|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
敦煌禪籍的發現對中國禪宗史研究的影響=The Discovery of Dunhuang Manuscripts Affected the History of Chinese Chan Buddhism |
|
|
|
| Author |
黃青萍 (著)=Huang, Ching-ping (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
成大宗教與文化學報=Journal of Religion and Culture of National Cheng Kung University
|
|---|
| Volume | n.8 |
|---|
| Date | 2007.08 |
|---|
| Pages | 67 - 96 |
|---|
| Publisher | 國立成功大學中國文學系宗教與文化研究室 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://zhncku.med.ncku.edu.tw/buddhism/list.php
|
|---|
| Location | 臺南市, 臺灣 [Tainan shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 作者為台灣師範大學國文研究所博士班研究生 |
|---|
| Keyword | 敦煌禪籍=Dunhuang manuscripts; 中國禪宗史=the history of Early Chan; 胡適=Hu, Shih; 鈴木大拙=Suzuki, Daisetsu |
|---|
| Abstract | 敦煌文獻出土後，矢吹慶輝是第一位發現敦煌禪籍的人，現今《大正藏》所收錄的古逸禪籍幾乎都是他於1916 及1922 的成果。而利用敦煌禪籍在禪宗史的研究上有所突破的則是胡適，胡適在1926-1927 年發現神會語錄與楞伽師資記等文獻後，便積極從事研究，1935 年的〈楞伽宗考〉是胡適利用敦煌出土禪籍寫成的早期禪宗小史。鈴木大拙正是在胡適的批評下認識敦煌禪籍，並進而產生興趣。當胡適擔任駐美大使期間，鈴木大拙雖然積極地研究敦煌禪籍，但第一個根據敦煌文獻完成禪宗史的卻是宇井伯壽。宇井利用當年《大正藏》收錄矢吹慶輝的禪籍，早一步出版《禪宗史研究》。敦煌禪籍與其他經典一樣，都有偽造的問題，天台僧侶關口真大考證了幾篇題名菩提達摩論的寫本，釐清文獻的作者。這份批判的精神到了六十年代，由柳田聖山發揮的淋漓盡致，於《初期禪宗史書の研究》論述敦煌文獻中祖統說的起源與發展，並提出「西天二十八祖」的原型出自《法如行狀》。1969 年錢穆一場關於惠能的演講論文引發了台日兩地的禪學論戰，討論的焦點正是胡適提出《壇經》作者的質疑，此一論戰醞釀出印順的《中國禪宗史》。而此時日本學界卻開始注意敦煌的藏文禪籍，以上山大峻為首的日本學者，不但積極翻譯藏文寫本，也為禪宗入藏的問題開啟另一條研究之路。而對中國禪宗史而言，利用藏譯本《頓悟真宗要决》復原漢文完整版，是八十、九十年代改寫禪宗史的重要的證據。到了1983-1984 年間，出現三本影響深遠的博士論文，分別是田中良昭的《敦煌禪宗文獻の研究》、John R. McRae 的The Northern School of Chinese Chan Buddhism，和Bernard Faure 的The Will to Orthodoxy-A Critical Genealogy of Northern Chan Buddhism 。三人的文章中利用不同的方法證明北宗是頓，而其中最重要的關鍵是確認《頓悟真宗要决》的作者與成書年代。
The Dunhuang manuscripts were discovered by Sir Aurel Stein and Paul Pelliot ,
Yabuki Keiki was the forerunner in the study of Chan manuscripts from Dunhuang .Those Chan manuscripts were embodied in Ta Cheng Tsang Vol. 48,51,85 .In 1926 , Hu Shih found other Dunhuang documents on Chan . After
returning in 1927 from Europe , Hu Shih published numbers of essays on early Chan during the years 1927-1935. Based on the Shenhui's "Dialogues" and Lengqie shizi ji , Hu Shih set a new track -the La?kāvatāra School . Because of Hu Shih’s criticism , D.T.Suzuki developed an interest in the Dunhuang manuscripts . Even Suzuki found a lot of the Dunhuang manuscripts on Northern School , he still believed in traditionalistic approaches . When Hu Shih was appointed ambassador to U.S.A. , Suzuki worked hardly in looking for the Dunhuang manuscripts , Ui Hakuju published the The History of Chan Buddhism which was the first book using the Dunhuang manuscripts . From 1932 to 1957 , Sekiguchi Shindai proved that some apocryphal Bodhidharma’s Treatises were fakes . In the sixties , the historical criticism of Chan developed from Yanagida Seizan . Researches on the Historiographical Works of Early Chan discussed that the origin of genealogical model should be the Chan master Fa-ju . As Chan texts , those Dunhuang manuscripts developed the structure of the “Transmission of the Lamp”histories . In 1969 , Qian Mu’s disquisition accounted for a war of words in Taiwan . Yin Shun was stimulated by the question of Platform Sūtra ‘s author . In the same time , Japanese scholars started to focused on Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang . Ueyama Daishun translated the documents of Pelliot.116 , Completed the Essential Determination . A new turn happened in 1983-1984 , it was about there doctoral dissertations . Tanaka Ryosho’s The Study of Dunhuang documents on Chan , John R. McRae’s The Northern School of Chinese Chan Buddhism , Bernard Faure’s The Will to Orthodoxy-A Critical Genealogy of Northern Chan Buddhism . Based on Treatise on the True Principle and the Essential Determination , they tried to proved that the Northern School was sutbitism . |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、緒論 69
二、最早發現敦煌禪籍的矢吹慶輝及其對日本禪學的影響 70
三、胡適研究敦煌禪及契機及其對鈴木大拙的影響 72
四、宇井伯壽《禪宗史研究》與鈴木大拙《禪思想史研究第二》 76
五、戴密微於禪宗入藏問題突破 78
六、胡適與入矢義高、柳田聖山的交流 80
七、柳田聖山的《禪宗史書研究》與印順《中國禪宗史》的成書 83
八、敦煌藏文禪籍的發現與研究 86
九、田中良昭的集大成與「頓/漸」範式的反省 88
十、結論 91
參考書目 93
|
|---|
| ISSN | 18136400 (P); 18136400 (E) |
|---|
| Hits | 2249 |
|---|
| Created date | 2009.11.12 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.08.16 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
