|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
進化、靈力、正信：聖嚴法師1980年代對民間信仰批評中的通俗現代主義=Evolution, Efficacy, and Orthodoxy: Vernacular Modernism in Sheng Yen’s 1980s Critiques of Popular Religion |
|
|
|
| Author |
Ritzinger, Justin R. (著)=芮哲 (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
2023 第九屆漢傳佛教與聖嚴思想國際學術研討會
|
|---|
| Date | 2023.06.29 |
|---|
| 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 | 宗教進化論=Religious evolution; 靈力=magical power; 正信=orthodoxy; 通俗現代主義=vernacular modernism; 民間信仰=popular religion; 聖嚴法師=Sheng Yen |
|---|
| Abstract | 聖嚴在他的1966年專著《比較宗教學》中，把民間信仰作為一種不值得留意的原始的殘餘。於1970年代末回到台灣時，當他在日本獲得博士學位並在美國成為一名教師後，反而發現到這股殘餘正在復甦。聖嚴仍然認為它是原始的，但現在看為一個重要的競爭對手。因此，他80年代的兩部著作《佛學群疑》和《明日的佛教》對這個話題給予了相當大的關注。當我們審視聖嚴對民間信仰和其實踐的批評時，我們看到的並非許多佛教現代主義理論讓我們期待的祛魅。相反，我們看到他將佛教置於一個由靈媒和其他禮儀者主導的靈力市場中。他一方面申明佛教可以滿足大眾所有靈力需求，另一方面保護佛教不被無形民間信仰拉低到其自己的原始層次。在這種困境中，我們可以認出一個「通俗現代主義」的例子，其中現代主義觀念和方向重塑而不取代明清時代宗教的關鍵動力。
When Sheng Yen wrote his monograph, the Science of Comparative Religion (bijiao zongjiaoxue 比較宗教學), in 1966, Chinese popular religion was mentioned only in passing as a kind primitive remainder. When he returned to Taiwan at the end of the 1970s after earning his PhD in Japan and establishing himself as a teacher in the US, however, that remainder was resurging. He still saw it as primitive but now as an important competitor. As a result, two of his works from the 1980s, Common Questions in the Practice of Buddhism (Foxue qunyi 佛學群疑) and A Buddhism for Tomorrow (Mingri de fojiao 明日的佛教) devote considerable attention to the topic. When we examine Sheng Yen’s critiques of popular beliefs and practices, we find not the disenchantment that many theories of Buddhist modernism would lead us to expect. Instead, we see him positioning Buddhism within a marketplace of magical power dominated by spirit mediums and other ritualists. He is pulled on the one hand to present Buddhism as a source of equivalent solutions to practical problems and on the other to guard Buddhism’s prestige as a “religion” from what he sees as a primitive and formless rival that threatens to pull Buddhism down to its own level. In this positioning, we can identify an instance of what I have dubbed “vernacular modernism” in which modernist ideas and orientations superscribe and reshape but do not replace key dynamics of late imperial Chinese religion. |
|---|
| Hits | 9 |
|---|
| Created date | 2024.10.01 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2024.10.01 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
