聖嚴法師為反擊基督教對佛教的批判，於一九七六年出 版了探討基督教的論文集：《基督教之研究1 》。此書內容 是由印順法師同樣歷史語境下的相關著作2 中一些已有主題 發展而來。本文集中討論了聖嚴對基督教的徹底分析，尤其 關注了他對福音書中描述的耶穌人格特徵及教義的批判。 現代語境下，不同宗教間彼此進行批判的行為不再流 行。相反地，這些宗教更偏好去強調彼此間的相同之處與對 話關係，認為這才是通往和諧與和平的路徑。這種跨宗教的 對話與寬容之路實質為佛教所開闢，這或許部分源於大乘佛 教「方便」（Upaya）觀對真理進行多種表達的傳統。此種 作風無疑可發揮佛教偉大的包容精神，對世界文化做出極大 貢獻。然而，本文認為：佛教在宗教批判、尤其在對一神論宗教進行批判時也發揮了同等重要的作用。即使主張宗教對話者在世界範圍內聲稱所有宗教都在某種程度上傳授相同的真理、鼓勵相同的道德，但一神教的全球擴張仍對吸收無神論宗教觀點構成了持續不減的威脅：真理與道德最終更多地淪為一神論所謂的真理與道德，珍貴的非一神論宗教卻愈來愈難被發現。聖嚴對此批判的重要性在於：他不但批判舊約中的上帝及傳統神學，更重要的是進一步著重地批判了耶穌本身。前者對包括教徒在內的許多當代人而言顯得尋常、且陳舊無禮。後者則不同：耶穌被世界多數國家（無論信仰宗教與否）中的非教徒輕率地讚揚、接受，並被視為某種聖人及和平愛好者，似乎已經能夠與孔子或佛陀齊名。耶穌已變為基督教、伊斯蘭教、印度教、共產主義、通俗人道主義，甚至某些猶太民族主義的英雄。不人云亦云，能夠通過獨立思考，對耶穌的思想及人品進行深層考察之人較為罕見。與此相反，聖嚴為界定以基督教為代表的一神論宗教的特徵，創造了「一元論的二分法」這個術語，並澄清這確是基督教義的精髓，並非對《聖經》中所描述的耶穌教義的扭曲。這種一元論的二分法結合了兩種明顯相左的傾向：一為包容性傾向，這與如在普世之愛的教義中所見的自我犧牲的戲劇姿態相關聯；一為激進的堅持己見與極端排外的傾向，這與狂熱地妖魔化意識型態方面的敵人相關聯。這種對相反傾向的結合是這種二分法的關鍵性結構特徵。耶穌確實運用了前種傾向，即包容與寬恕。這種包容與寬恕超越了同族與異族的二分，也超越了聖人與罪人的二分。然而，這種包容與寬恕卻僅僅針對基督徒，即：僅僅適用於那些接受耶穌權威、發誓絕對順從他的人。是否絕對服從耶穌的權威則變為唯一的價值標準。這種徹底的二分法標準才是基督教的終極原則，因此教義中的博愛必定會淪為次等手段：其教義的實際效果不過是妖魔化任何不順從於耶穌之人（非基督教徒），並對其進行譴責。聖嚴的著作展現出：在以福音書為宗教視野的基本前提下，以上兩種看似不相容的傾向間存在著內在聯繫，以及這兩種傾向在這些前提下通過哪些方式必然地走向統一。妖魔化意識型態方面的敵人、使群體內部與群體外部發生衝突—這種結構被耶穌在福音書中創造並得以完善，且保持了影響力，又因為耶穌在基督教中的威望，而被做為道德及精神需求得到辯護。這種結構依靠現代種族主義、法西斯主義、布爾什維克主義而存活，且激勵了這些主義的發展。這些「主義」都在主張絕對包容的同時，構建出群體內部的團結一致。這種團結一致又建立於：大聲譴責外部群體、創立排外的道德訴求、將其與僅限群體內部的自我犧牲的意識型態（或許可以稱其為「耶穌主義」）相聯繫而使之變得令人愉悅。佛教是僅存且為數不多的、能夠以極具特色的一元論的二分法，對這類耶穌主義（不論其偽裝與否）及其對世界文化的持續影響進行現實、明智的評定的意識型態。在此過程中，佛教思想為我們提供了僅存且為數不多的、與耶穌主義不同的另種思考模式。

Master Shengyan’s book Studies of Christianity, published in 1967, is a collection of essays on the Christian religion, written largely as a counterattack to Christian critiques of Buddhism. 1 In this paper I want to focus especially on Shengyan’s critique of biblical religion from the ground up, which picks up and develops some of the themes already found in Master Yinshun’s works on the same topic 2 and in the same historical context, but especially on the critique of the teachings and character of Jesus himself as depicted in the Gospels. It is currently unfashionable for religions to critique each other, preferring to stress commonalities and dialogue as roads toward harmony and peace, and indeed Buddhism has led the way in opening new paths for interreligious dialogue and tolerance, due partially perhaps to the resources of its traditions of the multiple expressions of truth in the Mahayana notion of upaya. But I want to suggest that Buddhism has also a unique role to play in the equally important critique of religion, and especially of the monotheistic idea, which as its global expansion continues unabated threatens to absorb atheistic religious sentiment into itself, even under the aegis of ecumenical claims that all religions somehow teach the same truths and encourage the same morals: those truths and morals turn out more and more to be monotheistic truths and morals, and the precious inheritance of non-monotheist religion becomes harder and harder to discern. Of special importance here is the critique not only of the Old Testament God and classical theology—no brainers to many modern people, including Christians themselves, for whom these are already obviously antiquated and offensive—but more especially the critique of Jesus specifically. For Jesus is unthinkingly praised and accepted by many non-Christians, indeed by most of the world, both religious and non-religious, as some kind of sage and man of peace, as if he could be ranked next to figures like Confucius or the Buddha. Jesus is a hero in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Communism, much secular humanism, even some Jewish nationalism. Against this tendency, Shengyan’s work coins the term “dichotomizing monism” 一元論的二分法 to identify a feature of monotheistic religious that is especially pronounced in Christianity, and makes clear that this is not a distortion of the teaching of Jesus as depicted in the Bible, but is the essence of Jesus’ teaching. The key structural feature of this dichotomizing monism is that it combines two apparently sharply opposed tendencies: 1) the tendency toward inclusiveness, linked to histrionic gestures of self-sacrifice, as seen in the teaching of universal love, and 2) the tendency toward aggressive self-assertion and extreme exclusivity, linked to the fanatical demonization of one’s ideological enemies. Jesus applies the inclusive, forgiving tendency, transcending the dichotomy between nationalities and between saint and sinner, only to Christians, i.e., only to those who accept his authority and pledge themselves to absolute obedience. This goes hand in hand with the opposite tendency, to demonize and condemn anyone who does not accept this condition of obedience, i.e, all non-Christians. Shengyan’s work shows the inner connection between these two seemingly incompatible trends in the most basic premises of the gospel’s religious vision, and how they necessarily go together on those premises. This structure of demonizing one’s ideological enemies, pitting in-group against out-group, which was invented or perfected by the Jesus of the Gospels, remains influential and due to its association with Christian prestige has come to be defended as morally and spiritually desirable. It is arguably a structure that lives on and animates modern racism, fascism, and Bolshevism, all of which give all-inclusive affirmation with one hand while simultaneously building this in-group solidarity on the basis of a vociferous condemnation of an out-group, making the exclusivity morally appealing and palatable by linking it to the self-sacrificing ideology of in-group inclusivity—what we might call “Jesusism.” Buddhism is one of the few remaining ideologies that can realistically and judiciously assess this sort of Jesusism and its continued influence on world culture, even in disguised forms, as the characteristic dichotomizing monism of these movements. In so doing, Buddhist thought provides one of the few remaining alternatives to this way of thinking.