|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
現代佛學思想系譜之分野：以《大乘起信論》真偽之爭為契機= Division of the Genealogies of Modern Buddhist Thoughts: On the basis of the Debate on Authenticity of The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith |
|
|
|
| Author |
姚彬彬 (著)=Yao, Bin-bin (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
中華佛學研究=Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.12 |
|---|
| Date | 2011.12 |
|---|
| Pages | 85 - 114 |
|---|
| Publisher | 中華佛學研究所=Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.chibs.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 新北市, 臺灣 [New Taipei City, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 《大乘起信論》=The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith; 支那內學院=The Chinese Metaphysical Institute; 人間佛教=Humanistic Buddhism; 新儒學=New Confucian |
|---|
| Abstract | 自 1920 年代始，日本學者對《大乘起信論》的文獻辨偽研究被國內學者所注意，梁啟超將他們的研究觀點介紹與國人，由此引發了歷時長久的《大乘起信論》真偽之爭，以這一佛學公案為標誌和分水嶺，本來在表面上尚不失「和合一味」的樣態的現代中國佛學思想，大體上可以確定為比較涇渭分明的三個流派。
首先，是堅持《大乘起信論》是「偽經偽教」的支那內學院居士佛教群體。他們立足於玄奘一系唯識學，對《大乘起信論》進行強烈批判的同時，亦將依據《大乘起信論》義理建立的中國天台、華嚴諸宗全盤否定。其目的，是希望中國佛教能回歸「心性本寂」，符合印度原旨的唯識學的發展進路上。
其次，是認同《大乘起信論》的義理價值，以太虛、印順為代表的「人生佛教—人間佛教」。對於內學院的《大乘起信論》批判，太虛認為《大乘起信論》作為「真如宗」的經典，不僅不違背唯識之基本義，且自有其完滿體系。太虛對待《大乘起信論》的意見，大體上被其思想傳人印順在其《大乘起信論講記》中所延續，更顯理性謹嚴。
再次，是雖以《大乘起信論》為中國人撰述，卻正因其「中國特色」而對之倍加推崇的新儒家佛學。其中當以熊十力、牟宗三師徒為代表，熊十力曾與內學院的呂澂辯論過有關佛學的諸多根本問題，對《大乘起信論》的價值有所維護。牟宗三在《大乘起信論》的問題上承繼師說，批評內學院的學說並維護漢傳佛教宗派的合法性，更在其晚年的思想中，對《大乘起信論》的「一心開二門」義理架構給予了高度推崇。
以《大乘起信論》真偽之爭為契機而分化的中國現代佛學的這三個系譜中，「人生佛教—人間佛教」一派的有關見解相對公允執中，逐漸成為這一問題的主流意見。而支那內學院一系居士佛教與新儒家的佛學思想立場針鋒相對而又各具勝義，留給我們頗多值得反思和探討的問題。
Since 1920, Chinese scholars have been showing interest in the research made by Japanese scholars in textual authentication of The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith. Liang Qichao started to introduce the achievements into the academic circle of China, thereby eliciting the long-lasting debate on the authenticity of The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith. Taking this complicated case of Buddhism as a landmark or watershed, the modern Chinese Buddhist thoughts, which used to appear harmonious, can be generally classified into three distinct schools.
The believers of the first school, who are mainly lay Buddhists from The Chinese Metaphysical Institute, hold that The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith is a false Buddhist classic. Standing on the foot of Xuanzhang’s Thought of Consciousness-Only, they criticize intensively the creeds of this scripture, and meanwhile repudiate totally those sects of Tiantai and Huayan, which are established according to the doctrines of The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, hoping that Chinese Buddhism can return to the clean nature, and suit the development of the Thought of Consciousness-Only, which accords with original dogmas of Indian Buddhism.
Taixu and Yinshun, the representatives of the second school, believe in Humanistic Buddhism, and approve of the value of the doctrines in The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith. In view of the criticism from The Chinese Metaphysical Institute, Taixu thinks that the scripture, as the classic of the Sect of Thusness, does not go against the principle of the Thought of Consciousness-Only, and has its own complete theoretical system. Yinshun mainly accepts Taixu’s ideas and makes it more reasonable and compact.
The third group refer to New Confucian Buddhism, represented by Xiong Shili and Mo Zongsan, who praise highly its Chinese characteristics since the scripture was created by Chinese scholars. Having debated with Lu Cheng about many basic issues related to Buddhism, Xiong Shili maintains somewhat the value of this scripture. Mou Zongsan carries forward his teacher’s thinking, by criticizing the doctrines held by the scholars of The Chinese Metaphysical Institute and defending the legality of the sects of Chinese Buddhism. In his remaining years, he advocates enthusiastically the theoretical structure of “One-Mind-Two-Gates” from The Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith.
Among the three schools in modern Chinese Buddhism which are formed on the basis of the debate on the authenticity of this scripture, the school of Humanistic Buddhism has gradually become the mainstream since its views are thought to be comparatively justifiable and compromising, while the other two schools have left us a lot of questions to reconsider and probe worthily, because their views are contrastive sharply and having advantages respectively.
|
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、引言 87
二、《大乘起信論》與支那內學院一系佛學 91
三、《大乘起信論》與「人生佛教—人間佛教」 99
四、《大乘起信論》與新儒家佛學 104
五、結語 109 |
|---|
| ISSN | 1026969X (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 886 |
|---|
| Created date | 2013.08.07 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.07.28 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
