本論文探討反智主義在禪宗興起初期所扮演的角色，首先辨明「文本權威」與「義學」之差別，後者即是標題所意指的反智主義。接著辨析初期禪宗雖然提出「不立文字」之言，實際上並未全面抗拒文字，而反而是將文字的權威與祖師的權威相結合，以之與義學相互抗衡。本文透過對禪宗初期三位習禪高僧的傳記之精讀，討論自始長期存在於禪宗內部思想上，實修與義學兩種傾向的對立觀點。三位習禪高僧分別為菩提達摩（五世紀末）、慧思（515-577）與信行（540-594），皆可以視為早期禪僧的典範，而三位高僧思想上皆反映了六世紀時期對於佛教將於末法時期衰滅的憂慮、以及大小乘佛教爭論的議題。本論文將此視為禪宗興起初期的重要思想背景，將正統的禪宗祖師菩提達摩與慧思、信行做為對比，彰顯相對特色，並且重新審視「定慧之爭」的思維對於初期禪宗思想具有的影響。

This paper discusses how anti-scholasticism was involved in the creation of Chan Buddhism. It first makes a further distinction between “textual authority” and “exegetical practice,” i.e., “scholasticism.” It then argues that the earliest Chan movement in China was not in fact a rejection of text, but quite the contrary – the movement was one of an integration of patriarchal legitimacy and textual authority, while casting off the necessity of exegetical tradition. A close reading of Buddhist monks’ biographies of representative Chan masters, namely Bodhidharma 菩提達摩 (ca. late fifth century), Huisi 慧思 (515-577), and Xinxing 信行 (540- 594), tells us that the perpetual dichotomy between scholasticism and real practice was embedded in the patriarchal image of Chan Buddhism. The image of these monks, which may be called the Chan ideal, features Buddhist worries over the Buddhist decline during the sixth century as well as the debate between Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna Buddhism. This religious background is the provenance of what may be called the Chan ideal. By contrasting Bodhidharma with Huisi and Xinxing in a wider context, this paper provides a reassessment of the debate between meditation and scholasticism and its influence on early Chan Buddhism.