|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
慧思與智者心意識說之探討=A Study of the Theories of Citta, Manas and Vijñāna by Hui-shih and Chih-yih |
|
|
|
| Author |
陳英善 (著)=Cheng, Ying-shan (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
中華佛學學報=Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal=Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.11 |
|---|
| Date | 1998.07 |
|---|
| Pages | 155 - 179 |
|---|
| Publisher | 中華佛學研究所=Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.chibs.edu.tw/publication_tw.php?id=12
|
|---|
| Location | 新北市, 臺灣 [New Taipei City, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese; 英文=English |
|---|
| Keyword | 阿黎耶識=Alaya vijnana; 金剛智=vijra prajna; 無塵智=unstained prajna; 覺意三昧=the mindful samdhi |
|---|
| Abstract | 心意識說，乃是中國南北朝佛教一相當複雜的課題，其中又以「阿黎耶識」之見解頗具爭議，歸納約有三種看法：染、淨、染淨和合識。天台宗之慧思、智者正逢於此時代，其又如何來看待此問題？彼此間之見解有否差異？據本文之研究，慧思由於著重禪觀之修證，視阿黎耶識為淨識；智者著重於問題之釐清，對三種阿黎耶識看法採批判態度，認為三者乃「一三，三一」之關係；乃至備受爭議的《大乘止觀法門》則視阿黎耶識為染淨識。
至於心意識問題，就慧思而言，並未有明確之區分，尤其對第七識更顯得模糊（直以金剛智視之），此種情形亦同樣出現在《大乘止觀法門》中，對第七識未有明確之交待。就智者而言，仍秉著釐清問題的態度批判將心意識作對立性之思考，認者三者之關係乃是「一三，三一」。
基於本文之研究，雖然認為《大乘止觀法門》之立論與慧思觀點有別，然其對金剛智之重視，可說延續著慧思禪觀核心思想，由此更顯示其與慧思間之密切關係。雖其受《大乘起信論》之影響採染淨和合識，但於禪觀本質並未有所改變，由此反而更可證明其與慧思之關係，採染淨和合識只是思想之發展性運用而已。此顯示了像《大乘止觀法門》一部頗具爭議的論著，從不同面向切入
時，會得出不同結論。
本文之論述主要有三部份：首先，探討慧思心意識之看法；接著，論述智者心意識之看法；最後，順帶處理《大乘止觀法門》之看法。
The theory of citta, manas and Vijñāna is a rather complicated Buddhist theme in the Southern Northern Dynasties of China. In particular, the understanding on ālayavijñāna is quite diverse. Three opinions can be induced: defiled, pure, and both defiled and pure. Hui-shih and Chih-yih of Tientai Sect were in this period. How did they look at this question？ Did they have different opinions？ According to this study, because Hui-shih stressed on the practice of meditation, he considered ālaya vijñāna as pure. On the other hand, because Chih-yih stressed on the clarification of question, he was critical about the three opinions on ālaya vijñāna and considered the three as ‘one in three and three in one’. The rather controversial The Techniques of Samatha and Vipaśyana in Mahāyāna Buddhism considers ālaya
vijñāna as both defiled and pure.
As to the problem of citta, manas, and vijñāna, Hui-shih didn't distinguish them very clearly. Especially, he seemed to be ambiguous about the 7th vijñāna and called it ‘vajra prajñā’. The same case happend in The Techniques of Samatha and Vipaśyana in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Yet, chih-yih still based on the attitude of clarifying problems to criticize the existing opinions and speculated on citta, manas and vijñāna comparatively by considering the three as ‘one in three and three in one’. Although the standpoint of The Techniques of Samatha and Vipaśyana in Mah yāna
Buddhism is different from the viewpoint of Hui-shih, its stress on the vajra prajñā is considered as the continuation of Hui-shih's core thought on meditation. This can show its close relationship with Hui-shih. Although it was
affected by The Saastra on the Arising Faith in Mahāyāna and considered the ālaya vijñāna as both defiled and pure, it didn't change the viewpoint on the essence of meditation. This would further prove its relationship with Hui-shih. Considering the ālaya vijñāna as both defiled and pure is only an application of the development of
thought. This shows that a controversial book like The Techniques of Samatha and Vipaśyana in Mahāyāna Buddhism would Obtain a different conclusion when discussing the problem from a different dimension.
This paper consists of three parts: 1. To investigate Hui-shih's viewpoint on citta, manas and vijñāna. 2. To describe Chih-yih's viewpoint on citta, manas and vijñāna. 3. To discuss the viewpoint in The Techniques of Samatha and Vipaśyana in Mahāyāna Buddhism. |
|---|
| ISSN | 10177132 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 920 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.08.31 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
