|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
唯識學與中觀學在台灣之發展：以台灣早期研究著述為主=The Development of Yogācāra and Mādhyamika in Early Research Works of Taiwan |
|
|
|
| Author |
曹志成 (著)=Tsao, Chih-cheng (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
圓光佛學學報=Yuan Kuang Journal of Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.23 |
|---|
| Date | 2014.06 |
|---|
| Publisher | 圓光佛學研究所=Yuan Kuang Buddhist College |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.ykbi.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 桃園縣, 臺灣 [Taoyuean hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 作者為中州技術學院通識教育中心副教授。 |
|---|
| Keyword | 唯識學=Yogācāra; 中觀學=Mādhyamika; 認識論的三性說=epistemological three-nature doctrine; 三性論=Three-nature Doctrine; 《辨法法性論》=Distinguishing Dharma and Dharmatā; 《中論》=The Doctrine of Middle Way |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文借用美國哲學家柏恩斯坦（Richard J. Bernstein）的詮釋學觀點與術語，探討戰後台灣如何由「超驗主義」的「有相唯識」去主體中心化到「無相唯識」、再到「非基礎主義」的中觀哲學的歷史軌跡及思想意涵。
本文指出，楊白衣的唯識學研究與觀點，在「三性論」方面，較接近「一種七現」的古說；在其「果位論」方面，則接近安慧一系的「無相唯識」的說法。
其次，本文介紹了印順法師對唯識學的理解與詮釋。印老將唯識學判攝為「各各為人悉檀」，而從其《攝大乘論講記》看出，「境」思想也隱含「虛妄分別」緣十八界的思想，再從其《辨法法性論講記》看出，依他的識只是「無而現有」的特性，較接近「無相唯識」一系的說法。
再者，葉阿月的唯識學研究則是以思想史與系統並俱角度，來探討《中邊分別論》作為根本真實的三性思想。
最後，本文介紹了印順法師對中觀學的詮釋。本文指出，印老的中觀學旨趣是以月稱中觀應成派的非基礎主義為「真理」所在；在達到此真理之中間，採取同情色彩的客觀詮釋學──透過「以經解經」等抓尋作者的原意。在對於中觀學的觀點上，印老主張：1.《中論》為「阿含通考」— 強調《中論》「開發阿含的深義」。2. 對基礎主義的因緣觀的批判—印老指出四緣實有最後基礎不可得。3.站在「避免誤解」的客觀主義詮釋學立場，他堅持二諦論的正確性，亦即智者所企圖站在浪漫主義立場的「三諦論」誤解了原作者的原意。
This essay employs American philosopher Richard J. Bernstein’s hermeneutics viewpoint and terminologies to probe into the development history of Yogācāra and Mādhyamika in Taiwan. The route of the development is from the transcendentalism of “true image mind-only doctrine” to the de-subject-centered “false image mind-only doctrine”(nir-ākāra-vijñāna-vādin), and then to the Mādhyamika doctrine of non- foundationalist.
Concerning the Yogācāra studies of Bai-Yi Yang, it is exposed that as for the “three-nature doctrine”, he is more akin to the older theory of“one seed and seven manifestations”; as for the “achievement-level doctrine”, he is more akin to Sthiramati’s “false image mind-only doctrine (nir-ākāra-vijñāna-vādin)”.
Concerning the Yogācāra studies of Yin-Shun Dharma Master, three points are exposed: 1. The Yogācāra school is determined by Yin-Shun as belonging to the “individually-adapted siddhānta.” 2. From his Lectures on Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, it can be seen that concerning the doctrine of Jing (outer phenomena, 境) he holds that “false discrimination” is able to originate eighteen dhātus. 3. From his Lectures on Distinguishing Dharma and Dharmatā (Dharmadharmatā-vibhaṅga), it can be seen that he holds that the consciousness arising from dependence on other things has the quality of “non-existence but manifesting as existence.” This is more akin to the “false image mind-only doctrine (nir-ākāra-vijñāna-vādin)”.
The third Yogācāra studies is discussed by Prof. Ah-yueh Yeh. From the viewpoint of thoughts history, she argues that the “three-nature doctrine” as contained in Distinguishing the Middle from Extremes (Madhyānta-vibhāga-ṭikā) should be regarded as the true and essential version.
Finally, the Mādhyamika interpretation of Yin-Shun Dharma Master is exposed. It is pointed out that Yin-Shun’s basic understanding of Mādhyamika is that Candrakīrti’s doctrine of non-foundationalist is the ultimate truth. However, in order to reach the conclusion of Candrakīrti’s doctrine, Yin-Shun uses the method of objective hermeneutics — using Sūtra to interpret Sūtra so as to understand the true meaning of the authors. His understanding of Mādhyamika can be summarized as the following points. 1. The Doctrine of Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamaka- kārikā) is an extension of Āgama Sūtra, with the former probing into the deep meanings of the latter. 2. As a critique of the foundationalist doctrine of cause and condition, he points out that the reality of the four conditions is impossible. 3. Basing on the “avoiding misunderstanding” canon of objective hermeneutics, Yin-Shun insists on the righteousness of “Two-Truth doctrine” and rejects Zhiyi’s “Three-Truth doctrine” (constructed in accordance with the principle of Romanticist hermeneutics), it is because Zhiyi failed to grasp the original meaning of the original author—Nāgārjuna.
|
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、前言96
二、佛教的幾個研究徑路及研究主要課題 97
三、唯識學研究概況 101
四、印老對中觀學的詮釋（分三） 127
五. 近期唯識與中觀之研究情形簡述 133
六、小結 135 |
|---|
| ISSN | 16086848 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 1224 |
|---|
| Created date | 2014.08.28 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.08.16 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
