|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
江戶佛教宗學論爭的一個斷面：《挫僻打磨編》的成立及其影響=An Aspect of Secterian Debate in Edo Buddhism: The Establishment of Ensen's Anthology on Polishing and Correcting the Faults (zaheki damahen) and Its Effects |
|
|
|
| Author |
陳繼東 (著)=Chen, Ji-dong (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
2021 第八屆漢傳佛教與聖嚴思想國際學術研討會
|
|---|
| Date | 2021.06.30 |
|---|
| Publisher | 財團法人聖嚴教育基金會 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://www.shengyen.org.tw/index.aspx?lang=cht
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北, 臺灣 [Taipei, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 會議論文=Proceeding Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 宗學論爭=Secterian Debate; 《挫僻打磨編》=Za Peki Da Ma Hen; 《教行信證》=Kyo Gyo Shin Sho; 圓宣=Ensen; 親鸞=Shinran; 楊文會=Yang Wenhui |
|---|
| Abstract | 《挫僻打磨編》是江戶時期淨土宗僧統譽圓宣（1717–1792）於1775 年前後撰寫的著作，對淨土眞宗創始人親鸞的《教行信證》一書進行了全面的批判，顯示了江戶時期日本佛教宗學論爭的一個重要的斷面。不僅如此，這場宗學之爭，在二十世紀前期，又有淨土宗僧伊藤祐晃將此書譯成訓讀體日語，改書名為《教行信證破壞論》（1924），挑起爭端，遂有淨土眞宗僧人富田貫了（生平不詳）和石川舜臺（1841–1931）先後撰寫《教行信證破壞論辨妄》（1925）、《教行信證破壞論駁言》（1927），進行反駁，使得江戶時期的宗學之爭延續到了二十世紀。本文將考察《挫僻打磨編》的成立，揭示其眞宗批判的具體內涵，探討此書對後世的影響。此外，清末佛教的代表楊文會（1837–1911）也曾嚴厲批判日本淨土宗和淨土眞宗，並與淨土眞宗僧人展開了激烈論爭。所以，比較兩者的淨土眞宗批判的異同，是本文的又一目的。
Za Peki Da Ma Hen (The Anthology on Polishing and Correcting the Faults) was written by the Edo period Pure Land Monk Chief Ensen (1717-1792) around 1775, in which the author made comprehensive criticisms on the founder of True Pure Land Buddhism Shinran’s book Kyo Gyo Shin Sho, (The True Teaching, Practice, and Realization of the Pure Land Way). Ensen’s Anthology serves as an important example of sectarian debates in Japanese Buddhism during the Edo period. Moreover, at the beginning of 20th century the Pure Land monk Ido Yuko translated Ensen’s Anthology from kanbun Japanese into kunyomi Japanese, and changed the title into On the Destruction of the True Teaching, Practice, and Realization of the Pure Land Way, in order to resurrect this sectarian debate. In response to this, the True Pure Land monks Tomita Kanryou and Ishikawa Shuntai (1841-1931) wrote Distinguishing the False of “On the Destruction of the True Teaching, Practice, and Realization of the Pure Land Way” and Criticisms of “On the Destruction of the True Teaching, Practice, and Realization of the Pure Land Way” respectively to argue against Ido Yuko, and this sectarian debate was carried on in the 20th century. In this article I shall look at the establishment of the Anthology and try to reveal the indications in its criticism on True Pure Land Buddhism. I also try to discuss its influence on later Pure Land Buddhism. In addition, the most prominent figure in late Qing Chinese Buddhism Yang Wenhui (1837-1911) also strongly criticized Japanese Pure Land and True Pure Land sects, and was involved in fervent debates with monks from these sects in Japan. Therefore, another intention of mine in this article is to compare Ensen’s criticism with Yang’s on their similarities and differences.
|
|---|
| Hits | 624 |
|---|
| Created date | 2022.06.14 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2022.06.14 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
