|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is "Vijnaptimatra" ontological or epistemological idealism?=「唯識」是本體論的唯心主張或是認識論的唯心主張? |
|
|
|
| Author |
楊志常
|
|---|
| Source |
正觀雜誌=Satyabhisamaya: A Buddhist Studies Quarterly
|
|---|
| Volume | n.77 |
|---|
| Date | 2016.06.25 |
|---|
| Pages | 113 - 166 |
|---|
| Publisher | 正觀雜誌社 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.tt034.org.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 南投縣, 臺灣 [Nantou hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | 作者為Ph.D. Student of Graduate Institute of Religious studies of NCCU |
|---|
| Keyword | 唯識; 本體論的唯心主張/認識論的唯心主張; 《唯識二十頌論》; 《唯識三十頌》; 《成唯識論》; 《解深密經》; Cheng Wei Shi Lun; CWSL; Sandhinirmocanasūtra; Vijñaptimātra; Ontological idealism/Epistemological idealism; Vimśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi; Triṃśikāvijñaptimātratā |
|---|
| Abstract | 關於「唯識」到底是主張本體論的唯心或是認識論的唯心，一直以來學術界都沒有定論而爭論不休。令人既稱奇又困惑的是，辯論的兩造經常引用相同的經文經典，甚至相同的文句，但卻各執全然不同的詮釋和結論。本文試著專注於辯論兩造時常爭鋒相對的經典文獻，包括《唯識二十頌論》、《唯識三十頌》、《成唯識論》、《解深密經》、《瑜珈師地論》和《攝大乘論》，回顧辯論兩造如何援用相同的經文論點，然而卻做不同的論述。希望藉著更了解辯論兩造間的差異的可能來源，以減少不必要的困惑和偏差，並且試著異中求同。回顧文獻發現幾個可能導致爭論的因素：深植於佛教傳統中的宇宙觀和心理觀間的模稜兩可的關係；對於梵文名詞"Vijnanaparinama"翻譯的不同；如何理解經典將禪修經驗普遍化到一般生活經驗的說法；對於瑜珈派經典間和瑜珈派傳承世系中連貫的不同期待，及是否適用內插法。最後，本文建議，對於本體論唯心主張的取捨和對於「唯識」是否主張本體論的唯心的判斷，是不同的議題，適合分開處理。
There has been no academic agreement on whether “Vijñaptimātra”
(Consciousness-only) should be understood to advocate ontological
idealism or epistemological idealism. What is amusing and confusing
is that there are several occasions that both sides of the debate are
reading same texts or even referring to the same paragraph but
interpreting it in totally different way. This article is intended to draw
attention to those texts and paragraphs from
Vimśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi, Triṃśikāvijñaptimātratā, Cheng Wei
Shi Lun (CWSL), Sandhinirmocanasūtra, Yogācārabhūmi,
Mahāyāna-samgraha where both sides of the debate confront each
other with their competing arguments. The purpose is to understand
better where the possible differences are coming from in the hope to
reduce some confusion/bias and to find common denominator if any.
Discussion finds the debates might be attributed to several factors:
the deep-rooted equivocal relationship between cosmology and
psychology in Buddhist tradition; different translations of the key
term “vijñānapariṇāma”; how to understand the generalization from
meditation practice experience to ordinary experience; and what to
expect regarding the coherence among Yogācāra texts and within
Yogācāra lineage and whether and where the interoperation should be
applied. Last, it is suggested that whether ontological idealist theory
is making perfect sense and whether “Vijñaptimātra” be understood
as ontological idealism should be decoupled and addressed as
different topics.
|
|---|
| Table of contents | Abstract 113
Introduction 115
Vimsatikavijnaptimatratasiddhi
1. Support for ontological idealism 118
2. Refutation against ontological idealism 125
Trimsikavijnaptimatrata
1. Support for ontological idealism 130
2. Refutation against ontological idealism 132
Cheng Wei Shi Lun (CWSL)
1. Support for ontological idealism 137
2. Refutation against ontological idealism 143
Sandhinirmocanasutra, Yogacarabhumi, Mahayana-samgraha
1. Refutation against ontological idealism 148
2. Support for ontological idealism 150
Discussion 155
Reference 162
|
|---|
| ISSN | 16099575 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 383 |
|---|
| Created date | 2016.07.18 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.09.07 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
