本論係由學術思想史發展的脈絡，來看謝靈運(辨宗論} ，頓悟」義「折 衷于1釋」的玄學詮釋押簣，藉以闡明晉末宋初頓音說法的提出，實與魏晉時期 玄學思維的啟迪有相當關係。謝氏之說，雖紹自「新論道士J (竺道生) ，然 其相關論述，卻儼然涵有個人對玄學傳統積學深厚的文化自覺，此由謝氏將其 「敢以折中白許」的說法冠以「道家之唱，得意之說」得見。筆者從(辨宗 論)所白陳之以「道J (玄學)為宗，作為去取、折衷「孔/釋」的問題意識 出發，發現其詮釋特色，乃基於結合玄學「聖人體無」與「得意志、言」的觀念 與思維，來格義佛學之「頓悟」說，即掛搭起「有/無」與「言/意」之辨， 藉以闡明「修/悟」、「頓/漸」之別。此中玄學自境界以觀聖的「體無」 成了頓悟的究竟意義，是為「真知J 而學、修則如言室為假、暫。其間復包 涵了主體修為情狀之分析與「心」、「理」涵攝關係之辨證，最後歸結於 「盡」與「忘」之工夫與頓悟理境的實現。在學術史的意義上，遂推進玄學傳 統由「才性論」向「心性論」言玄智鑒悟，談工夫修養的積極面轉化。 職是，本論將以(辨宗論)中謝氏與當時僧俗界(釋法勘、僧維、慧鱗、 竺法綱、慧琳、王弘)對「頓/漸」問題的往來書論為主，以玄學「聖人體 無」義與「得意忘言」的關係作為觀照謝靈運「頓悟」義之玄學詮釋的主軸， 從而分就一、主體論「體無鑒周，理皇帝一極」二、方法論，道家之唱， 得意之說」作出系統帥里，以觀察其「折衷孔釋」所依附、傳承白玄學義手里的 詮釋特色。

From the perspective of the history of Chinese thought, this paper probes into features of the xuanxue [Neo-Daoist] interpre 但tive framewo rk ofzhe zhong kong shi [compromising between Buddhism and the Confucian ism] based on dunwu [f1ash of insight/enlightenment] in Xie Lingyun's “ Bianzonglun," to demonstrate that the idea of dunwu proposed in late Jin Dynasty to early Liu Song Dynasty was indeed relevant to the inspiration of Neo-Daoist xuanxue philosophy. Although X峙's thought was inspired by the novel views of Zhu Dao-sheng, his writings reveal a profound consciousness of the cultural currents of traditional xuanxue, seen in his idea of “The Argumentation of Daoism, the Discourse of Obtaining Mean ing ," based on a compromise between the Buddhism and Confucianism The novel character of X峙's interpretation relies on the integration of the concept “ the Sage grasps/embodies nothingness" with the concept “ when one gets the meaning, the words can be forgotten" to interpret the idea of dunwu in Buddhism. This linked the distinction between being and nonbeing with that between language and meaning, and by way of this association, illuminated the distinction between learning vs. enlightenment (gradual vs. sudden understanding). From the perspective of this Neo Daoism , the sage's “grasping/embodying of the concept of nothing" became the ultimate meaning of dun Vi啞， or the so-called “ genuine intelligence ," while learning and cultivation were simply temporary tools to this end. The study also includes an analysis of the relationship between xin [mind] and zhen [truth] with regard to a subject's cultivation. It is concluded that cultivation relied on the actualization ofjin [fulfilling/rea的ing the limit] and wang [forgetting] in achieving the state of dunwu. In intellectual history, this transformation of xuanxue marks a move from from caixing lun [aptitude theories] toward xinxing lun [mind-nature theories] Therefore , this paper investigates the character and significance of Xie Lingyun's interpretation of dunwu as inherited from precedent xuanxue.