒‘孔家店’之雄风,再来一次‘倒佛’宣传阴谋,于是乃鼓起如簧之舌,以煽惑青年,借‘考据’之名,来传播反宗教信仰毒素。……此魔如不使之彻底降伏,终为我中国佛教前途之一大忧患。”乐观法师甚至刻薄地讽刺说,胡适如此迷信科学,何不用科学方法将“小脚娘娘”(指胡夫人江冬秀)的那双“金莲”改造下,放大成天足 。这些辟胡之说,尽管护法之心可鉴,但能否既“‘服人之口’并‘服人之心’”,可想而知了。 (二)将矛头对准了胡适等领导的五四运动,并将他绑在破坏中国传统文化的十字架上来审判。譬如: 1、 半痴(加拿大):“胡先生这段话当然说得痛心万状了(按:指胡适遭遇大陆儿子之辱骂事),但胡先生不知道这正是五四运动他自己提倡打倒孔家店演变出来的恶果!照佛法的因果律言,胡先生受这一点报应,丝毫没有冤枉。……胡先生受到少爷辱骂‘走狗’‘公敌’之后,溯本穷源,至少对往日领导打倒孔家店的一幕,应作良心上之忏悔,何况再想向佛教来寻瑕蹈隙?” 2、 超尘法师(越南):“(胡适)不但破坏‘旧道德’,‘打倒孔家店’,几乎要把中国传统的淳风厚俗一概扬弃无馀……有人说他是‘政治候鸟’,大概不会挖苦他吧!” 3、 慧威法师(越南):“(胡适)不但是中国传统的伦理文化的罪人,也是人类有父母子女之情的罪人。……我们身居海外的佛教僧徒,为了保持中国传统文化,为了敬重最高道德的尊严,不能不起来纠正胡适先生错误与狂妄。我们的动机,是对他堕落思想的挽救,而不是对他个人人格的诋毁。所以我们的行动,正是一种正义的呼声,为传统文化最高道德频于危殆边缘的砥柱。”五四运动之得失,姑且不去臧否,而佛教界是否抵毁了胡适的人格,亦自有公论。无独有偶,1961年11月6日,胡适在“亚东区科学教育会议”上作了《科学发展所需要的社会改革》演讲,批判了中国文明中一些“不文明”的现象(如缠足),亦引来一场声势浩大的“围剿”,并且持续到他的逝世 。彼时“现代新儒家”代表人物徐复观在香港《民主评论》发表了《中国人的耻辱,东方人的耻辱》一文,亦指斥胡适“以一切下流的辞句,来诬蔑中国文化,诬蔑东方文化,……以掩饰自己的无知,向西方人卖俏,因此得点残羮冷汁,来维持已经摔到厕所里去了的招牌,这未免太脸厚心黑了。”李敖为此称徐复观是“叫骂派” 。一佛一儒,皆是各守其本位,不必过于苛责,但似乎都染上了对传统文化的“花果飘零”、“披麻带孝”情结。 四、“胡说”和“辟胡说”的是非之检讨欲探讨这场公案的起因及实质,除当剖析胡适的治学方法及其对佛教的心态外,也要了解佛教界的自我认知态度。胡适的治学思路,特别偏重方法论。他在吸收赫胥黎的存疑主义和杜威的实用主义思想的同时,也对程朱理学及清代朴学之方法论进行了深刻地反思,从而建立了自己的实验主义方法论体系。“存疑主义”和“拿证据来”是胡适力倡的方法论的基本原则,“大胆的假设,小心的求证”方法以及历史的方法,则是该原则的具体运用和体现。胡适正是利用“拿证据来”这一锐利武器,来质疑和批评《虚云和尚年谱》史实有误。我们当然不能说他的批判皆是“胡说”,但问题在于,这些批判是否就忠实地贯彻实验主义方法论?这种原则与方法能否放之四海皆准?从方法论原则看,胡适一贯强调,寻求真理的方法只有一条,那就是拿证据来,证据的充分与否是信仰与怀疑的唯一标准。没有充分证据的,只可存疑,不可信仰。这本是种实事求是的理性主义态度。但胡适又常将这种存疑态度推向极端,称“宁可疑而错”,“就是疑错了,亦没有什么要紧”,认为“三个不相信,可以做学问” ,从而背离了他所认同的“因疑而求是”、“信古而阙疑”,信与疑相统一的朴学主张。胡适对《虚云和尚年谱》的批评(仅强调虚云年龄为假的一面),其实就是这种“怀疑一切”观点的体现。此外,胡适也违背了他所称道的“不以己自蔽”的精神,如自矜岑学吕修订年谱乃其提示所致。胡适的表现,颇有“对人存疑主义,对己相信主义”之嫌。从实践方法看,“大胆的假设,小心的求证”过程须经五步骤,即提出问题,指出问题的中心和重点,去假设,用演绎法推想假设的某种结果,找证据来证实它 。胡适已证实了“虚云之父做过知府”是假的,却未能证伪“虚云活了120岁”。诚如批评者所云:“由《虚云和尚年谱》的无萧玉堂其人,进而怀疑虚云和尚的年龄,这大概就是用的所谓‘先验之证’的简单释义。这种方法就等于对一个说过谎话的人,便永远不信任他一样。以偏概全,以部分决定全体,而将其他一律抺杀,这是治学很危险的一件事;有一分证据,应该说一分话,超过证据所供给的范围,此乃史学上之大忌。……只能说胡博士的说法只对了一半,后面的一半,我们希望胡博士拿出更充分的证据来。”(陈三井) 胡适的逻辑推理过程固然是有问题,但根本还在于未完全遵照“大胆的假设,小心的求证”的科学方法和步骤。亦难怪批判者指责他是“大胆的求证,粗心的假设”(苏芬)了 。应该承认,胡适的思想有种“化约论”(Reductism)的倾向,即将所有思想与文化都化约为方法和工具。在他看来,所谓的“历史的真理”,是为人造的供人用的,本质上也是对付环境的一种方法和工具。“人类所需要的知识,并不是那绝对存在的‘道’哪,‘理’哪,乃是这个时间,这个境地,这个我的真理。那绝对的真理,是悬空的,是抽象的,是笼统的,是没有凭据的,是不能证实的”。无法证实的绝对真理,如禅宗所谓的自证偈语等,都是“太主观了,缺乏客观的是非真伪的标准” ,对于生活都是无效果的,因而也是无意义的思想。胡适的真理观,是与其实验主义方法论相通的,本质上是反宗教的,反有神论的,反人文主义的。用这种实验主义的真理标准来衡量和剪裁宗教,自然无法达到相对的客观。因为不能实证的并不意味着就不是真实的,没有效用的。因此胡适与佛教界之争辩,实际上亦是方法论的争辩,真理观的争辩。譬如在这场争辩中,周伯达就认为,实验主义方法在科学领域是相当正确的,但却有一种用得太广的危险。凡追求形上之理的哲学方法,包括学佛的人所用的“悟道”方法,并不是都能实证的。胡适考证年谱的记载不实,这是科学求真的表现。但求真之余,还需求通,于理可通。因为佛学不是科学,科学重在实证,而佛学重在心证 。言曦强调,科学的精神在求真,宗教的目标在求善,这两种不同寻求知识的方法理应“并行不悖”,各不相涉。圣严法师则称,胡适的“多配几副好眼镜”的观察事物方法,同“以佛法来研究佛法”或“以宗教来研究宗教”的方法是相左的,未必能达到真正的客观 。佛教界系将虚云的年龄问题看成是“一个纯信仰的问题” ,是否应当证实并非最为重要的。而胡适虽然也说“这个问题关系一个人信仰的根据”,“是人生最为神圣的问题”,但主要是把它当成“一个纯历史的问题”来处理的。这体现了双方在认知方法上的根本性差异或对立。从实验主义方法论和真理观出发,胡适一直是以“批判的态度”,来“重新估定一切价值”的。在心态上,他一直认为佛教是种“社会上糊涂公认的行为与信仰” ,佛教“对中国国民生活是有害无益,而且为害至深且巨”,而禅宗大都是“一团胡说、伪造、诈骗、矫饰和装腔作势”,所以“非挺身而出,来充当个反面角色,做个破坏家不可”,也就是要“揭穿认真作假的和尚道士” 。自从在台大公开质疑《虚云和尚年谱》之后,胡适私下也常对虚云“大放厥词”。因是在休闲时说的,无所顾忌,应是其晚年反佛心态的真实体现。如1959年12月3日,胡适对胡颂平说:“佛法最根本的五戒,第四戒是不妄语。佛教最根本的十善,第七善是口不妄语。这本《虚云和尚年谱》的开卷第一条就够不上‘不妄语’的戒律,无论是原版是修正的三版。”12月7日,谈起虚云之事,他又跟胡颂平说:“我的家乡有两句话:看了《西游记》,到老不成器。我添了两句:看了封神榜,到老会说诳。”“佛教戒人不妄语,其实全部佛经开头便是妄语。”12月9日,胡适提起:“这回虚云和尚的事,让我揭穿了也好,他是一个大骗子。他自序里说‘耳不闻,目不见’的状况之下,那里能写这部上万字的年谱?明明说‘任’某府知府,‘调任’、‘回任’各州的知府,弟子怎么会记错的?他把一切错误都推到弟子身上去了。没有他们的提出,我倒不知道他们改正的三版,也不知道他们改正后还是虚伪的,——让我来给他揭穿也好。” 平心而论,胡适似乎带着老顽童式的较劲心态,即“迫不得已”要做个“破坏的批判家”,这就难以保证他所标榜的客观理性之评价了。佛教界指责他是恶意诽谤佛教,亦非信口雌黄。应该说,台港及海外佛教界之所以将矛头指向胡适及五四运动,除“旨在纠正胡适的反佛教思想,驳斥他的偏蔽心理” 外,亦根植于对近世以来中国佛教发展前途的强烈“危机感”,《虚云和尚年谱》事件不过是一根导火线。在佛教界看来,政治力量的破坏佛教,只是表面化的,最多毁庙逐僧罢了,如“三武一宗之厄”、清代的“洪杨之乱”。因为佛教思想在民间已是根深蒂固。而文化思想性的破坏佛教,则是无形的深层化的,是真正的澈底的毁灭佛教了。韩愈及宋明理学家们就是从思想上压制佛教的,但由于当时佛教界英杰辈出,故没有发生根本性的效果。中华民国新建之约法,虽有反对佛教的,但还有点顾全传统礼教。而1919年的“五四运动”, 虽然标榜自由民主,却将中国传统文化“早已弄得七零八落残破不堪!已经够惨了” ,却“只是成了变质现象而为共产党铺成一条消灭中国传统文化的大道,播下唯物主义的毒种,致使中国大陆沦为共匪的血腥统治而已!……五千年来的传统文化,在赤色魔掌下,已毁灭殆尽了”。也即说,五四运动播下的唯物主义及后来中国共产党的统治,相辅相成,已构成了对佛教的无形和有形的双重破坏。胡适虽然戴着自由民主的帽子,头脑里却“已渗杂了唯物主义的毒素”。他同陈独秀、李大钊、鲁迅一样,是打开破坏传统文化(包括佛教)之潘多拉盒子的罪人。这几乎是当时辟胡阵营的共识。佛教界这种忧患意识,显然也夹杂着特定政治环境下的意识形态因素。詹励吾居士称:“胡先生这一拳向佛教打得太狠毒了!” 其实哪是胡适“打”得狠,而是他那个要“实证”下佛教信仰的实验主义哲学、无神论思想,以及跟他有些瓜葛的唯物主义“打”得狠了,佛教界其实心知肚明 。慧威法师的《辟胡痛言》,可谓说得痛心疾首:“这一次海外佛教僧徒的联合辟胡运动,在一般人看来,不免有螳螂当车自不量力的感觉,但我们不管这些,实际上中国佛教在目前情况下,已临到危急存亡之秋,现在播迁台湾及流落海外的力量,只是一点剩余元气,真是硕果仅存,不能不愈加珍惜,何况胡适先生对佛教的不怀好感,已非一日……我们为激于义愤,不能不现金刚怒目,尽我们一份力量,把胡适思想的真面目暴露出来。”在这场公案中,虚云和尚兼具着“象征最高道德”和“反共大法师” 的双重角色,他已被悄然“隐喻”为拯救中国佛教命运的图腾了。而胡适则被“脸谱化”为“复兴基地”破坏佛教及传统文化的魔头(另个是“匪区”的共产魔头了),他理当被敬献于祈祷恢复佛教元气的祭坛上。台港、海外的佛教界,以及当时中国大陆的辟胡运动,都向我们展示了特定的社会政治背景下的“自我圣化”之仪式图景和戏剧场面 。 五、多余的结语总之,胡适同佛教界关于《虚云和尚年谱》的论争,不过是他“不甘寂寞”的一生中的小小插曲罢了。这位颇有历史“考证癖”的民主先生,有时偏要充当个可爱的“反面角色”,让大家来皱着眉头吃口“胡适肉”,以遂超生的大愿(胡适自语)。事隔多年,无论是对于佛教界还是当时其他辟胡人士而言,“胡适肉”大抵都会“反胃”的,更何况晚生所食的已非新鲜之“胡适肉”。是故,欲再食“胡适肉”者,宜先试试唐德刚先生的“清胃剂”:“胡适之谈宗教,也有个不可补救的缺点;这弱点正是他‘整理国故’弱点的反面。在‘整理国故’内,他的‘科学’还不太够;在‘整理佛教’里,他的‘科学’又太多了点。‘学问’和‘宗教’是两个时时有边界纠纷的大国,但他二位并不是一样东西,搞学问重在‘学’,重在‘识’;搞宗教重在‘信’,重在‘悟’。尤其是佛教,如果一位学者,既不信又不悟而偏要在‘思想’上去碰它,那就只能搞点佛教的‘史实’(factual history)来消遣消遣了。……适之先生是位什么都能‘出’的人;他就是不能‘出世’。‘入世之笔’,写不出‘出世之文’,所以他底的‘方法’就不灵了。……胡先生的‘科学’,常常领着他去骂和尚,说‘个个和尚都说谎!’但是我们熟读《新约》便知道,哪个和尚的‘谎’比耶稣撒得更大?!所以我们如以胡适的‘科学方法’来解剖耶稣,则耶稣便是古往今来,世界上第一个‘大骗子’。这样,那我们还过什么‘圣诞节’呢?”当然,最好还以虚云和尚的“法语”漱漱口:“人生如梦,一切皆幻。空中飞鸟,有何踪迹可寻?况学道人耶?留此数行,又有何益?若居士以为佛法不离世法,随顺可尔。” 好事者大抵都会增添些许免役力的,晚生想。 (Chen Jinguo: Hushi Yu “Xu Yun Heshang Nianpu” De Yi Duan Gongan) Appendix IV Cen Xue Lu – An Open Letter to the Public 岑學呂的一封公開信 自從香港工商日報於十二月九日登載了臺灣通訊,一篇辯論「虛雲和尚年譜」後,香港的各界人士於兩旬內,到山居來訪問的,有五六十人;我對於無謂的爭辯,本不擬答復,但外埠關心這件事的,紛紛投函詢問者,亦已積至百餘函;本港諸友好,我可以在口頭上簡單地說兩句,但外埠的諸位關心者,我可沒辦法用口頭答覆了!為了答謝外埠關心這件事的熱心者,寫這一封公開信! 虛雲和尚出家人也,既出家,當守僧行:一、不復遊俗姓家。二、不道自己年齡及身世事。三、口中不說人我是非得失等等。所以百年來無人知其年齡者,問之亦笑而不答。即學呂於庚寅年所編雲門山志,亦誤記為一百有六歲,(少記五歲)公見之亦不置辯也。(後年譜始更正之。) 及雲門事變,師以重傷重病生死之際,始略述年齡事蹟,侍者筆錄時將舊經書一本拆散書於經頁背面,然後照原樣裝訂成書,與凌亂字紙二布袋,千辛萬苦,運來香港,其驚懼情形,可想而知。學呂受命,費一年心力,為之編成法彙及年譜二種,以關津多阻,文字滋疑,不獲呈師鑒定;復徇同門請,遽爾刊行,此民四十二癸巳作事也。一紙風行,數月即罄,乃將年譜刊行第二版。 當我編輯年譜之時,港中缺乏志書,無可查考。僅將寄來資料整理;其中有師在雲南時代之各種文稿,碑志,與鼓山時代弟子所輯之虛雲和尚事略。及南華時代照鼓山所刻之事略,增編若干,為和尚事蹟。以上各項資料中,均有師之父玉堂公為泉州太守漳州府等字樣,予遂依之編入年譜中,非我個人偽造也;所以雲南時代之留偈記亦不更改。(我在南華時,知客師惟因正刊刻事蹟,曾問虛雲和尚其中有無錯誤?師答謂:「我向來不閱看關於批評及讚揚我的文字,此次刊刻甚麼事蹟之類,是第十三次了,我不知他們說些什麼」。)此師之戒行也。 翌年甲午,我在港福達友人家,見一本福建通志,詢之係殘本,僅四冊,幸尚有一百十卷,內職官志載;知府 黃德峻廣東高要人 進士道光二十年任 徐耀 順天宛平人 進士 道光廿七年任後來又查明泉州府志,永春州志,自乾隆年間修纂之後,未續修過;故此我看通志後,乃急馳書詢問虛雲和尚,經數月後,得其第一復書,內言:「雲是生在泉州府署,父任何官職,無所了知,出家後,全拋俗事,更不復記。」云云,於是我更急函託我前在耒陽作客時之好友曾道聲君,替我往湘鄉一查,訪到了虛雲和尚的俗家,只婦孺數人,不知清楚;後來又訪到鄉局的老人,據說:蕭玉堂長他二輩,未見過,但知道在外省做衙門的師爺,有一子已出家,數十年不得消息,更不知道虛雲名字云云以此復我。 後來我有舊友是南京時同事劉蕃先生,四川巴縣人,道過香港,來訪我說:「你編的虛雲和尚年譜,我看過了,似有疑問;因為第一編永春州知州,我外祖父王光鍔做過很久,當時我父親隨任;其幕中老夫子是湖南姓蕭的,是否虛雲和尚的父親,不得而知了,你查查罷。」我愈墮五里霧中。因此將第一版年譜拆開,分數十份,寄往上海友人,轉寄江西,乃得收到。嗣得第二復書,即現影印在第三版首頁之虛老人親筆。我乃將簽出處參考更正,遂於丁酉七月印行增訂年譜第三版:增是增加後來的事蹟,訂是訂正初版誤記的一二事。 既有第三版訂正本,則第一版的錯誤舊本,可以取消了;因為我們童時讀第一本書所讀之「大學之道,在明明德。」亦有新舊本之分;我們所讀的宋朝訂正的新本,而錯誤的舊本,便廢而不讀了;因為朱註「舊本頗有錯簡,今因程子所定,而更考經文,別為次序如左。」可見「大學」一書原來亦有錯誤的。現暫將年譜事擱置不談! 虛雲和尚之年歲 次論及虛雲和尚的年齡,雲門事變以前,無人確知。至事變後,他不隱諱自己說出十九歲出家於福建鼓山湧泉寺,常開老人為之披剃,二十歲依妙蓮和尚受具;是時有地有人為證明的。後若干年,曾在檳榔嶼極樂寺送妙蓮回國。其後民十八年己巳,鼓山兩序大眾,及全省官紳,歡迎他回任鼓山住持;倘使其出家年月,及所拜之師不確實,鼓山大眾,未必肯歡迎他的,故此我以為年歲無甚出入。至於同戒錄戒牒等事,還待調查。其實年歲多少,有什關係,一百二十歲都是要死的,即以釋迦牟尼佛論,中國載籍,明明說他是周昭王二十六年甲寅四月八日生,至今應為二千九百餘年,後來經佛圖澄、鳩摩羅什等尊者東來,又經玄奘三藏等回國,又經歷代祖師以及近代學者如章太炎,都不敢擅自改變;而最近數年,偏偏有南方小乘學者,在錫蘭開會,主張「定而不考」,硬說佛曆二千五百幾年,把釋迦老子減了四五百歲,那又有甚關係呢!何況虛老和尚之僅一百二十歲耶!(日本以佛教立國,至今仍用舊佛曆。)現在我再錄一段星島晚報「浮生夜談」作者吳懷珍先生一段文,來結束以上二段文;吳先生的題目是:學者應有新風度閱報知道上月二十九日胡適博士在臺灣大學所作學術講演,因其中涉及最近去世的虛雲和尚家世及年齡的可疑問題,曾一度引起臺北佛教徒和胡博士在中央日報作過一次頗傷風雅的爭辯。因而使我想起一個學者在這民主自由時代需要有一種新風度,——治學的重點要放在「有益於人」上面,不可但求「取信於己」而不惜「傷害於人」。胡博士為我國當代大學者,那是無疑的。他的治學態度嚴謹,當然也值得學者欽佩的。不論古今中外,其學問越大,聲譽越高,他也越「固執」,甚至也越「武斷」 ——為的是他只知「忠於學理」和「取信於己」;因而他只看見「書本」上學問的一面,而「實用」上另一面也是學問,卻時常看不見了。舉此次他們所爭辯的例來說,胡博士從許多典籍上考據,證明「虛雲和尚年譜」原版和三版所記載關於虛雲和尚家世之不確,那是極有價值的;但他據此從而懷疑虛雲和尚是道光庚子年出生。那就未免「固執」,也有些「武斷」之嫌了。因為家世不確是一件事,而出生年月又是一件事。家世不確無非因其家人告知虛雲時有意或無意的傳訛或聽錯了,而兒子出生的年月,為父母的絕無有意捏造之理,而一個出家人更無此必要。而且照胡博士說理的態度看;「所以我不能不說,這唯一的證據「初版以至修改的三版」是很可疑的,那位唯一的證人(作者按;乃指虛雲和尚本人)也是可疑的。他生在道光二十年,活了一百二十歲,是我不能相信的。」這似乎未免過於武斷之嫌,也完全是「取信於己」;而此種態度並不科學也不客觀!因為如果照這樣論斷,那也可以根本否定有虛雲和尚這個人了,豈是一個學者應有的態度?這難道也是科學的方法?關於虛雲和尚的年齡,我也有一個佐證。當他任福州鼓山湧泉寺方丈時,先君雖非佛教徒,因研究禪宗佛理,曾偕清末福建省連江縣籍舉人劉孝恭,都與虛雲和尚有往還。劉是我的先師。少時屢聽先父先師言及老和尚長他們二十幾歲。先君係道光丙寅年生,至今當為九十四歲,而虛雲年譜所謂道光庚子生,正長先父二十六歲,在我,並沒有什麼「不能相信」之處。在這裡我更重要的是要奉告所有的學者,需要建立一種新的風度,把治學的重點放在「有益於人」上面,不要只管自己一時興趣所至,儘管「考據」,「發明」,而不管所考據發明的「傷害於人」。舉例說,胡博士在答辯的文中也曾說過這話:「老宗兄,這個問題關係一個人信仰的根據,我認為是人生最神聖的問題,我盼望你不要怪我寫這兩千多字的長信」。胡博士既然知道這是「神聖問題」,又是「個人信仰」,何必在公開講演中有意論及,更何必因其家世不確而硬要不相信他的年齡,使許多佛教徒的信仰受了傷害呢?我雖非佛教徒,我卻願舉胡博士之事,向今後的學者進此一言。照文內所述,吳先生雖非佛教中人,但持論之公允,理路之清楚,足以代表一般人的意見。 虛雲和尚之感化力 舉世稱為數百年罕見之大德虛雲和尚,在物質上,如建寺廟種種事,現今尚存,已見年譜所載。我自從親近他以來,覺他感化力之深,號召力之廣,便細細留心觀察他的言語舉動;大體上言,與平常人無殊;所奇者,他個子頗高而瘦,從數十丈外遠處望他,似覺更高,漸行近前,又似覺與平常一樣,一奇也。我見他三十年,除傾談之際,或時有打哈哈之外,他的面容從未有變過色,縱使說話之時,也是雙目垂簾,向地面視不過六尺,從無瞪目視人的,二奇也。他所穿的衣服,不過幾件,至少都在十年以上者,有人送他袍衣甚多,他都拿出來與人結緣,三伏暑天,但見他穿一件夾袍;我有次跟他遊山,不過一二里路,他行走如飛,累我滿頭大汗,氣喘力竭,而他著夾衣從容之至,額上並無一點汗,內衣當然亦不濕;他洗澡不多,換衣服亦數日一次,而身上並無一點難聞氣味,三奇也。除此之外,一切飲食起居如常人,每日只洗臉一次,而洗面需半小時之久,舉凡耳孔、鼻孔、髮腳、頸項、都擦之甚久,吃飯時向不說話,向不答話,目不視人,吃飯就吃飯,有時宴客,一侍者坐身邊,替客人送菜,他只舉箸招呼客人;食時有客大聲談笑者,他只管吃飯,有時問他,他只有把頭一點,仍舊吃飯,罷席後,始略作招呼。若在平時他一樣過堂吃飯,有時飯冷羹殘,他一樣吃兩大碗,未曾見過他揀飲擇食,批評好醜,出家以後,持午百年(即過午不食)。有病亦然;歷來有施主送他的好齋料,他都拿出來供眾,向不設私食。至於他待人接物,向來和顏悅色,平等行慈,見達富貴人,碩士名流,無知婦孺,甚至販夫走卒,都是一樣慈祥;有時聞著不入耳之言,碰著無理取鬧之事,他轉身向北面而行,不聞不見,絕無一句與人爭論的。至其接見賓客,出家人,或自己弟子,如有向請法者,他必俯首沉吟,說給他一二語,聽受者,便終身不忘!即如我於日寇香江時返內地,過南華謁師座,他其初堅留我長住,我說出湖南先有約,他不話良久,太息曰:「你攪了數十年,得個什麼!得個什麼!」我當時悚然,至今仍留腦際!漸漸始覺得他的感動力的偉大。所以他數十年來,出家的二眾弟子,在家的二眾弟子,皈依他的我說少些,至少亦有六七百萬人,在家的二眾中,有達官貴人,鴻儒淑女,外國牧師,以至三山五嶽,四海英雄,綠林豪傑,偷雞縛狗的,一切皆有;此六七百萬人之中,自皈依他後,一經印證,難保其中無「一宿覺」者,然大多數弟子自見過他後,只是如孺子戀母,時時有個虛雲在腦海中,而不能忘者;有些道學更向上,有些改過做好人,有些發起菩提心,而盡力於救人,救國,總之都是向好一路走;未曾聞過虛雲弟子有弒父,弒兄,殺人放火者。昔人所謂佛教能陰翊皇圖,輔助政化,豈虛語哉!我再補述虛老於雲門事變之翌年癸巳:為弟子迎請入北京後;東南人士,請他往上海建法會,情形之熱烈,世所少見,每日往玉佛寺候他者數萬人,寺內寺外及馬路上人如潮湧;每日定下午一時在大殿前見面,萬千人望見師出,即伏地頂禮,師為說三皈依及開示數語而已。此次到上海所收皈依弟子,過百萬人。八十餘歲老居士蔣維喬高鶴年親見師,並為文記之。師所收果金時幣三億餘萬,盡撥與四大名山八大名剎,及大小寺院二百五十六處為供養資;上海覺有情專刊十四卷第一期紀事甚詳,此為全國皆知之事。 我對於編年譜之宗旨 虛雲和尚年譜,當然與尋常年譜不同,因為他是老和尚,數百年來罕見之大德高僧,我要注重他出家以後的苦行修持,我要注重他禪功鍛鍊的經過,我要考究他經歷艱險的情形,我要窺測他處常處變事事物物,及至到龍天推出,為世為人;如何以一窮和尚,在雲南數年,而得到官民擁護;以後如何能建設大小寺院,而舉重若輕;如何以湖南口音,而隨處弘法,人皆領納;如何數十年間,收容出家在家弟子千百萬人;如何見過他老人家的,如孩兒戀母,永不乖離,如何他的說法開示,能指出佛心人心;如何他能對機而向每一個人說一兩句話,即令人終身不忘;如何能教化弟子,使壞人變為好人,而有益於國家社會;凡此皆是年譜中最重要之記載。我以平凡筆墨,能寫出再來菩薩十分之一,百分之一,我是心滿意足了,因為他是不可思議之人物!其他不關於和尚之「弘法利生」的事,我隨隨便便懶於考究了。如其不然輕重倒置,不去考查和尚弘法利生之事,而去替和尚「查家宅」,替和尚的上代查「爵秩全書」,即使查到虛雲和尚不是姓蕭的,蕭玉堂是賣豆腐的,那有什麼關係?倘更有深文些說:一事假則其餘皆假,虛雲和尚的事蹟及年歲都是假的,全部書要不得,一把火燒了它罷,那更好極!深合佛旨!昔釋迦佛說法四十九年,最後說「我未嘗說著一字」!又謂「如來有法可說,即為謗佛」。倘真能到此境界,三藏十二部,皆是揩瘡膿血紙,(如其未到此境界,漫說一言,入地獄如箭射) ——敢嗎?我編虛雲和尚年譜,本來是不敢擔任的,但以危難中的師命,不敢不從,費一年心力,勉強成書,錯誤百出,自知不免,良以關山阻隔,欲考無從,故於一九五三年癸巳出版後,翌年甲午,自己查出錯誤多端,乃四出奔走,尋求更正資料,迺於一九五五年乙未查出: 一、泉州府志,永春州志,均於乾隆年間修纂後,未有續修過。 二、道光二十年,泉州府知府黃德峻,係廣東高要人。 三、道光二十年知府係徐耀。 四、道光二十七年福寧府知府係莊受祺。 五、道光三十年之泉州府知府名字,「福建通志」,「新通志」,俱未列入。 六、永春州知州沈汝瀚,道光十六年任,知州王光鍔,係巴縣人,任期未詳。 我得了以上種種資料,認為寶貴,更加注意蒐尋;迨隔了一年,是一九五六年七月「十」「夜」。胡適之先生致詹勵吾先生函,指出年譜錯處,是在美國議院圖書館中覓出漳州府福寧府之前後任人名,並說明未見泉州府志。是胡適之在美國所見者祗漳州福寧二府誌耳。詹先生接胡先生函後,即於七月廿五日鈔胡函給我:我即復詹一函致謝,語甚客氣,並請詹為我致意胡先生道仰企之忱。實係對能讀書人的尊重,及對於已經成名讀書人愛護之意,並不曾附帶說明我已於一年前查出錯處,及所得資料以自矜炫;蓋欲學修持人之風度也。後我於一九五七年重訂年譜為第三版;此次增訂出版,並非受到胡適之先生所指示;因我所查出之上列一二三四五六,六條史科,均非適之先生函內所列有者也。佐治 二尹至於胡適之所指出謂「佐治」「二尹」等,都是虛假的。我因通志中都查不出蕭玉堂名字,後從各方面所得是任幕府的,當然是佐治,而非印官,至「二尹」稱呼,費適之先生心,竟然找出一本新湘鄉縣志,於選舉志中,將捐官大小銜名都查過,選舉志雖有十卷之多,可見當時湘鄉人物之盛。但以我推測其中總有漏洞;因為捐班分捐「實官」和捐「虛銜」兩種;第一種捐「實官」,是要費許多錢的,如捐一個「知縣」非數千兩銀不可,初捐「候選知縣」後,還有很多花樣,如:「單月候選」「雙月候選」,不論雙單月候選,還要經過「引見」「分發」,始能到省候補。知縣以下,尚須經「王大臣驗看」,才能分省。(惟從九品「縣屬巡檢司」之類,不論何省,都可報到。世俗稱為「飛天從九」)以上實官,當然可以登錄在選舉誌中。第二種捐「虛銜」的,只可冠帶榮身:如果用九兩六銀,捐一個「從九品」,都錄在選舉誌中,恐百十倍有所不盡。(湘鄉志我雖末曾見過,但如果連虛銜都登載,那就有問題了。)記得光緒中葉捐「虛銜」例: 一、從九品及不能過科之「監生」,捐銀九兩六錢,一經領照謁祖,本鄉地保,便要改口稱「老爺」或「相公」了。 二、如用一百二百兩,可捐「州同銜」「通判銜」「同知銜」,便可稱「二尹」「司馬」「別駕」「分府」了。 三、如用銀三百餘兩,捐「知府銜」,便可稱「太守」「太尊」了。 四、如用銀五百兩,捐「道銜」者,便可稱「觀察」稱「大人」了。 一切稱謂,與實官無異,不獨口頭如此,即書札往來,題扇寫聯,倘肯送一個禮給大人先生,求作壽詩壽文,或墓誌碑銘之類,亦大筆淋漓稱呼僅值三五百兩之人物為「太守」「太尊」「觀察」「大人」了;習俗如斯,恬不為怪,又從何處稽查其履歷耶?清中葉後的風氣,大凡當督撫幕客的,他往來的人,都是司道之類,多捐個「道銜」,頂子好看些;司道的幕客,都捐個「知府銜」,州府的幕客,都捐個「通判銜」,稱為搖頭大老爺,何以如此?因為即使實缺知縣是七品官,見知府同知,都要遞「手本」,對上稱「太尊」或「大老爺」自稱「卑職」,因為大他兩級,自稱「卑職」,是甘心的。至於實缺「通判」,只是六品官,大他一級,仍然要遞「手本」,稱「大老爺」,自稱「卑職」,自然有些不甘心了,所以稱為搖頭大老爺。蕭主堂是否捐個搖頭大老爺,或「同知銜」之類,所以稱呼上為「二尹」,亦未嘗不可。至「佐治」二字,從官缺上言,自「分府」「分州」「分縣」「縣丞」「巡檢」「典史」「司理問」「府照磨」「府經歷」等等,均可稱「佐治」。從幕僚上言,自「奏摺老夫子」以至「刑名老夫子」「錢穀老夫子」「書啟老夫子」「硃墨師爺」「教讀師爺」都可以稱「佐治」。須知省府縣志局,雖是永久機關,而當修誌時,必限年月,其組織為聘任總纂一人,分纂二或四人,探訪若干人以總其事。無論何處於誌書修成之日,總纂必不敢自謂無一事之偏差,採訪者亦不敢自認無一人之遺漏。而後之讀誌者,反代他負責說:「誌書上所無者,即為虛假,也必定無是事,無是人」!如此讀書,似有偏見。孟子所謂:「盡信書,則不如無書也」。 結論 與人為善 虛雲和尚於今年十月十三日(即夏曆九月十二日),圓寂於江西永修縣雲居山真如禪寺;住世一百二十歲。噩耗所傳,世界震動;舉凡國內外佛教團體,大小寺院,佛教弟子與虛師門下之緇素,千百萬眾,以及世界各地,凡有中國佛教徒,及歐美各國曾皈依師之外國男女弟子,無不先後集會追思,及誦經禮懺,薦師上生。其沉痛哀悼,依戀熱情為僧史所未見。當此千百萬眾,念虛師遺訓:「勤修戒定慧,息滅貪瞋癡。」以及「正念正心,養成大無畏精神,人以度人度世」。正在邁步進行這一條光明大路之際,胡適先生以中國研究院院長地位,哲學考據學者權威,於十一月二十九日,在臺灣作學術演講時,提及最近圓寂之虛雲和尚事,不採取新訂三版新年譜,而硬指七年前之有一、二錯誤之舊年譜為口實,由懷疑以至不信,並牽及虛雲和尚之年齡問題,「一盤冷水」,向中國整個佛教徒及虛雲弟子千百萬眾之善男信女兜頭淋下!使舉世震動;雖不能動搖信根深固之人,而中下根器,或瞠目結舌,或頓起懷疑;初機之士,信心未定者,更裹足不前;令千百萬眾在光明大道中,東張西望,使反宗教人士,拍手稱快;而大多數無宗教信仰者,對張齡先生與適之先生之辯論,預定座位,等看好戲!一事之微,一言之肆,直召致佛教中千千萬萬人之悲怨,因賅果海,真不敢令我想像也。年譜出版,前後已經七年,而適之先生於此時此際,才拈出來公開討論,豈時然後言哉,高深莫測矣!至於胡適之先生之辯論文中!涉及學呂的話,似乎有些不客氣,我謝謝適之先生賜教。 以學呂今日之地位言,當然是「尋常百姓」,也實在是「香港難民」;加上「智識」兩個字,我是不敢當的,第細數年華!恰行年八十,攬鏡自照,已逾尺霜髯,老病荒山,形同廢物,猶欲仰首伸眉,論列是非,早已自慚其不類矣;然傷心往事,回溯前塵,歷歷在目!處此現狀險惡世界中,倘使我們尚係皮下有血的人,應該不應該急起直追,去「教世救人」;尚有餘暇為和尚「查家宅」,為未入流「典史」翻舊案耶!噫!你試看:「放開冷眼觀棋局」,「把定雄心聽杵鐘!」我今後更應守「無諍」之訓,縱使再有人給我以任何「毀」「譽」我也更不敢再發一言。昔日文殊仗劍逐佛,佛言:「止!止!我法妙難思」! (Cen Xue Lu De Yī Fēng Gōng Kāi Xìn – Cen Xue Lu 1960) Appendix V (Xu Yun He Shang Nian Pu: Opening Paragraph) 予俗姓蕭。系出蘭陵。梁武帝之後。世居湖南湘鄉。父玉堂。母顏氏。清道光初年。父宦游閩。戊戌己亥間。佐治永春州幕。父母年逾四十。憂無後。母赴城外觀音寺祈子。見寺宇殘破。及東關橋樑失修。發願興建。父母同夢一長鬚著青袍者。頂觀音跨虎而來。躍臥榻上。驚起互告。遂有娠。翌年父移佐泉州府幕。 道光二十年庚子一歲(一八四○年) (Xu Yun He Shang Nian Pu: 1st Year 1840 - Compiled and edited by Cen Xue Lu) ©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2014. |