|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
格義向般若 - 從方法論看兩晉玄佛思想交涉=From "Ge-I" to "Prajña": -The Development of Chinese Buddhism in the Tsin Dynasty |
|
|
|
| Author |
劉慧珍 (著)=Liu, Hui-Chen (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
東華中文學報
|
|---|
| Volume | v.3 |
|---|
| Date | 2009.12.01 |
|---|
| Pages | 41 - 78 |
|---|
| Publisher | 國立東華大學中文系 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://chinese.ndhu.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北, 臺灣 [Taipei, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 作者單位: 國立東華大學美崙校區中國語文學系副教授
Associate Professor, Department ofChinese Language and Literature, National Dong Hwa University (Meilum Campus) |
|---|
| Keyword | 格義=Ge-I(isogesis); 般若=Prajña; 空=Emptiness=Sunyata; 六家七宗=liu jia qi zong; 兩晉佛學; 方法論 |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文討論「格義」向「般若」的可能性。以語言學方法論分析印度和中國佛學的關鍵字，在語言基本三角中，顯示出二套語言在翻譯過程中結構歧出，無法完整表義及轉換符號。其原因是二套符號的意指，指向絕對存有者，但絕對存有者的意義本來就不可全知，很難由此揭示二系統之間的關係。轉譯過程，在此必定進一步思考，二套哲學語言的最高概念內涵，是否同為一物？二意義系統在此須有交集才能繼續透過翻譯互詮。二晉佛學之始即如此，由名相翻譯最後必定發展成思想體系理解．即由名相「格義」進而思想「格量」。起自名相理解的「格義」方法，是否能揭示出二個不同系統的核心思想對照？二晉般若學六家七宗，以玄學的核心概念「無」，比較、與詮釋佛學的「空」，企圖會通佛學教義與中國思想，從經典傳譯觀點，這是一種文本解讀與翻譯的方法論嘗試。玄學思想肯定現象界真實存在，般若學則認為現象界是一無自性的緣起流轉，玄學「本末宗極之理」和般若學「性空真如」，雖然都揭示絕對存有者的型態，然而，在存有論思想體系上並非相同位序，其表現型態也不同；經典傳譯，即使擇取意義相似的翻譯語言，仍需要建立思想體系整體對照，才能被正確理解。這顯然不是一個容易的工作。歷史上，六家七宗的努力並沒有成功，直到僧肇提出《肇論》，大乘佛教中「空」的意義才被澄清點出。六家七宗格義方法嘗試之後，印度龍樹中觀義學思想傳入，新的思考模式帶入新的思想刺激，中國思想家日後漸漸發展出屬於中國的語言和思想型式理解佛教思想。本文即嘗試說明此早期中國佛學方法論內容，以期對照日後中國佛學轉移印度佛教內容的取向。
This paper discusses the possibility for the development of Buddhism ”from Ge-I (isogesis) to Prajña (the highest wisdom of Buddhism)”. It employs the linguistic methodology to analyze the key words used in Indian (Sanskrit) and their corresponding translation in Chinese .Under the analysis of basic linguistic triangular relationship, the inaccurate structure of the language implication and translation was exposed. The philosophers of the Tsin Dynasty who declared their explanatory comments of the Prajña sutra (Bo-re Ching) were called ”liu jia qi zong”(six sects seven models-six sects comprise seven models of Buddhism Interpretation) compared the Buddhism concepts ”k'ung (Sunyata, Emptiness 空)” with the Chinese metaphysical concept-”wu (nothingness,無)”, and tried to deliberate how this particular Buddhist philosophy could correspond to Chinese thoughts, Due to the language limitation in translation, the project was not successful. Till the Buddhist monk Zhao (Seng-Zhao) issued the ”Zhao Lun”(The theory of indescribable Prajña) the meaning of Emptiness of Madhyamika Buddhism was then straightened out. The most important is the realization (and learning) of the new concept of Emptiness from India which was never a part in Chinese culture. After the phase of ”liu jia qi zong”, Chinese philosophers had developed the understanding of the Indian Buddhist teachings and doctrines, and chose a different thinking style from India Buddhism. It was the development of the early Chinese Buddhism which was a transformation from the original India Buddhism. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 前言 43
一、佛學東來 44
二、般若經典 46
三、格義探源及方法論 49
四、語言結構看格義對般若理解的侷限 59
五、「六家七宗」詮解般若室性之取徑 64
1、本無宗 66
2、本無異宗 67
3、即色宗 69
4、心無宗 70
5、識含宗 71
6、幻化宗 72
7、緣會宗 73
六、結論 74 |
|---|
| DOI | 10.7000/NJCLL.200912.0041 |
|---|
| Hits | 137 |
|---|
| Created date | 2020.11.16 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2020.11.26 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
