Site mapAbout usConsultative CommitteeAsk LibrarianContributionCopyrightCitation GuidelineDonationHome        

CatalogAuthor AuthorityGoogle
Search engineFulltextScripturesLanguage LessonsLinks
 


Extra service
Tools
Export
宗密所述北宗及洪州宗教說的探討=A Study on the Teachings of the Northern School and the Hongzhou School as Described by Zongmi
Author 黃繹勳 (著)=Huang, Yi-hsun (au.)
Source 法光學壇=Dharma Light Lyceum
Volumen.2
Date1998
Pages75 - 92
Publisher法光佛教文化研究所=Fa-kuang Institute of Buddhist Studies
Publisher Url http://fakuang.org.tw/index1.htm
Location臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan]
Content type期刊論文=Journal Article
Language中文=Chinese
Keyword禪宗=Zazen Buddhism=Zen Buddhism=Son Buddhism=Chan Buddhism; 論著=Treatise; 緣起=十二因緣=Pratityasamutpada; 緣起=pratitya-samutpada=conditions=paticca-samuppada; 緣起=paticca-samuppada=pratitya-samutpada=conditions; 洪州宗=Hongzhou Zong; 居士=Layperson; 宗密=Tsung-Mi; 公案=語錄=Koan
Abstract本篇論文主是籍由新的學術資料及研究成果,重新探討圭峰宗密禪師在《中華傳心地禪門師資承襲圖》中對北宗及洪州宗教說的分析及批評. 宗密在文中評述了北宗,洪州宗,牛頭宗及荷澤宗四家的教說,由於宗密對唐代中晚期佛學的貢獻備受現代學者肯定,宗密的此篇著作常被
學者引為解禪宗這四家的重要資料. 本文毛先在導言中敘述宗密應裴休居士之請而寫作《中華傳心地禪門師資承襲圖》的緣起,後,限於篇幅,本文只探討了北宗和洪洲宗,作者依北宗和洪洲宗的教說分為兩節,在章節中作者先陳述宗密對這二宗教說的理解及評判,使讀者明白宗密的看法,然後作者再引用這二宗禪師的論著或語錄,來審查宗密的理解是否正確及評判是否中肯. 結論是宗密由於其本身身為荷澤宗宗徒的緣故,除會斷章取義的誤解他家教說外,在評斷優劣時也不免有偏頗荷澤宗之縑. 因此作者希望藉此論文提醒學者在引用宗密的資料以了解唐代禪宗各家思想時,應有此警覺,並且能以直接閱讀及運用各家的論著和語錄的方式來探求,冀以能窺得其較正確的原貌.

This paper is a re-appraisal on Chan Master Gueifeng Zongmi's (圭峰宗密) analysis and critique of two Chan schools in the Chart of the Master-Disciple Succession of the Chan Teaching that Transmits the Mind Ground in China (中華傳心地禪門師資承襲圖,referred to hereafter as Chan Chart). The Chan Chart was written by Zongmi in response to the Buddhist layman Pei Xiu's 裴休 request to clarify the doctrines of four Chan schools -the Northern School (Beizong 北宗) and
the Hong- zhou 洪州,Niutou 牛頭 and Heze 荷澤 lineages of the Southern School and explain the relative successes and failures of their teachings of sudden and gradual enlightenment. This text is considered an important reference for understanding the doctrines of the four schools in the Tang dynasty. Modern scholars often quote Zongmi's descriptions to present the doctrines of these four schools without any critical appraisal. Only Jiang Weiqiao says that he has doubts about the fairness of Zongmi's critique. Furthermore, John R. McRae strongly disagrees with Zongmi's critique of the "Northern School" which he argues is an imaginary school created by Shenhui's 神會 polemical writings and the Platform Sutra. Due to the limit of space in this paper,with the treatises written by the masters in their own words and encounter dialogues (語錄) of the masters, I will only examine Zongmi's analysis and critique on the Northern and Hongzhou Schools. Negation of Zongmi's contribution on Buddhist studies or making a conclusion that Zo ngmi tried to distort the facts are not the aim of this paper. Instead, this is an attempt to explore some of Zongmi's biases due to his position as a representative of the Heze School, and thus by doing so it is hoped that present scholars will make an effort to understand these different schools through their own texts and words.
Hits1564
Created date1999.01.14
Modified date2017.08.23



Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE

Notice

You are leaving our website for The full text resources provided by the above database or electronic journals may not be displayed due to the domain restrictions or fee-charging download problems.

Record correction

Please delete and correct directly in the form below, and click "Apply" at the bottom.
(When receiving your information, we will check and correct the mistake as soon as possible.)

Serial No.
335825

Search History (Only show 10 bibliography limited)
Search Criteria Field Codes
Search CriteriaBrowse