|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
晚明清初禪宗思想史——臨濟宗文字禪論辯之聚焦、轉化與論述開展=An Intellectual History of Chan School from Late Ming to Early Qing Dynasty–Focusing, Transforming and Developing of Arguments Regarding Literal Chan in Linji School |
|
|
|
| Author |
張雅雯 (著)=Chang, Ya-wen (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
2021 第八屆漢傳佛教與聖嚴思想國際學術研討會
|
|---|
| Date | 2021.06.29 |
|---|
| 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 | 文字禪=Literal Chan; 三峰派=Sanfeng Sect; 天童派=Tiantung Sect; 漢月法藏=Hanyue Fazang; 仁山寂震=Renshan Jizhen |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文以天童派、三峰派之論辯為切入點，探究晚明清初臨濟宗就文字禪之聚焦、轉化與論述開展。晚明清初禪門內有三大論辯，其中濟、洞宗旨（棒喝與語句）論諍，棒喝與綱宗論諍這二項，均與禪宗看待與語言文字的態度有所關聯。此間天童派、三峰派雖同為臨濟宗，但天童派密雲圓悟（1567–1642）主張單提棒喝、不用語句接人，以禪宗的不立文字與洪州禪的直截標榜自宗的正統性；而三峰派漢月法藏（1573–1635）則主張活用洪州禪的直截以及文字禪的方便，善用五家綱宗、宗門語句。從晚明至清初雙方傳人延續論辯，就綱宗、語句、話頭之聚焦，天童派二元對立批判的提出與轉化，三峰派「〇」圓相的多元觀點，與仁山寂震（1631–1697）為三峰派開展多元動態的系統論述，不啻為晚明清初禪宗思想史之精彩篇章。目前學界就晚明天童派、三峰派之思想論辯，對漢月《五宗原》運用綱宗所受批判有較多討論；此外，黃繹勳根據新發現《於密滲提寂音尊者智證傳》亦已就漢月之經教態度提出研究。本文擬進一步將時間軸延伸至清初，將討論範圍由綱宗、經教，擴及雙方於話頭、語句之態度。立基於學界先進對禪宗語言文字觀的研究，考據、解析天童派與三峰派之語錄、寺志相關記載，本文研究大綱如下：1. 前言，2. 晚明臨濟宗天童派、三峰派對語言文字使用之論辯聚焦，3. 清初論辯轉向文字禪詮解正確性及思想潮流、知識社群、清廷措施等影響因素分析，4. 論述開展：臨濟宗法脈傳承、臨濟宗思想體系之系統化論述，5. 結論。期能藉由探究天童派、三峰派論辯之聚焦、轉變乃至形成完整思想論述之過程，對清初禪宗思想進行延伸討論，並回應學界之清初禪學衰落論。
This paper focuses on controversies regarding literal chan between Sanfeng Sect and Tiantung Sect of Linji School. Disputes over justifiability of using oral or literal means for practicing chan were main debates within Lingi School from late Ming to early Qing dynasty. Previous discussions are mostly focused on Hanyue Fazang’s (1573-1635) adoption of sutras and principles of chan and Miyun Yuanwu’s (1567-1642) criticism in late Ming dynasty. How were their attitudes toward other expressible techniques? How did masters of Sanfeng Sect and Tiantung Sect deal with these disagreements in early Qing dynasty? Other than principles of chan, this paper also discusses their attitudes on using “Yu-Jyu”and “Hua-Tou”. In addition, this paper explores the transforming of Tiantung Sect’s criticism and Renshan Jizhen’s (1631-1697) reaction in early Qing dynasty.
This paper exams Yu-Lu and temple records with respect to Sanfeng Sect and Tiantung Sect and lays focus on following arguments: (a) With symbol of “〇”, Hanyue Fazang presented his diverse viewpoint on employment of “directly pointing to a person’s mind”, “beating-and-shouting”, “Hua-Tou”, “principles and of chan” and “Yu-Jyu”. (b) Tiantung Sect’s criticism was based on dualism as acceptable “beating-and-shouting” on one side and unacceptable “oral or literal means” on the other side. (c) In response to criticism from Tiantong Sect, Jizhen asserted inheritance of Linji Lineage and explained Hanyue Fazang’s thought with a dynamic view of using all expressible and inexpressible means, which was distinct form stereotypical authority of “solely beating-and-shouting approach” asserted by Tiantung Sect. |
|---|
| Hits | 679 |
|---|
| Created date | 2022.06.14 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2022.06.14 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
