|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
古奧義書(Upaniṣads)與初期佛學關於人的自我(Self)概念之比較與評論=Comparative and Critical Studies between the Principal Upaniṣads(Up.) and Early Buddhism(Eb.) in the Self-Conception of Man |
|
|
|
| Author |
林煌洲 (撰)=Lin, Huang-chou (compose)
|
|---|
| Source |
佛學研究中心學報=Journal of the Center for Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.5 |
|---|
| Date | 2000.07 |
|---|
| Pages | 1 - 35 |
|---|
| Publisher | 國立臺灣大學佛學研究中心=The Center for Buddhist Studies, National Taiwan University |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~ntucbs/
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 奧義書=Upaniṣads; 五根=Indriya; 六入=Saḷāyatana; 氣息=Prāṇa; 意=Manas; 識=Vijñāna; 五取蘊=Pañcupādānaka-khandhā; 我慢=Ahaṃkāra; 阿特曼=Atman; 無我=Anattā |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文從生理、心理及心靈、精神三個層面討論古奧義書與初期佛學中自我之概念。主旨在逐一論證佛教學派之興起並非受到古奧義書之啟發、衝擊、影響，或借用其某些概念加以重新組織或詮釋。雖此兩大思潮同樣注重哲學的或精神上的人概念，而非生理的人概念；某些用詞、語句之表述、所關切之議題同樣出現於雙方，但兩者根本上並不相同，由於雙方之自我概念係基於其特有之觀點(perspective)、方法(approach)、範疇(category)及論據(rationale)所提出，因此結論自然不同，雖則雙方所關切之議題大同小異。古奧義書之自我概念為本質主義、實體主義、主體中心論，並與其一元的恆常實在概念相一致；而初期佛學之自我概念為反非本質論、反實體論、非主體中心論，並與其以無常為唯一實在之概念相符合。前者由宇宙中心論之觀點建構成具形上意義之有我概念，而後者則由人本中心論之觀點架構成具倫理意義之無我概念。
The self-conception of man is discussed here through the three aspects of the physical/biological, psychological/mental and spiritual self in the principal Upanisads and early Buddhism comparatively and critically. The purpose is to assert that the origin of Buddhism was not under impact, influence, inspiration from the principal Upanisads, or certain concepts were borrowed and re-organize or re-interpret. Both the traditions concern philosophical, spiritual conception of man rather than physical conception of man. There are certain terms, expressions, concerns adopted in them. Nonetheless, fundamental differences are deep. On the basis of their own perspectives, approaches, categories and rationales, differences arise, though certain issues are commonly concerned. Basically, the self-conception of the principal Upanisads is essentialist, substantialist, agent-centric and in accordance with its conception of the real, viz. permanence alone is real. On the contrary, in early Buddhism its conception of self is anti-essentialist, anti-substantialist, non-agent-centric and in accordance with its conception of the real, viz. impermanence alone is real. The consideration of the principal Upanisads is cosmocentric, and from it, the essence of self adopted metaphysically, while from the consideration of anthrophocentric, essenceless self adopted in early Buddhism for self-transformation morally and spiritually. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、前言 3
二、生理及生物上之自我 8
1.古奧義書與初期佛學之身(kāya) 與食(annam) 8
2.古奧義書中感官之五根(indriya)與初期佛學之六入(saḷāyatana) 11
3.古奧義書之氣息(prāṇa)與初期佛學之入出息(ānāpāna) 13
三、心理及心靈上之自我 16
1.古奧義書與初期佛學之意(manas) 16
2.古奧義書之統覺(buddhi) 18
3.古奧義書之識(vijñāna)及初期佛學之五取蘊(pañcupādānaka-khandhā) 20
四、精神上之自我 25
1.古奧義書之我慢(ahaṃkāra) 及自我(puruṣa, jīvātman and paramātman) 25
2.初期佛學之我慢(ahaṃkāra)、無我(puggala and anattā) 及無常 28
五、結語 31
1.Introduction 3
2.The Physical/the Biological Self 8
1)The Physical Body(kāya) and Food(annam) in Up. And Eb. 8
2)The Sense Organs(indriya in Up. And saḷāyatana in Eb.) 11
3)The Breath(prāṇa in Up. And ānāpāna in Eb.) 13
3.The Psychological/the Mental Self 16
1)The Mind(manas) in Up. And Eb. 16
2)The Intellect(buddhi) in Up. 18
3)The Understanding(vijñāna) in Up. And the Five Aggregates(pañcupādānaka-khandhā) in Eb. 20
4.The Spiritual Self 25
1)The Ego(ahaṃkāra) and the Self(puruṣa, jīvātman and paramātman) in Up. 25
2)The Egoity(ahaṃkāra), Selflessness and Impermanence(puggala and anattā) in Eb. 28
5.Conclusion 31 |
|---|
| ISSN | 10271112 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 2700 |
|---|
| Created date | 2000.07.13; 2002.03.05
|
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.06.29 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
