|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
從達摩禪到慧能禪的演變 -- 印順與胡適及鈴木大拙相關研究觀點之比較=Evolution from Da-mo Zen to Huei-neng Zen : a Comparative Study of Related Research Viewpoints among Yin Shun, Hu Shih and Suzuki Daisetsu |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
邱敏捷 (著)=Chiu, Min-chieh (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
玄奘佛學研究=Hsuan Chuang Journal of Buddhism Studies
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.5 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2006.07.01 |
|---|
| ページ | 51 - 79 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 玄奘大學 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://ird.hcu.edu.tw/front/bin/home.phtml
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 新竹市, 臺灣 [Hsinchu shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| ノート | 作者為國立台南大學語文教育學系副教授=Associate Professor, Department of Language Education, National Tainan University |
|---|
| キーワード | 達摩=Da Mo; 慧能=Huei Neng; 印順=Yin Shun; 胡適=Hu Shih; 鈴木大拙=Suzuki Daisetsu |
|---|
| 抄録 | 「從達摩禪到慧能禪的演變」是初期禪宗史上的重要課題。胡適〈楞伽宗考〉以為，從達摩至神秀，都是正統的楞伽宗，神會的「語錄」以及神會一派所造的《壇經》裡，處處把《金剛經》來替代了《楞伽經》。所以慧能、神會的革命是「般若宗革了楞伽宗的命」。胡氏此一破天荒論點發表後，鈴木大拙《禪思想史研究第二》承繼胡適的觀點，區分「《楞伽經》的傳統」與「《金剛經》的抬頭」。在他看來，北宗禪（神秀派）秉持《楞伽經》，南宗禪（慧能派）尊主《金剛經》，這是兩派交鋒、對立的思想根源。對於胡適與鈴木大拙的這些論點，印順不以為然，他認為印度傳來的達摩禪，從達摩到慧能，方便雖不斷演化，而實質為一貫的如來（藏）禪。印順《中國禪宗史》從三條線索來回應胡適、鈴木大拙：一，從《楞伽經》與《文殊般若經》的關係入手，論證楞伽宗已有般若思想；二，從《壇經》與《金剛經》的關係切入，證明胡適所說「慧能、神會以《金剛經》代替《楞伽經》」的觀察不合史實；三，追索頓悟法門的源流，探尋頓悟法門的來龍去脈，反駁胡適的「頓漸殊源」。故不能說慧能、神
會以般若宗革了楞伽宗，因為楞伽宗已存在般若思想。
“Evolution from Da-mo Zen to Huei-neng Zen” is an important issue in the
history of Zen in the early days. Hu Shih indicates in “A Study of Leng-jia Master”that the Zens from Da-mo to Shen-siu belong to the orthodox Leng-jia Master. It is found in the “Quotations” of Shen Huei and Altar Scriptures written by the sect of Shen Huei that Jin-gang Banruo Scriptures have all along been used to replace Leng-jia Scriptures. Therefore, the revolution initiated by Huei Neng and Sheng Huei is an “annihilation of Leng-jia Master by Ban-ruo Master.” After the publication of such an astonishing argument of Hu Shih, Suzuki Daisetsu’s Research on the History of Zen Thinking II inherits the viewpoints of Hu Shih, and classifies Zen thinking into “the tradition of Leng-jia Scriptures” and “the rise of Jin-gang Scriptures.” In his opinion, the Northern Master Zen (Shen-siu sect) sticks to Leng-jia Scriptures, the Southern Master Zen (Huei-neng sect) follows Jin-gang Scriptures. This is the origin of the confrontation and opposition between these two sects. Nevertheless, Yin Shun disagrees with Hu Shih and Suzuki Daisetsu. He argues that ever since Da-mo Zen is being preached from India, it is convenient
for it to evolve continuously from Da Mo to Huei Neng. In fact it is substantially the consistent Ru-lai (Zang) Zen. In response to the opinions of Hu Shih and Suzuki Daisetsu, Yin Shun employs three clues in his History of the Chinese Zen:
1. The relationship between Leng-jia Scriptures and Ban-ruo has proved that
Leng-jia Master contains the thinking of Ban-ruo. 2. The relationship between Altar Scriptures and Jin-gang Scriptures has proved that Hu Shih’s observation of “both Huei Neng and Shen Huei having replaced Lengjia Scriptures by Jin-gang
Scriptures” is inconsistent with the historical facts. 3. He traces the origin and development of Dun-wu sect, searches the whole story of Dun-wu sect, and refutes Hu Shih’s statement of “unique origin of Dun-wu sect.” Therefore, people cannot say that Huei Neng and Shen Huei have annihilated Ban-ruo Master because Ban-ruo thinking has long existed in Leng-jia Master. |
|---|
| 目次 | 一、前言
二、胡適的觀點
三、鈴木大拙的論衡
四、印順的評論
五、結論 |
|---|
| ISSN | 18133649 (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 654 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2010.09.10 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2017.12.01 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
