論章的目的是討論「我們應該如何審視禪宗？」的問題，立場是主張 該用多元的觀點與變遷不定的分析性類型研究。如果這樣，我們不斷地繼續努力 避免傳統性看法、來自資料本身的結構上限制。所謂「傳統性看法」表示禪宗傳 承圖所含有的意思，因為它有解釋與溝通的媒介所具的語言符號的效用。 第一、禪宗的傳承體系是印度和中國文化結合的產物，可就不用現在學者們 經常把禪宗描述成所有中國佛教禪宗派中「最中國的」的空洞沙文主義說法。第 二、用此傳承圖把禪宗定義為「教外別傳」，藉此宣稱禪宗在根本上勝過其他一 切宗派，有挑起爭議的暗示。第三、在禪宗傳承體系中具有意義的不是發生在釋 迦牟尼、菩提達摩、慧能和其他人身上的「事實」，而是這些人物在禪宗的神話 裡如何被看待。最重要的是軼事經由什麼過程而被創作、流傳、編輯與修訂，因 而傳遍禪宗修行人與支持者全體，直到此軼事成為具可塑性的傳說傳統。這是馬 克瑞的禪宗研究第一定律：「它不是事實，因此更加重要！」第四、根據有關空 性的說理，在此傳承體系中沒有任何事物是真正被傳承下來的，發生在每位大師 與他的繼承者之間的，只是對繼承者達到完全開悟的印可。第五、由於每位佛陀 與祖師的開悟都是徹底的，在印度的諸佛與祖師以及在中國與其相當的人物，彼 此間並無宗教地位的差別。從佛教的中國化來說，這是非常重要的。第六、禪的 「系譜模式」之所以重要，不僅作歷史上的自我認識；同樣重要的是它解釋了禪 宗修行的方式，則暗示最重要的心靈培育，是在於師徒之間的「應對」 （encounter)。第七、我提到「每位大師與他的（男性）繼承者」，這個指稱特定 性別的措詞非常適合此處。禪宗傳統是極為以男性為主的，英文「patriachal」（指 禪宗代表性人物或男性中心的思想體系）一詞的模稜兩可中全適合此處了。雖然 現在無法討論這個問題，我們應該很敏感地觀察到：禪不只是開發新的宗教可能 性的工具，卻也是壓制一般中國宗教修行人或其中的不同團體的武器嗎？ 每當我們根據大師代代相傳的直線繼承關係，來對禪宗作出解釋的時候，我 們是在冒著犯下我所說的「念珠」式謬見的險。這是誤報比此謬見模式更複雜而 且更有意思的歷史、宗教的狀況。

　　　　　The goal of this essay is to consider the question of how we should look at Chan Buddhism. I argue that there should be a multiplicity of perspectives and a certain fluidity of analytical typologies in doing so, and that we should consciously work to escape the structural limitations imposed upon us by traditionalistic approaches and by the subject matter itself. By traditionalistic approaches I mean those implied by Chan lineage diagrams, which have a semiotic impact as a medium of interpretation and communication. First, the Chan lineage scheme is a combined product of Indian and Chinese culture. This observation undercuts the chauvinistic and essentially meaningless assertions that Chan is the "most Chinese" of all the Chinese Buddhist schools. Second, there are distinct polemical implications in the definition of Chan as a "separate transmission outside the scriptures," as fundamentally more authentic than all other Buddhist schools. Third, what counts in the Chan transmission scheme are not the "facts" of what happened in the lives of Sakyamuni, Bodhidharma, Huineng, and others, but rather how these figures were perceived in terms of Chan mythology. What is of the greatest consequence here is the process by which that mythology was generated and circulated, edited and improved, and thus transmitted throughout an entire population of Chan practitioners and devotees. Fourth, based on the rhetoric of sunyata, or emptiness, there is nothing that is actually transmitted in this transmission scheme. What occurs between each teacher and his successor is merely an approval or authorization of the successor's attainment of complete enlightenment. Fifth, since the enlightenment of each Buddha and Patriarch is complete, there is no difference of religious status between the Indian Buddhas and Patriarchs and their Chinese counterparts. This is very important in terms of the signification of Buddhism, in that it allowed Chinese Buddhists to venerate and emulate culturally Chinese role models. Sixth, the "genealogical model" is important for its impact on how Chan spiritual practice itself is carried out. That is, the Chan genealogical model implies that the most important aspect of spiritual cultivation takes place in the encounter between each teacher and his student. Seventh, the gender-restricted terminology of "each teacher and his successor" is very much appropriate, since the Chan tradition is overwhelmingly male-dominated. Although I do not have space to consider these subjects in this paper, we should be sensitive to ways in which the lineage format both allowed and suppressed different types of perspectives, and how Chan school's dominance in Chinese Buddhism may have mitigated against alternative viewpoints. The result of these deliberations are distilled in the following observation: any time we pretend to explain Chan in terms of lineal successions from one great master to another, we run the risk of committing what I call the "string of pearls" fallacy, in which the evolution of Chan Buddhism is described in terms of a sequence of individual masters like pearls on a string. This is to misrepresent historical and religious reality, which are both far more complex and interesting than this simplistic model would imply.