佛教哲學內部之發展經歷過對超越形上學基礎之破壞與重建兩個階段，前者包含發展於印度本土從小乘到大乘中觀與唯識之哲學觀點，多路但卻是有系統地拆除認識範圍之外的「超越基礎」：原子論與梵我論，並建構起無外在絕對第一因的認識論與世界觀；後者則包含梵地的如來藏思想與漢地的本覺思想（華嚴、禪宗），在無任何外在於認識範圍的第一因之形上學預設之前提下，肯認一種「內於」認識或者作為「其根源」之超越主體性：佛性，出於直觀與本覺（現量）優先於理解與分析（比量）之主張，這股思潮不僅在東亞大放異彩，蔚為主流，並進而以一種落地生根之姿，在中國與日本神秘化與美學化。

當時間進展至歐洲哲思與東亞哲思交會的現代，正當歐陸面臨「後現代」思潮透過對「現代」之理論性建構之反對，以及在實踐上以神秘化與美學化鬆動「現代性」之「理論計畫」之對峙中，在八零年代的日本，興起了「批判佛教」的運動，藉由斥責漢傳特徵濃厚之如來藏思想為「偽佛教」導致佛教在社會實踐上保守反動，不能正視社會正義，無利於社會改革，故提倡一種回歸佛陀本懷之「批判佛教」，而被放置在對立面的則是與日本軍國主義、天皇制度緊密關聯的「京都學派」之擁護本覺思想的「場所哲學」。

在中國，雷同地，戰前支那內學院的歐陽竟無、呂澂批判《起信論》、禪宗與華嚴，以及1949年後持馬列思想之大陸佛教學者，以歷史唯物論與辯證唯物論立場批判傳統佛教之意識形態，形成另外一股位於東亞，反對如來藏本覺思想，主張回歸印度大小乘批判精神之「批判佛教」勢力。支那內學院之批判著重在義理，而馬列學者雖然表面上看來無關義理而是意識形態之爭，但哲學系統上的根柢，唯物立場對社會實踐之關懷與對宗教神祕性之排斥，卻恰巧與佛教內部對形上學基礎之破壞與重建之張力相符，這一點是這些大陸學者始料未及但對我們今日來說卻饒有意思之處。

在形上學基礎破壞期中，超越形上學基礎之破壞導致精神墮向虛無；進入重建期後，嘗試建構的新基礎會讓人們是返回迷信還是朝向真理都還懸而未決，傳到了東亞，到了近代，在屈服於西方船堅砲利的新舞台上，竟成了哲人賴以由精神層次找到超越西方傳來的現代性中之虛無，以回應被入侵與被殖民的挫敗感的傳統資源。

在近代史中，本覺思想濃厚之佛教哲學與日本軍國主義關係濃厚，同樣主張純粹感知優先於理解的海德格思想與納粹德國息息相關，到底佛教對於形上學基礎存廢之哲學問題，與佛教思想在社會實踐上與人類歷史大事之間的關聯為何，本課程藉由審視日本「批判哲學」運動對「京都學派場所哲學」之反對，以及在中國支那內學院對新儒家「反本開新」之傳統佛教哲學詮釋的反對，來思考這個哲學思想與實踐之間的問題。無超越實體預設的批判主義，與有超越實體預設的權威主義，在人類精神史上不斷對峙，在人類面對現代化過程的集體焦慮中，所謂後現代的超克，應該訴諸哪一條道路？讓我們從距離我們不遠的歷史脈絡中細細看來。

The internal development of Buddhist philosophy has gone through two stages of destruction and reconstruction of the foundation of transcendent metaphysics. The former includes the philosophical viewpoints of Madhyamaka and knowledge-only development from Hinayana to Mahayana in India. There are many but systematic dismantling of the "transcendent foundations" outside the scope of cognition: atomism and Brahmanism, and the construction of an epistemology and worldview without an external absolute first cause; the latter includes the Tathagatagarbha thought of Brahma and the Rigpa thought of Han. Huayan, Zen Buddhism), without any metaphysical presupposition of the first cause outside the scope of cognition, affirms an "internal" understanding or a transcendent subjectivity as "its origin": Buddha nature, based on the proposition that intuition and original awareness (real quantity) take precedence over understanding and analysis (comparison). This trend of thought not only flourished in East Asia and became mainstream, but also took root in China and Japan, becoming mystified and aestheticized.

When time progressed to the modern era when European philosophy and East Asian philosophy converged, and as Europe faced the confrontation between "postmodern" thought through opposition to the theoretical construction of "modernity" and the "theoretical project" of loosening "modernity" through mystification and aestheticization in practice, in Japan in the 1980s, the "Critical Buddhism" movement arose in Japan, which denounced the characteristics of Han tradition The strong thought of Tathagatagarbha as "pseudo-Buddhism" makes Buddhism conservative and reactionary in social practice, unable to face up to social justice, and unfavorable to social reform. Therefore, it advocates a "critical Buddhism" that returns to the original intention of the Buddha. What is placed in the opposite direction is the "philosophy of place" of the "Kyoto School" that is closely related to Japanese militarism and the emperor system and supports the idea of ​​Rigpa.

In China, similarly, Ouyang Jingwu and Lu Chen of the China Academy of Internal Medicine before the war criticized "The Theory of Awakening of Faith", Zen Buddhism and Huayan. After 1949, mainland Buddhist scholars who held Marxist-Leninist ideas criticized the ideology of traditional Buddhism from the standpoint of historical materialism and dialectical materialism, forming another "critical Buddhism" force in East Asia that opposed the thought of Tathagatagarbha Rigpa and advocated a return to the critical spirit of Mahayana and Mahayana in India. The criticism of the Chinese Academy of Sciences focused on doctrine, and although the Marxist-Leninist scholars seemed not to be concerned with doctrine but with ideological disputes, the foundation of the philosophical system, the materialistic stance's concern for social practice, and the rejection of religious mysteries coincided with the tension between the destruction and reconstruction of metaphysical foundations within Buddhism. This was something that these mainland scholars did not expect, but it is very interesting to us today.

During the period of destruction of metaphysical foundations, the destruction of transcendent metaphysical foundations caused the spirit to fall into nothingness; after entering the reconstruction period, the new foundations attempted to be constructed left people undecided whether to return to superstition or move toward truth. This spread to East Asia, and in modern times, on the new stage of succumbing to the power of Western ships and artillery, it actually became a traditional resource for philosophers to rely on the spiritual level to find a way to transcend the nothingness in modernity transmitted from the West, in order to respond to the frustration of being invaded and colonized.

In modern history, Buddhist philosophy with strong Rigpa ideas has a strong relationship with Japanese militarism. Heidegger's thought, which also advocates the priority of pure perception over understanding, is closely related to Nazi Germany. In the end, the philosophical question of whether Buddhism has a metaphysical foundation has to do with the social practice of Buddhist thought and human history. What is the connection between major events? This course considers this issue between philosophical thought and practice by examining the opposition of the "Critical Philosophy" movement in Japan to the "Philosophy of Place of the Kyoto School" and the opposition to the New Confucian interpretation of traditional Buddhist philosophy in China's China Academy of Sciences. Criticalism without a presupposition of a transcendent entity and authoritarianism with a presupposition of a transcendent entity have been in constant confrontation in the history of human spirituality. In the collective anxiety of mankind facing the process of modernization, which path should the so-called postmodern transcendence take? Let us take a closer look at the historical context not far away from us.

1. 林鎮國。《空性與現代性》。台北：2004，立緒出版社。
2. Berstein, Richard J. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.

1. Lin Zhenguo. "Emptiness and Modernity". Taipei: 2004, Lixu Publishing House.
2. Berstein, Richard J. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.