《弘明集‧檄太山文》考論
作者:林伯謙(東吳大學中國文學系教授)
卷期：60卷第1期
日期：2015年3月
頁碼：59-94
DOI：10.6210/JNTNULL.2015.60(1).03
摘要：
竺道爽〈檄太山文〉收錄於梁朝僧祐《弘明集》最後一卷。關於竺道爽此人是否假託虛構；檄文真正作者是僧祐或寶林，歷來頗有歧說。〈檄太山文〉的結構與後來傳檄昭告天下，齊力討伐的定型體製不同，它是回歸先秦檄體初創的模式，直接檄討泰山神府及都錄使者，命令偽冒真神的妖鬼魑魅速速遠離，否則將宣集毘沙神王、惒羅子等予以誅滅。這究竟是遊戲之作或道佛相爭使然？本文從作者稱「竺道爽」而不稱「釋道爽」，又〈檄太山文〉提及「國太元桓王」，考知作者所處時代應為十六國時期的前燕，當時泰山地區確實為前燕所控制，前燕戰無不勝的慕容恪因病前往泰山請禱是可能的。竺道爽時代正與在泰山地區弘化，深得各國君主敬信的竺僧朗大致相近，此篇作者仍應歸屬於竺道爽；〈檄太山文〉也必在幽帝建熙8年（367年）慕容恪病逝不久；建熙11年（370年）前燕被苻秦滅亡之前寫成。〈檄太山文〉將前後期道教信仰嚴加區隔，批判後來道教種種亂象，竺道爽並非不知道教在泰山的信仰傳布比佛教早，但他還是遵從漢譯佛典的「命終魂靈入於太山地獄」，認為泰山是由閻羅王所統轄，泰山神也就是閻羅王的下屬，因此〈檄太山文〉並非戲作，而是以中國傳統檄體包裝正法與外道的爭鋒。探究此文，可以得知當時佛教信仰在泰山地區的流傳與影響。
關鍵詞：《弘明集》、〈檄太山文〉、竺道爽、泰山神、竺僧朗
《詳全文》
Journal directory listing - Volume 60 (2015) - Journal of NTNU: Linguistics & Literature【60(1)】March
A Study on “Xi Taishan Wen” from Hong Ming Ji
Author: Po-Chien Lin (Department of Chinese Literature, Soochow University)
Vol.&No.：Vol. 60, No. 1
Date：March 2015
Pages：59-94
DOI：10.6210/JNTNULL.2015.60(1).03
Abstract：
“Xi Taishan Wen” by Zhu Daoshuang is collected in the final volume of Hong Ming Ji, which was edited by Shi Sengyou in the Liang dynasty. Questions about the true identity of Zhu Daoshuang and whether Shi Sengyou or Shi Baolin is the true author of “Xi Taishan Wen” have elicited considerable debate. The structure of “Xi Taishan Wen” differs from the standard format of the “Xi” (denunciation) in later generations, which was announced for public condemnation and called for punitive expedition. In “Xi Taishan Wen”, the early style of “Xi” in the pre-Qin periodis adopted, and the God of Taishan and the Underworld messenger who record secular good and evil are directly condemned. The author of “Xi Taishan Wen” ordered the evil spirits who pretended to be real gods to leave the place, or else he would summon Vaishravana, Heavenly King of the North, and Heluozi to destroy them. The current study was conducted with the objective of determining whether this article was simply written for entertainment, or if it resulted from the competition between Taoism and Buddhism. Evidence of the author calling himself “Zhu Daoshuang” instead of “Shi Daoshuang” or “Prince Huan of Taiyuan” in the article indicates that the author of “Xi Taishan Wen” was from the Former Yan dynasty during the era of Sixteen Kingdoms in China. During this era, the Former Yan dynasty ruled the Taishan area, and Murong Ke, a fierce warrior, possibly visited Taishan for worship because of illness. The era of Zhu Daoshuang is close to that of Zhu Senglang, who preached Buddhism in the Taishan area and was highly respected by the lords of several states. Therefore, the author of “Xi Taishan Wen” is possibly Zhu Daoshuang. “Xi Taishan Wen” must have been written between 367 A.D., soon after Murong Ke’s death because of illness, and 370 A.D., before the Former Yan was defeated by the Former Qin. In “Xi Taishan Wen”, the early and later periods of Taoism are clearly defined and the disorder of Taoismis criticized. Knowing that Taoism had been established in the Taishan area before Buddhism, Zhu Daoshuang still adopted the description from the Chinese translation of Buddhist scriptures, which reads “When one dies, one’s soul shall go to the Underworld at Taishan,” and believed that Taishan was actually ruled by Yamaraja, King of the Underworld, and that the God of Taishan was only a subordinate of Yamaraja. Hence, “Xi Taishan Wen” was not an article written for entertainment, but a serious work that adopted the traditional Chinese “Xi” style to reflect the competition between the orthodox and the dissident. This study obtianed a clearer understanding of the spread and influence of Buddhism in the Taishan area at that time.
Keywords：Hong Ming Ji, “Xi Taishan Wen”, Zhu Daoshuang, God of Taishan, Zhu Senglang