|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
現代性與禪宗研究史：禪史敘事與方法論的典範論諍=Modernity and Academic History of Chan Studies ： Debates over Paradigms in the Narratives and Methodologies within Chan History |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
林悟石 (著)=Lin, Wushi (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
中華佛學研究=Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.14 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2013.12 |
|---|
| ページ | 199 - 235 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 中華佛學研究所=Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://www.chibs.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 新北市, 臺灣 [New Taipei City, Taiwan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| ノート | 作者為法鼓佛教學院佛教學系碩士生。
|
|---|
| キーワード | 胡適=Hushi; 學術史=Academic History; 現代性=Modernity; 方法論=Methodology; 禪宗研究=Chan Studies |
|---|
| 抄録 | 本文旨在回顧近 80 年來，胡適所揭起的禪史敘事及其方法論的論辯──一場擴及中、日、臺、歐、美以及臺灣教界的論辯。隨著一系列的論諍逐漸醞釀，以日本學界為交界而分成兩大支線，一線是東亞，一線是歐、美、日。東亞方面，日、臺、港三地的教、學兩界皆投入其中，在1969 年代激盪出一場盛況空前的筆戰與論辯。這場辯論大會，最後以1971 年印順法師的禪史巨作──《中國禪宗史》──作結。歐、美、日方面，1953 年以胡適與鈴木大拙的辯論為導火線，引發西方學界對禪宗研究的方法論問題的注意並全面性的展開重新檢討。尤其是 John R. McRae與 Bernard Faure 開展柳田聖山的進路，而有了更進一步的成果。 從這其中，對教界而言可視為一個現代化的過渡，對學界而言則是一個禪學學術史的進程。從更大的脈絡來看，是現代主義對傳統宗教的衝擊之縮影，以及後現代主義的一個研究轉向的一個案例。 另外，以後殖民主義的角度審視之，自印順法師後，漢語學界的禪學研究長期孤立於歐、美、日國際學界之外。目前中國大陸學界已然正視此問題，臺灣是否也跟進此趨勢，將為臺灣的禪學研究之未來帶來重大的影響。而跟進的同時，其實也伴隨著一些困局與隱憂。因此，如何建立漢語學界的本土性、主體性的禪學研究進路或成果，將是一大課題。
This paper focus on the debates over narratives and methodologies within Chan history caused by Hushi (1891-1962) from eighty years ago and extended to China, Japan, Taiwan, Europe and the U.S.. This issue separates them into two sides for argumentation. In one side there was East Asian; the
other side included Japan, Europe and the U.S., and Japanese scholars were the demarcation. At first, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong’s scholarly and religious societies both joined this issue, and inspired a very grant discussion. It ended in 1971, because of the publishing of History of Chinese Chan School written by Ven. Yinshun. In 1950s, the argument between Hushi and D. T. Suzuki (1870-1966) were triggered. Their discussion caused attentions among western scholars and made for the introspection about the problem of methodology of Chan Studies. Furthermore, John R. McRae and Bernard Faure developed Yanagida Seizan’s (1922-2006) approach and got some more achievements.
It was a process of modernization for Buddhist societies, and an academic history for scholarly societies. Contextually, it was an epitome of impact between modernism and traditional religion, and a case of post-modernism shift. Form the viewpoint of post-colonialism, moreover, after Ven. Yinshun, Chinese scholarly societies had found themselves in an isolated position, being secluded from international research. China have faced and tried to deal with this problem. How about Taiwan? Furthermore, when we follow this trend, certain concerns and worries accompany as well. Therefore, it will be a very important question: how to establish Chinese scholarly societies’ localized and subjectivistic approach or achievements?
|
|---|
| 目次 | 一、前言 201
二、一場燎原火：禪史敘事的衝撞 202
（一）胡適的文獻考證方法及其建構與衝擊 202
（二）《壇經》作者為誰？ 206
（三）《中國禪宗史》及其後的禪史敘事 209
三、實證主義、宗教經驗與敘事研究：歷史性的勝利與轉向 215
（一）胡適與鈴木大拙的禪學研究方法論諍 215
（二）西方的禪史敘事研究及其轉向 218
四、結論 225
|
|---|
| ISSN | 1026969X (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 654 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2014.01.22 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2017.07.28 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
