二、空行母的来源与演变：从印度到西藏

空行母，是从印度到西藏密教的一种特殊形象，与这两个文化区域的女性崇拜有关，李南云：

密 教金刚乘的女神中，又有各种智慧神、方位神、保护神、舞神、门神、光神、兽面神、瑜伽女、荼吉尼（空行母）等等，……这些神的造像或铜雕石刻，或泥塑彩 绘，大量出现在石窟、庙宇里，为修行者的观想修习提供了极大的方便，并吸引了众多的善男信女，是密教金刚乘一时得以广泛传播的重要原因之一。……密教主张 以方便（悲）为父，以般若（慧）为母，因此便以双身佛相拥交合作为「悲智和合」的表征。……特別要提一下荼吉尼，她们是以妇女形象出现的象征物，在修习时对她们进行冥想。她们通常面目狰狞，饰物骇人，与印度恐怖女神难近母一脉相承，常不穿衣，有的只有独眼、独腿。然而她们由于认识到「空」而从尘世中解脱，翱翔在精神领域的高空，为秘密知识的传授者。

密教在印度鼎盛的时期，曾有著为数众多的女修习者。在密教中她们常被冠以用于女神的尊称。……称之为荼吉尼则是认为她们犹如空行母一般，由于认识到「空」性而从人世间解脱，在悟得正道的精神领域中自由飞翔；……（密教、印度教的性力派）认为宇宙是由女性的创造力产生的，因而女性的力量从本体论上说就是原初的，第一位的，而男性的力量则是派生的，从属的，故而男性在社会关系以及仪轨关系上都应依从妇女。

密宗发展到无上瑜伽部时，女性神佛数量空前，地位日升。她们当中，有些女神一直是重要的佛母或菩萨；有些女神在刚出现时原本地位较低，而后发展成为教派崇拜的中心；还有的女神曾经是男主神的明妃，后来地位逐渐提升，最终占据了怛特罗坛城的中心，而其男性伴侣反倒受到排挤。

这些密教金刚乘的女神，多数起源于古印度（雅利安人入侵之前）母系社会的「生殖」崇拜，后来在印度教中发展为性力派，从「生殖」本能的迷思，转为对女性（神）及其性器官的崇拜，再透过「性交」与她们合一，并分享她们的能量（性力）。传入西藏之后，这种性力又掺杂了「苯教」巫术的魔力，并附会了「佛教」空性的思想而自称为藏传的佛教。以下分述之。

（一）印度教性力派(Shaktism)与左道密教

印度教以梵天、毗湿奴、湿婆等三大神为主；湿婆是毁灭之神，也是生殖之神，由对于湿婆神之威力崇拜，而引出生殖力及女神的崇拜；林伽（Linga）是湿婆的性器，生殖则由其妻卡利（K?l?）担任，故而分化出女神的「性力」崇拜。……（待续）

一贯道的「剽窃」本质

─以「弥陀净土」及「正法眼藏」为例

摘要

一 贯道乃历经数百年，吸取多种民间宗教之内涵，糅合演变而成的信仰组织。在大陆被取缔之后，转进台湾七十年，快速发展且推向国际，笃信「无生老母」为万灵真 宰、「理天」为原胎佛子的归处，以及「龙华三会」末劫年「弥勒古佛」掌天盘……。其道统传承及教法理论是标榜三教一致、兼收并蓄，并依虚妄想像的「先天之 道」一以贯之；近代又扩大其范围为五教合一，表面看似乎具备「理一而分殊」的哲学创见与宗教体悟，若细析其名相与观念，却不外乎「剽窃」的本质。凡是在宗 教上有信众有市场的宗教，一贯道都要窃来充实、妆点自家门面，却不问他教是否同意，此举已招来佛教信众与基督教徒的破斥；虽然部分一贯道人士也有回应，但 所作的解释与引证，徒然又一次自信己意地曲解与强辩，越描越黑，不能圆场。

本 论文的重点先从一贯道自编的传承历史去爬梳每个转型阶段，窃他教之法以为己用、应时局之变以求生存的事实，道教─佛教─新儒学，罗教─弥勒─白莲教……乃 至基督─阿拉，无所不窃，一以贯之。如此以窃为业，杂凑糅合，牵强附会，混淆天下人耳目的传承，才是它潜在而根本的致命伤；也就是欠缺「自证的体验」与 「自创的教义」，只能依草附木，窃取其他宗教的名相与法义之后，加以扭曲与变造，自以为后来居上而喧宾夺主；这种不诚实、不坦荡的行径，虽部分来自初始时 期民间宗教崛起的杂糅拼 凑性格，立教之后却又变本加厉，窃取他教教义以后，以下犯上地贬低各教教主与教义而持续不断，乃至別创明明上帝（无生老母）以君临天下、统摄五教……。从 一贯道的「道统」捏造及「教义」胡扯，可以显见它为了证明其道贯千圣且统领诸教，不惜将窃取其他宗教的赃物与手法，列成清单、到处贩卖，唯恐天下人不知， 这可说是明目张胆而且愚昧的行为，故一贯道的本质为一贯盗──吾道一贯以「盗」行之。

其次，特就一贯道窃自佛法的两个内涵─净土「阿弥陀佛」及禅宗「正法眼藏」─而加以附会改造为「理天」与「玄关一窍」为例，详考细论以揭发其「窃而无道」的粗劣手法；此行为类似窃车集团，四处窃来各家高档名车，拆解之后重新拼装，虽然所有零件分別来自各大名车，也足以炫耀，而整体却是四不像，机件之间互相矛盾、牵制，只能千惊万险、勉为其难的混过去，可能无法行驶很久就会解体而发生车祸，或者被拆穿其仿冒与窃盗的实质。

弥 陀净土是佛教信仰法门之一，持念弥陀圣号可於命终往生极乐，继续成佛之道的实修。一贯道前身先天道的发展过程中，弥陀信仰是重要的内涵，自诩为弥勒信仰的 一贯道却将阿弥陀佛变装为万灵真宰，掌天盘者；极乐世界则成了原胎佛子未来的出生地─理天。虽然历经久年之后，现今一贯道的书籍已觅不著弥陀信仰的讯息， 但仍有蛛丝马迹可寻；也就是说，从先天道到一贯道，其仿效的信仰内涵由弥陀信仰变成弥勒信仰，这中间如何的转变，是本文所要探讨之一贯道杂窃、多变的本 质！

「无 生老母」、「三期末劫」、「三曹普渡」、「三宝心法」是现今一贯道之基本教义，这些教义中以「三宝心法」为核心，而三宝又以「玄关一窍」最殊胜。一贯道将 其视为亘久不轻传的密意，甚至认为玄关一窍就是禅宗的「正法眼藏」；本文先论述正法眼藏在佛法之实际意涵（真实心如来藏），对照一贯道如何另作定位与诠 释，进而探讨「玄关一窍」是否符合佛教正法眼藏之圣教量，以及以之作为明心见性之枢纽是否为非法妄语？

最后，对一贯道以剽窃於五教而拼装的教理施设与修行次第，是否具备「超生了死」、「收圆返乡」及「得道成佛」的功德受用，或只是停留於世俗法的表相劝善？若据此以自修并推广，其能到达的结果又如何？以上列种种依佛教正法研究比对所得的结论，提供一贯道高层及信众们参考、三思。

关键字：玄关一窍、超生了死、正法眼藏、三宝心法、无生老母、理天、三期末劫、弥陀信仰、弥勒信仰、剽窃、盗法。

内文：

一、前言

当今民 主时代，各宗教虽有建构、弘扬自家教义的自由，然而一贯道信徒中有许多是为了追求「解脱」乃至「成佛」之真理与实证，只是因缘不足或被一贯道误导而进入此 「非佛教」的宗教体系，依彼所教而修行一辈子，却不得佛法之功德受用，亦不知所学所修乃心外求法之教；因此，基於辨正佛法与一贯道之差异，令学人知所分別 而抉择，故写作本文。

从 义理与历史的双重论述以确定所谓「佛教」，本质是能令学人亲证法界实相，且具备客观真理的意义，此乃是佛教之体。其次，有所谓「相似佛教」，虽承认佛法僧 三宝，於教理行果的施设中却多有违反佛教之圣教量，表面相似实不同。至於「非佛教」者，乃不承认佛教、不归依三宝者，即所谓的外道。

以 上三者之区分，对于佛教（真理）流布的如法性，及学人获得佛法正知见的确保性，是有重大意义的。世间一切实证佛法的菩萨、祖师，於其说法、论著中必先归依 三宝、讚仰佛陀，不可能外於释迦牟尼佛而另立教主、另开教法。準此而言，一贯道虽窃用佛教名相与思想，却不以「佛法僧」为依止，而另立「玄关、口诀、合同」为三宝，并曲解佛理以诠释之，成了所谓的「附佛外道」。

一个宗教的「道统」叙述，涉及其义理的源流与传承，也涉及其修证的内涵。佛教的义理是可实证的，其修行次第是完备的，故后世弟子可依此而实修亲验，也才有所谓「道统」传承的实质可言。但在一贯道书籍《道统宝鉴》的〈历代统绪大略〉中言：「孟子以后心法失传，天命暗转释门，……释迦牟尼奉天承运，道统一脉相传，后传大弟子摩诃迦叶。」此后即将所谓的「西天二十八祖」「东土六祖」表列於后，再续入一贯道的七祖白玉蟾与马端阳、八祖罗蔚群、九祖黄德辉……十八祖张天然。就其所列之道脉源流似属佛教禅宗，然而，这是一贯道的实证法脉吗？还是攀缘附会以混人耳目？又於公开传教中标榜自己是绍继禅宗六祖， 承达摩祖师的密法，自云其心法「玄关一窍」就是禅门「正法眼藏」，是明心见性之枢纽，俨然自居为佛教真传；却又诳称是三曹普渡、一步直超之「天道」正统，落入三界生死中。而现今的一贯道自诩为弥勒信仰，与其所承袭的「先天道」传统信仰不同，后者在「理天」的初始建构、后来「无生老母」的演变与「龙华三会」救世主角色的转变中，都有「弥陀信仰」的痕迹。这其间传承定位与信仰内涵的变化，都透露出其教门之杂窃与多变的性格。

对于上述问题，本文试从明清之际民间宗教与先天道之文献去厘清一贯道所承袭之教派，以及一贯道杂取各种不同宗教而混同之，随意拼凑而自相矛盾的教理结构，以呈现其剽窃、变造、占有之「剽窃」本质。尤其针对一贯道从佛法中窃取的两个主题「正法眼藏」与「弥陀信仰」，追溯其窃用名相之因缘及变造内涵之过程，以及佔为己有之结果，详细论析其不诚实、不正知而又广宣其教、误导群众的剽窃心态；并进而说明一贯道以剽窃手段而施设的教理解说与修行次第，最多也只是世俗法的人伦劝善而已，依此而信受而修行，绝无可能如所诳称的超生了死，出离三界！因为，这是唯有「佛法」修证才达得到的成就，一贯道虽经历数百年与佛教的暧昧关系，却从未理解佛法真实义，更不曾实修佛法道次第，因此，与三乘佛法既不相应，又如何获致「佛法」的功德与受用？此一必然结果将于后面举证辨析。……（待续）

二、从一贯道的历史传承透视其剽窃→变造→占有之本质

一贯道有著数百年的历史，从其八祖罗蔚群至十祖吴紫祥（1715-1784），适逢各类民间通俗宗教从明代中末叶以来，即已风靡大江南北的年代。有多少民间宗教直接或间接影响一贯道的形成及教义的传承，是值得去注意和探讨的。

据林万传先生在其著作《先天道研究》中指出：「一贯道之教义大体上仍沿袭先天道，惟为因应时代趋势，做了若干改革而已。」虽说先天道道统系谱九祖以前的各祖师，是教徒基於心法、义理而遥接的传承，并非历史的递代。但这些心法与义理，却又是某些民间宗教所发展延伸出来的，所以由先天道的道统加以反溯，即可清理一贯道的历史传承。

（一）一贯道探源

先天道於同治年间（1862-1874）分裂，各派系独自发展其道务及订定道统，到了清末山东东震堂王觉一（1821-1884）一系发展成后来的一贯道。是以一贯道前身乃清代的先天道，但先天道在清代官方的文书档案中，有青莲教、金丹道、斋匪等称号。甚至也有大乘教之称，如嘉庆二十五年（1820）的《护道榜文》事件记载，贵州都匀府丹江厅大乘教徒龙燕海，当时吐供云：

我系贵州都匀府丹江厅人……康熙六年，有素习大乘教的直隸民人罗维行领了官给的《护道榜文》在外传教。后罗维行四传至江西民人何弱为徒，何弱得了《榜文》，到贵州省内习教……

康熙六年（1667）於江西传大乘教之直隸民人罗维行，多位学者认为他就是一贯道的第八祖罗蔚群。另据马西沙先生的研究，引文中的何弱即一贯道所称第十一祖何若（？-1800），而何若之师吴子祥即一贯道第十祖吴紫祥（1715-1784），此两人清代档案记录多处，行迹凿凿。再据嘉庆十一年（1806）八月护理江西巡抚先福奏审吴文春的奏折，所附吴文春所藏符箓清楚的记载着，善字号吃斋者奉黄廷臣、吴子祥为祖师，以及依吴文春符箓的书写顺序来看，黄廷臣为吴子祥的前辈祖师。以及据马西沙先生的研究，雍正十二年（1734）江西发生的圆顿教案中的黄廷臣（即黄上选、黄荣万）就是一贯道传说中的黄九祖黄德辉（1684-1750）。而且据林万传先生的研究，黄德辉曾拜罗维行为师。因此，从清代档案的记载，所谓罗维行的四传应该就是罗维行、黄德辉、吴子祥与何若，也就是后来一贯道所称之八祖至十一祖。……（待续）

Historical Right, Historical Responsibility and Historians

Abstract

Although it is extremely important, the scope of the historian is a topic that very few people explore in historiography. Using historical right as the characteristic of the historian, this article defines the scope of the historian. Among many different opinions about the content of historical right, this article thinks the right to select and interpret parts of facts to manifest their knowledge and value is the historical right of the historian.

The reason why the historian has the historical right is that the historical facts are too huge to record all of them, and a historian has to write about the essential parts selected from countless facts. The author of this article expresses a different view on the topic about “the historian, who manages official documents to assist in the governing of a country” and thinks the historical right defined by the author is completely different from the official historian’s governing power, which will hinder the execution of historical right. With this view, this article clearly defines the connotation of historical right and clarifies the real characteristic of the historian.

Historical responsibility comes with the corresponding historical right. With the historical right, a historian should bear the responsibility for the history which he manifests. The historical responsibility is not given to a historian by anyone; it is a definite phenomenon generated by the continuous operation of the “grandly unified” causality rule in the dharma-realm. The execution of historical right by a historian is in fact to write the rules in his mind; it is the historical right of a historian.

Generally there are three layers of meaning for the grandly unified historical responsibility: The first is the minor precepts of conduct; the second is the unique causality rule of grand unification; the highest layer is the ultimate origin of causality rule—the eighth vijnana Tathagatagarbha. All three layers of the historical responsibility should not be violated when a historian executes his historical right.

According to the characteristic of historical right, this article finds both journalists and media workers are historians in conformity to the characteristic of historical right. Furthermore, everyone and even all sentient beings of ten dharma-realms are historians too. It is because every sentient being of ten dharma-realms is the subject of history; everyone has the historical right to write the rules with one’s bodily, verbal and mental deeds, and has no choice but to bear the due historical responsibility; therefore the ten dharma-realms are built. Among the ten dharma-realms, the sages and saints of the four noble dharma-paths are true historians, whereas the sentient beings of the six ordinary karma-paths are false historians. This is a reduced scope of the historian.

Keywords: historian, historical right, historical responsibility, writing the rules, seven noble precepts, five supernatural powers, five insights, grand unification, distortion of the facts, Confucian ethical code, Tathagatagarbha, double standard, balance of power, journalist, media, theory of public opinion

1. Introduction

The scope of history includes all existing facts. Historians collect, read and digest huge amounts of detailed historical data; they construct and interpret the evolution of history. However, historical researches are enormous and complex; with time, more and more historians are needed to participate in research; on the other hand, it seems that historical researches also become endless as time goes by.Liang Qichao, a modern historian, states in Research Methods of Chinese History:

For two thousand years, the historical study in our country has been uniquely flourishing as compared to those of other countries. Nevertheless, its writing system was mostly created by those scholars over a thousand years ago. The historical system needed at that time is quite different from that of today. The knowledge of that time was still not divided into subdisciplines. All different fields of knowledge were recorded by history. Therefore, the scope of history was extraordinarily wide. With the passing years, the number of history books has been increasing, even to the extent that no one can read all of them throughout one’s entire lifetime. As we live in present days, reading old history books is just like “sifting gold from sand, in which valuable things are often found.” Without sand, there would be no gold. However, it is indeed an extremely laborious task to obtain a piece of gold from several decaliters of sand; moreover, not everyone can have the technique of sifting gold. If one goes the wrong way, it will be inevitable that one obtains sand instead of gold. Unfortunately, the current education of history in China is exactly like that.

Liang Qichao thinks that “all different fields of knowledge were recorded by history.” Obviously, in the extremely wide range of historical data, due to the limited space, what is recorded in history should be the knowledge that is beneficial to later generations, rather than those useless data. Liang Qichao further states: “However, it is indeed an extremely laborious task to obtain a piece of gold from several decaliters of sand; moreover, not everyone can have the technique of sifting gold.” It is obvious that the historical contents recorded by historians are not all useful mundane wisdom or knowledge. If Liang’s statement that “it is indeed an extremely laborious task to obtain a piece of gold from several decaliters of sand” is true, what were recorded by historians is in fact rich in sand instead of gold, and useful wisdom or knowledge is scarcely found. Moreover, if useful wisdom or knowledge is to be found, the readers need to have the technique of sifting gold; without the technique of sifting gold, one would be unable to obtain useful wisdom or knowledge. Worst of all, “it is inevitable that historians obtain sand instead of gold.” In that case, historians bring disaster to later generations by transmitting sand to them.……（continue）

2. Historical Right and Historians

This article attempts to explore the scope of the historian. The characteristics of the historian should be clarified first. Chinese historians always like to mention the establishment of official historian system and consider it to be one of the important factors in the well-developed Chinese historiography. However, the occupational historical officer is not a characteristic of the historian. The reason is that although there was no historical officer in ancient society, it does not impede the propagation of historical facts. Although the Western society established the official historian system later, historians still existed before the establishment of official historian system, and it does not impede the development and advancement of Western history. In describing the Chinese official historian system, Du Weiyun states:

The Western world did not establish an official historian system to record the world events immediately. … As for Greeks, who initiated historical study, they had already had a lot of political experiences up to the 7^th century BC. It was strange that the Greeks at that time did not think of recording their experiences in written words. They only paid attention to the history provided in epic poems. As a result, Greeks still did not have plentiful records in written words until the 5^th century BC. That was the situation at that time, and no wonder Western historians disappointedly said, “At first, the stimulation to record historical events did not come from the interest in the past, the so-called interest in history. The forerunner of historical study was full of surprises; it seemed unlikely that, in the beginning, the duty of the so-called historian has its origins in history.” In contrast, the situation in China was entirely different. Since distant ancient times, China had established an official historian system to record the world events immediately, which never happened before. The time when China established an official historian system might not be as early as that told in legends. Cangjie and Jusong, the inventors of Chinese characters, were probably not the ancestors of official historians. However, in the Shang Dynasty or the Xia Dynasty at the latest, China had indeed established an official historian system.

Du Weiyun praises that in the Shang Dynasty or the Xia Dynasty at the latest, China had established official historians in different governmental organizations, and the establishment of official historians is occupational and professional. However, from the definition of the historian, although the occupational and professional historical officers are historians, occupationization and professionalization are not the most important characteristics of the historian; it is proved from the fact that there were still historians writing about history although the Western world set up the official historian system in a later time. As stated by Western historians: it seemed unlikely that, in the beginning, the duty of the so-called historian has its origins in history. It exactly shows that occupationization is not the characteristic of the historian. Liang Qichao even states in the Research Methods of Chinese History:.……(continue)