|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
法性與存有 -- 彌勒法法性分別與海德格存有論區分的對比研究 |
|
|
|
| Author |
蔡瑞霖 (著)
|
|---|
| Source |
國際佛學研究=The Annual of International Buddhistic Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.2 |
|---|
| Date | 1992.12 |
|---|
| Pages | 326 - 376 |
|---|
| Publisher | 靈鷲山般若文教基金會國際佛學研究中心 |
|---|
| Location | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 對比哲學; 彌勒菩薩=Maitreya; 法法性分別; 存有論; 虛妄分別; 轉依 |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文旨在透過對比研究的方式，考察佛家唯識學論師彌
勒辨法法性論之「法性」 (`Dhamata`) 與當代西方哲學
家海德格有名的「存有論區分」之「存有」 (Sein),這兩個
重要觀念的基本異同.
第一﹑二節分別論述彌勒的「法」與「法性」之分別，
和海德格的「存有」與「存有物」之分別的基本內容，隨文
指出這兩項區分的類似性所在. 第三節探討世俗真理的成立
，依彌勒為「虛妄分別」，依海德格為「存有物真理」，由
此說明世俗認識的成立. 第四節，針對存有自身反法性 (涅
槃) 之描述，從「顯隱」與「迷悟」的對比，來看出辨法法
性論的現象學解釋之效力，及存有問題在瑜伽行哲學的相
應理解.
第五節，從「此有」(Da-Sein) 觀念與「眾生」之如何
從上述區分中具體呈現出來，從而轉迷向悟以獲得真實的存
在，反省海德格與彌勒對該區分 (分別) 的異同關鍵，探討
「法法性分別的存有論意義」. 本文主結論是 (一) 兩項
區分都有表達上的吊詭性，(二) 海德格要揭露傳統形上學
對存有的遺忘，彌勒要引導眾生以轉依，(三) 法法性，分
別的存有論意義，值得研究，(四) 兩者皆有說明世俗真理
的知識的方式，(五) 只有扣緊「人」 (此有眾生) 的真實
處境，人是這項區分的來源者與完成者.
My aim in this article is to show that the
general way of contrasting some similarities and
unlikenesses between two quite different
philosophical conceptions is possible.
In section one，I discuss why Maitreya-natha
wanted ted to distinct "Dharma" and "Dharmata, " and
also in
section two，why Heidegger wanted to reveal "Sein"
from "Seienes". According to their thesis, I will
show the main similarities of them.
Then in section three，I will inquire into
"samvrti-satya" (the wordly truth or the mortal
truth) to see how can it be justified as Heidegger's
"ontical truth" (against to "ontological truth") and
Maitreya-natha's "parikalpa" (against to "vibaga").
In section four，in accordance with the question of
Sein as "ontological truth" and Dharmata as
"Tathata" or vibaga, I contrast both with
"concealment-unconcealment" and "authentic-inauthentic."
Thereby we can obtain the phenomenological interpre-
tation on question of Dharmanta and also the
correspondant understanding of "seinsfragen" from
yogacara school's view point.
Section five，in order to find out the
ontological significance of distinction of Dharma
and Dharmata, I will go a step further to explore
the crux of sameness/unlikeness between Heidegger
and Maitreya-natha. On the bssis of the crux，I may
show how "Dasein" (human existance) and "sattva"
(common people) was concretely derived from above
distinction，and how is the "asraya -- parivti,"ie.,
the transformation from inauthentical to authentical
existence，possible.
My conclusion are，(i) both Heidegger and
Maitreya-natha express those difficult distinctions
with parodoxical sentences; (ii)Heidegger disclosed
the oblivion of Sein and Maitreya-natha discoved the
"avidya" of common world; (iii) in the distinction
of Dharmata from Dharma, there is an ontological
significance which is worthwhile to discuss; (iv)
both of them can justify the worldly truth and
common knowledge ontologically; and finally，(v)
both of them pay attention to the human existence
and his authenticity，and both affirm that the human
being，who complete the above distinction，is the
very origin and process of his existence. |
|---|
| Hits | 449 |
|---|
| Created date | 1998.07.22
|
|---|
| Modified date | 2023.11.14 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
