|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
漢傳佛教在隋唐時代形成了亞洲新的文化運動=Chinese Buddhism in Sui and Tang Dynasties and Formation of the New Cultural Movement in Asia |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
李志夫 (著)=Lee, Chih-fu (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
求法與弘法：漢傳佛教的跨文化交流國際研討會論文集=Seeking Dharma, Spreading Dharma: Cross-Cultural Interactions of Chinese Buddhism
|
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2015.10.01 |
|---|
| ページ | 27 - 42 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 法鼓文化 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://www.ddc.com.tw/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 專題研究論文=Research Paper |
|---|
| 言語 | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| ノート | 主題：專題演講。
李志夫：中華佛學研究所榮譽所長、法鼓佛教學院名譽教授 |
|---|
| 抄録 | 佛教東傳漢土，不僅是形成了一種新的宗教與思想；更形成了亞洲新的文化運動。
關於漢傳佛教形成亞洲新宗教、新思想，各位專家、學者在本大會已有高明的闡述；本人拜讀之餘，獲益良多。
所以本席僅就《漢傳佛教形成了亞洲新文化運動》提供淺見，敬請指教：
佛教自公元二年即西漢文帝傳入中國，歷經漢、魏、晉、南北朝，近二百年才相續形成隋唐時代(588-907)亞洲的新文化運動。這是一個非常艱鉅漫長的工程。
民國十三(1924)年徐志摩先生邀請了印度大文學家泰戈爾來華訪問，梁啟超先生在北京的歡迎大會上致詞時說：佛教傳入中國，也傳入了印度文化，一共指出了十二項之多。漢傳佛教也隨之以上十二項全部或部分再分傳到四鄰的友邦，就形成了亞洲的新文化運動。
我們更要強調的是：佛教傳到漢地，由移植文化轉變成根植文化，即在中國四境鄰邦大多形成其根植文化。所謂「移植文化」是因為中國本來是一文明古國，是以本土固有文化來連接相近似的佛教文化，由參考性變成主體性文化之一；而四境鄰邦本來就沒有自己的主體文化，輸入漢地佛教以後，才形成其主體文化。這就是本席所論之「移植文化」與「根植文化」的不同。這就是之所以有人認為「中國是佛教的第二袓國」的原因。其實，究竟而言，佛教是沒有「袓國」的，因為佛陀所說的佛法也只是「法爾如是」而已。
總之，無論是「移植文化」或「根植文化」都算是形成了「亞洲新文化運動」。
The spread of Buddhism eastwards to the Chinese soil not only formed a new religion and thought, but it was also shaped into a new cultural movement in Asia.
In regard to Asia's new religion and thought having taken shape within Chinese Buddhism, you experts and scholars present here today at the conference have already made it all clear; I indeed benefited a great deal from reading your papers through.
I, therefore, can only offer you ladies and gentlemen my humble opinions in "Chinese Buddhism Formed a New Cultural Movement in Asia." Kindly bear with me:
Buddhism, since its transmission to China in the second year prior to the Christian Era, going through the Han, Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties close to 600 years, unremittingly formed a new cultural movement in Asia during the Sui and Tang Dynasties (588-907). This was a process exceedingly long and arduous.
In 1924, Mr. Xu Zhi-mo invited Indian literary giant Rabindranath Tagore to visit China, where Mr. Liang Qi-chao at a welcome assembly in Beijing, delivered a speech to the effect that Buddhism was introduced into China, and Indian culture was also brought in; there were as many as 12 imported things as pointed out by him. Subsequently, Chinese Buddhism promulgated entirely or partially the 12 things to all neighboring allied countries, thereby creating a new cultural movement in Asia.
What we would like to highlight is: the Buddhism disseminated to China was transformed from a transplanted culture to a rooted culture; most of the surrounding countries actually grew into China's rooted cultures. China, as an ancient civilization herself, was based on the innately local culture associated with Buddhist cultures similar to Chinese culture, so that the so-called “transplanted culture” became a mainstream culture out of annexed ones. Nevertheless, the neighboring countries, in which no mainstream culture had been identified, could only form their own mainstream cultures after Buddhism was brought in from China. This is what I deem the difference between "transplanted culture" and "rooted culture." Also, this is why some consider "China as the second motherland of Buddhism." In fact, as far as ontology goes, the Buddhist faith belongs to no "motherland," in that the Dharma uttered by the Buddha is no more than "the way it is."
In short, whether Buddhism is "transplanted culture" or "rooted culture," during the Sui and Tang Dynasties it was regarded as "A New Cultural Movement in Asia." |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 278 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2016.06.15 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2016.06.16 |
|---|
 |
Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac)での検索をお勧めします。ＩＥではこの検索システムを表示できません。
|
|
|
