|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
現代儒家的佛教詮釋 -- 以熊十力與牟宗三為例=A Confucian-Buddhist Philosophical Encounter in Hsiung Shih- Li and Mou Tsung-San |
|
|
|
| Author |
林鎮國 (著)=Lin, Chen-kuo (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
國立政治大學哲學學報=National Chengchi University Philosophical Journal
|
|---|
| Volume | n.4 |
|---|
| Date | 1998.12 |
|---|
| Pages | 19 - 36 |
|---|
| Publisher | 國立政治大學哲學系 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://thinkphil.nccu.edu.tw/main.php
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 儒家=Confucianism; 佛教=Buddhism; 詮釋學=Hermeneutics; 熊十力=Hsiung Shih-Li; 牟宗三=Mou Tsung-San; 唯識=Yogacara; 大乘起信論=The Awakening Of Mahayna Faith |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文以現代儒家熊十力(1885-1968)及牟宗三(1909-1995)為例,考察他們如何援用佛教思想資源以建立「新儒家」身份的詮釋策略與過程。熊氏原於南京內學院習法相唯識學, 後由佛歸儒, 造《新唯識論》, 以全體流行之本心為體, 發揮體用相即不二之旨: 牟氏則以《大乘起信論》「一心開二門」的理論架構會通中西哲學。熊、牟二人均有得於佛學, 對話的態度則不同: 熊氏祟儒抑佛, 有由佛歸儒的明顯「轉向」; 牟氏則擅於會通, 以佛學「增補」儒學。 熊、牟二人的佛教詮釋和他們的思想認同有關, 雖然他們都認為這乃「理所必然」。牟宗三曾提及他的詮釋方法為『其初也, 依語以明義。其終也, 「依義不依語」。「不依語」者為防滯於名言而不通也。凡滯於名言者其所得者皆是康德所謂「歷史的知識」, 非「理性的知識」』。顯然認為他們的詮釋屬於「理性的知識」, 有其理論上的必然。若欲檢討他們的佛教詮釋是否如理, 必須在理論的層面上進行考察。本文所做的工作則出於一項前提: 即使「理性知識」的獲得也無法脫離在具體脈絡中的詮釋活動。本文試圖展示熊十力如何在不同的語境中改變其體系中一些核心概念如「轉變」、「翕闢」、「心所」的語意, 這些不同的語境是決定「意義」不可忽視的因素。同樣的, 我們也從牟宗三的例子上看到, 其實存的、師承的、歷史的不同脈絡往往影響他對佛教義理的抉擇與解釋。所謂「依義不依語」, 其為詮釋的方法在實際上的運作上值得進一步考察。
The arising of Neo-Confucianism in the early period of this century was largely indebted to the revival of Buddhism in modern China. This is an indisputable fact. The evidence can be found in the writings of any Neo-Confucian thinker, such as Liang Shuming (1893-1988), Hsiung Shih-li(1885-1968), Tang Chun-I (1909-1978) or Mou Tsung-san (1909- 1995). In this paper, I will focus on the cases of Hsiung and Mou only. How is Buddhism interpreted and assimilated in Hsiung's and Mou's philosophy? In the case of Hsiung, the answer to this question can be best seen in Hisung's"turn" from Yogacara idealism to Neo-Confucian dynamic ontology in the 1920s. In the case of Mou, the twofold ontology elaborated in The Awakening of Faith is taken as the common ground of his Kantianized Confucian philosophy. In both cases, it is clear that Buddhism is read by them with a pair of specific hermeneutical lens. In this paper, I am rather concerned with the way of how the meanings of Buddhist concepts in Hsiung's and Mou's systems are disseminated and displaced in the chain of the various semantic and rhetorical contexts. |
|---|
| ISSN | 10276076 (P); 10276076 (E) |
|---|
| Hits | 417 |
|---|
| Created date | 2001.03.26
|
|---|
| Modified date | 2019.07.23 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
