|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can Bodaishin Be a Cause of Rebirth? Reconsidering the Doctrinal Conflict between Hōnen and Myōe |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
Suhara, Eiji
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
Philosophy East and West
|
|---|
| 巻号 | v.65 n.2 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2015.04 |
|---|
| ページ | 444 - 465 |
|---|
| 出版者 | University of Hawaii Press |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
https://uhpress.hawaii.edu/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | Honolulu, HI, US [檀香山, 夏威夷州, 美國] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 英文=English |
|---|
| 抄録 | Genkūbō Hōnen’s (1133–1212) Pure Land discourse, centered on recitation practice (nembutsu), discards all other Buddhist practices, including raising bodaishin. Such an exclusive attitude offended other monks such as Myōe who believed that bodaishin is a prerequisite and goal of Buddhist soteriology and thus cannot be neglected. This contrast between Hōnen and Myōe has been demonstrated and reinforced by several scholars as a typical ideological difference between New Kamakura Buddhism and Old Buddhism. However, by using some methodological insights from “Western” scholarship, this article reexamines a doctrinal conflict between Hōnen and Myōe and proposes that the latter’s criticism of the former did not hit a point, as they actually argue bodaishin from different aspects, one from a shallow and the other from a deep level. Whereas Myōe was a “dreamer” and optimistic that people could perform both shallower and deeper levels of bodaishin, Hōnen was a radical monk who emphasized a more realistic view: that most people are not capable of maintaining such practices from the beginning. Instead, Hōnen offered people nembutsu as a method to cultivate bodaishin. |
|---|
| ISSN | 00318221 (P); 15291898 (E) |
|---|
| DOI | 10.1353/pew.2015.0037 |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 333 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2015.08.31 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2019.05.17 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
