|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
從宗密的「靈知」到朱熹的「主宰」：儒佛思想影響史的方法論反思與新發現=From Zongmi's Divinatory Knowing to Zhu Xi's Sovereignty of Moral Agency: New Findings and Methodology about the Interaction between Buddhism and Confucianism |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
鄭澤綿
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
國立政治大學哲學學報=National Chengchi University Philosophical Journal
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.47 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2022.01.01 |
|---|
| ページ | 1 - 49 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 國立政治大學哲學系 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://thinkphil.nccu.edu.tw/main.php
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| キーワード | 朱熹=Zhu Xi; 宗密=Zongmi; 自性本用=Chan Buddhism; 主宰=sovereignty; 中和之悟=the enlightenment of centrality and harmony |
|---|
| 抄録 | 關於宗密影響了宋明理學的論述大多似是而非。可以確定的是朱子注「明德」所用的「虛靈不昧」受到宗密的「靈知」思想的影響。本文遍舉朱子提及宗密知字之處（如：論述涵養先於省察、與論述天之主宰義），以佐證此結論。朱子哲學超越宗密之處是：從宗密知字中點出「知覺」中自有「主宰」，這是朱子中和之悟的關鍵，由此建立了心統性情、敬貫動靜之說。朱子與宗密都熱衷於探索心之體之在自身的狀態，朱子涵養未發之知覺主宰，可類比於宗密之「自性本用」之寂知。佛教語境使宗密不能正面講主宰義，而朱子能正面建立道德主體概念。學界往往把朱子學類比於唯識宗或北宗禪，筆者認為宜將朱子類比於宗密，而朱陸的工夫論之爭可以類比於同為南宗禪的宗密之菏澤宗與馬祖之洪州宗之異。
Most of the theories about how Zongmi influenced Zhu Xi are ill-grounded. The only reliable thesis is that Zhu Xi's ＂xulingbumei＂ (vacuous, divinatory and not beclouded) in his commentary on ＂the brilliant virtue＂ in the Great Learning is borrowed from Zongmi's ＂divinatory knowing.＂ In order to support this claim, I examine all the passages where Zhu Xi refers to Zongmi and his concept of knowing. Zhu Xi mentions them when he contends that the Huxiang School fails to see that the practice of seriousness (keeping the sovereign awake) should precede the observation of the manifestation of the heart/mind, and when Zhu Xi talks about the heart/mind of the Heaven. This is difficult to interpret. I submit that Zhu Xi surpasses Zongmi when he finds that the divinatory knowing contains in itself the power of ＂sovereignty＂ by which the heart/mind can maintain its ideal state. This breakthrough of Zhu Xi is the motive when Zhu Xi proposes his theory that ＂the heart/mind comprises/commands the nature and feelings＂ and that ＂seriousness penetrates tranquility and activity.＂ Both Zhu Xi and Zongmi seek to experience the state of the substance of the heart/mind in itself. Zhu Xi's ＂preserving knowing and sovereignty＂ in the state of ＂not-yet-activated＂ is comparable to Zongmi's notion of ＂vacuous knowing＂ as the ＂original functioning of the nature itself.＂ Zongmi's Buddhist context restricts him from positively talking about one's inner sovereignty, while Zhu Xi's Confucian context encourages it. Zhu Xi criticizes his master Cheng Yi, and insist that there is clear awareness in the ideal not-yet-activated state. Zhu Xi's philosophy should be compared to Zongmi, not to the Yogācāra School or the Northern Chan. The debates between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan on the methods of self-cultivation is comparable to the debates between Zong Mi's Heze School and Mazu's Hongzhou School. |
|---|
| ISSN | 10276076 (P); 10276076 (E) |
|---|
| DOI | 10.30393/TNCUP.202201_(47).0001 |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 126 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2022.02.11 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2022.02.24 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
