|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
試論中國佛學對龍樹思想的承襲與歧出 ─ 從「圓融」特質考察起=On the Continuation of and Divergence from Nāgārjuna’s Philosophy in Chinese Buddhism: From the Investigation of the Characteristics of “Round Harmony” |
|
|
|
| Author |
林建德=Lin, Chien-te
|
|---|
| Source |
玄奘佛學研究=Hsuan Chuang Journal of Buddhism Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.31 |
|---|
| Date | 2019.03 |
|---|
| Pages | 27 - 68 |
|---|
| Publisher | 玄奘大學 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://ird.hcu.edu.tw/front/bin/home.phtml
|
|---|
| Location | 新竹市, 臺灣 [Hsinchu shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 作者為佛教慈濟大學宗教與人文研究所教授 |
|---|
| Keyword | 中國佛學=Chinese Buddhism; 圓融性=Round Harmony; 即=Ji; 龍樹學=the philosophy of Nāgārjuna; 遮遣=Negation |
|---|
| Abstract | 龍樹菩薩古來有「八宗共祖」之稱，被認為深遠影響中國佛教的發展，而「圓融」又是中國佛學的重要特質，如此龍樹思想是否影響乃至決定了中國佛學的圓融性呢？對此問題意識，除前言和結語外，本文首先對中國佛學「圓融」特質作後設分析，認為「圓教」之圓融義理型態關涉到「即」、「如」、「心」、「玄」、「和」等概念；其次探討龍樹思想對中國佛學「圓融」特質之可能影響，特別是以「即」之「圓融」意涵為例，以及略述中國佛學之「即」承襲於中觀學而有所不同；再者試著探討龍樹是否亦是一位圓融論者，指出龍樹之「二諦」未必在於圓融，龍樹思想除圓融外更重於遮遣、超越；最後指出中國佛學之圓融轉向，使得與龍樹中觀學各不相謀，中國佛學已然開創出自己的路。而如此轉向之利弊得失亦頗值得後人進一步探索反思。
Nāgārjuna, with the honorary title ‘common patriarch of eight Buddhist Schools,’ was regarded as the thinker who most influenced the development of Chinese Buddhism. Since ‘Round Harmony’ (or ‘Perfectness’) is one of the important features of Chinese Buddhism, does the philosophy of Nāgārjuna influence, or even determine, the ‘Round Harmony’ of Chinese Buddhism? Introduction and conclusion aside, in this paper I try to reply to this question in four sections: Firstly, I do some meta-analysis of the characteristics of ‘Perfectness’ in Chinese Buddhism, suggesting it is related to the concepts of ‘Ji’ (identity), ‘Ru’ (suchness), ‘Xin’ (Mind), ‘Xuan’ (profoundness) and ‘He’ (harmony). Secondly, I explore the possible influence of Nāgārjuna’s thought on the characteristics of ‘Perfectness’ in Chinese Buddhism, especially in the case of the meaning of ‘Perfection’ in ‘Ji’, and the different implications of ‘Ji’ in Chinese Buddhism and the difference in its legacy of the Mādhyamika school. Thirdly, I try to argue Nāgārjuna should not be regarded as a philosopher who promotes the value of ‘Perfectness.’ His theory of the Two Truths, for instance, is not necessarily for the pursuit of harmony, but places more emphasis on negation and transcendence. In the end, I claim that the theoretical turn of Chinese Buddhism to the ethereality of ‘Perfectness’ may diverge from the philosophy of Nāgārjuna but create its own path. The pros and cons of such a divergence are also worthy of further exploration and reflection in the future. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、前言 31
二、中國佛學「圓融」特質之後設分析 32
（一）概念系譜之一：「即」（無礙） 33
（二）概念系譜之二：「如」（真如） 35
（三）概念系譜之三：「心」（佛性） 36
（四）概念系譜之四：「玄」（玄妙） 37
（五）概念系譜之五：「和」（守中、中和、中庸、中道等） 39
三、龍樹思想對中國佛學「圓融」特質之可能影響 40
（一）「即」字之「圓融」意涵 40
（二）中國佛學之「即」承襲於中觀學 44
四、龍樹是一位圓融論者嗎？ 49
（一）龍樹之「二諦」未必在於圓融 49
（二）圓融外更重於超越 52
五、中國佛學之圓融轉向與龍樹中觀學之歧出 55
六、結語 60
|
|---|
| ISSN | 18133649 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 211 |
|---|
| Created date | 2020.03.23 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2020.03.23 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
