|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
《法華經》於中國佛教的判教地位 ── 從鳩摩羅什到法藏=The Position of the Lotus Sūtra in the Theories of Teaching Classification in Chinese Buddhism: From Kumārajīva to Fa-tsang |
|
|
|
| Author |
黃國清
|
|---|
| Source |
世界宗教學刊=Journal of World Religions
|
|---|
| Volume | n.16 |
|---|
| Date | 2010.12.01 |
|---|
| Pages | 41 - 94 |
|---|
| Publisher | 南華大學宗教學研究所 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://rel3.nhu.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 嘉義縣, 臺灣 [Chia-i hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 法華經=the Lotus Sūtra; 判教=theories of teaching classification; 南北朝佛學=Buddhism in Southern and Northern Dynasties; 天台佛學=Ten-tai Buddhism; 隋唐諸宗=Buddhist Schools in Sui and Tang Dynasties |
|---|
| Abstract | 《法華經》自鳩摩羅什漢譯後，對中國佛教思想深具影響。隨佛教經論持續譯出，及中國注家對《法華》的詮釋差異，此經判教地位處於變遷狀態。大乘《涅槃經》譯出前，佛教學者將《法華》與《般若》對比，重視兩經義理的互補功能，不做淺深分判。《涅槃》納入判教後，最初仍強調經典教義的相須性，也隱含淺深分判的雛形。判教學說繼續發展，淺深分判更形明確。南北朝《涅槃》佛性義極受推崇，《法華》未明佛性常住，一般判於《涅槃》之下。淨影慧遠反對淺深排列，重經典的互補意義，主張諸經教義都會通於法界真性緣起之義。他也指出《法華》說佛性，不淺於《涅槃》。南嶽慧思對《法華》做精深詮釋，確立其經王地位。智顗以天台圓教詮解《法華》，其判教論為此經爭取獨特地位。有別於《華嚴》只針對大機眾生，《法華》先以他經調熟聽眾，再演說圓教，落實令所有聽眾成佛的意趣。依其化法四教與化儀四教，也賦與《法華》至高圓滿的意義。其後《法華》地位獲得肯定，各宗宗匠須加回應，但地位有所調降。吉藏主張所有經典通於無得正觀之旨，差別為施教方便。他依《法華》判三種 法輪，以《法華》為一代教化之終，包羅頓漸、具足三輪，評價甚高。窺基將《法華》與他經並列最高教，但以唯識中道為最高教旨，將《法華》從屬唯識學說。法藏視《華嚴》與《法華》皆為一乘，但《華嚴》為別教一乘，教義不共他經；《法華》為同教一乘，其一乘義連繫三乘，《法華》不如《華嚴》純粹。
The Lotus Sutra has great influence on Chinese Buddhism since Kumarajiva translated it into Chinese. As more and more Buddhist texts were translated into Chinese, and the interpretations of Chinese Buddhist scholars differed, the position of this sutra in the theories of teaching (判教) constantly changed. Before the Mahaparinirvana-sutra had been translated, Buddhist scholars compared the Lotus with the Prajnaparamita-sutra and emphasized that the two were mutually complementary and had equal position. When the Mahaparinirvana-sutra was included in the theories of teaching classification, at first the scholars still emphasized their relationship of mutual complement, but also implied a difference in depth between the teachings of the two sutras. As the theories developed, the ranking of teachings became more obvious. During the Southern and Northern Dynasties, the theory of Buddha-nature was highly appreciated, and the Lotus Sutra which did not expound the meaning of Buddha-nature was usually ranked under the Mahaparinirvana-sutra. Hui-yen of Jing-ing Monastery(淨影慧遠), however, claimed that the Lotus Sutra also expounded the meaning of Buddha-nature, and was equal in depth to the Mahaparinirvana-sutra. Hui-si(慧思) made a deep interpretation which established the Lotus Sutra as the king of sutras. His disciple Chi-I(智顗) established the system of Ten-tai teachings thoroughly. Under his theory of teaching classification, this sutra enjoyed a unique position. Unlike the Avatamsaka Sutra which teaches only the great bodhisattvas from the beginning, the Lotus Sutra enhances hearers' ability first before going on to the pperfect teaching, with the aim to enable every hearer to become a Buddha. According to the four doctrines of teaching (化法四教) and the four manners of teaching (化儀四教), the Lotus Sutra gained a purely perfect meaning.
After the Lotus Sutra had been raised to the highest position in Ten-tai's theory of teaching classification, other great masters could not but give their views on the sutra. Yet, according to their views, the position of the sutra was lowered. Ji-tsang(吉藏) claimed that the central meaning of all sutras was "non-acquisition as true vision"(無得正觀), and the differences in teachings could be seen as the skillful means of the Buddha. He also suggested a teaching classification of three periods of teaching according to the Lotus Sutra to give this sutra a special position, for it includes all teachings. Kui-ji(窺基) viewed the Lotus Sutra as the highest teaching along with some other texts. As he held the viewpoint of yogacara, he subordinated the Lotus Sutra to the theory of yogacara. Fa-tsang(法藏) viwed both the Avatamsaka Sutra and the Lotus Sutra as one-vehicle, just that the former was a special one-vehicle which was way beyond the other sutras and the latter was a common one-vehicle which was connected with the three vehicles. Thus, the position of the Avatamsaka Sutra is higher than the Lotus Sutra. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、前言 46
二、東晉與南北朝的判釋 47
三、《法華經》於天台判教的特殊地位 64
四、隋唐諸師的《法華經》地位判釋 75
五、結語 87
參考文獻 91
|
|---|
| ISSN | 1728645X (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 461 |
|---|
| Created date | 2016.10.24 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.11.09 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
