|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
聖嚴法師人間淨土思想立場的抉擇=Discerning a Choice for Humanity From Master Sheng Yen’s Teachings on Humanistic Buddhism |
|
|
|
| Author |
林其賢 (著)=Lin, Chi-Hsien (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
聖嚴研究：第二輯=Studies of Master Sheng Yen No.2
|
|---|
| Date | 2011.07 |
|---|
| Pages | 155 - 200 |
|---|
| Publisher | 法鼓文化 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.ddc.com.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北, 臺灣 [Taipei, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Series | 聖嚴思想論叢 |
|---|
| Series No. | 2 |
|---|
| Content type | 專題研究論文=Research Paper |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 作者單位：國立屏東商業技術學院副教授
Associate Professor, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce |
|---|
| Keyword | 佛教現代化; 人生佛教=Buddhist Humanism; 人間佛教=Buddhism for Humans; 人間淨土=A Pure Land on Earth for Humanity; 太虛=Master Tai Xu; 印順=Master Ying Shun; 聖嚴=Master Sheng Yen |
|---|
| Abstract | 太虛大師揭櫫「人生佛教」，印順導師提倡「人間佛教」，聖嚴法師則以「人間淨土」為標誌。三位大德為當代佛教人間化運動不同世代的重要代表。承先啟後，聖嚴法師對於前代大德所承繼的是什麼？另有開展的又是什麼？相關討論範圍應涵括：思想立場、修學歷程、發展根據......等議題。本文先就聖嚴法師在思想立場上對如來藏與性空的抉擇作討論。
為方便了解三位大德思想異同，本文提出「苦、集、滅、道」的觀察框架。從對當前佛教所處困局的感受（苦）與問題癥結的判斷（集），以及對佛教發展方向、基本精神與宗旨的指導（滅），和具體實踐方法的安排（道）這四個方面來觀察。
同為佛教人間化運動健將的太虛、印順、聖嚴三位大德，彼此間的相同處明顯地要比其相異處來得多。此係由於對佛教發展方向、基本精神與宗旨的指導大致相同。這一個相同點也是人間佛教和其他佛教發展路線差異最大的地方。因此，對比著佛教界其他大德，三位大德思想實為「大同」而「小異」。其「小異」處則可從思想根據與立場之抉擇而得進一步的理解。
Master Tai Xu(太虛)proclaimed “Buddhist Humanism”(人生佛教); Master Ying Shun(印順)advocated “Buddhism for Humans”(人間佛教); and Master Sheng Yen(聖嚴) advocated “A Pure Land on Earth for Humanity.”(人間淨土) The teachings of these three masters represent the development of Chinese Buddhist reform for different generations. What did Master Sheng Yen inherit from his predecessors? What did he contribute to the discourse of humanistic Buddhism? These are the main questions for discussion in the article.
In order to appreciate the differences and similarities among the three masters, I use the Four Noble Truths of Suffering, Cause of Suffering, Cessation of Suffering, and the Path as a model or lens to examine their teachings. “Suffering” represents the crisis and perceived decline in Chinese Buddhism to which these masters were responding to. “Cause of Suffering” refers to the analysis of this crisis by these masters. “Cessation” refers to the direction of the developments and the guidance of these master’s teachings. “The Path” refers to their projects that aim to actualize their teachings.
Differences existed among the three masters. However, their teachings exhibit more similarities because they share the same approach to advancing Buddhism in modern times; they also share a basic spirit and aim of Chinese Buddhism. From this perspective, they do not deviate from other Buddhist leaders during their time. I argue that their difference lies mainly in their theoretical foundations in Buddhism, attitudes toward epistemology, and the importance of Chan (or meditation) experience in their teachings. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、前言：問題與方法 157
(一) 問題的提出 157
(二) 四聖諦方法為框架 158
二、太虛大師「人生佛教」思想主軸 162
(一) 當代佛教遭逢的問題 162
(二) 佛教現代化的方向:人生佛教 165
(三) 人生佛教精神:不離人生的成佛歷程 168
三、印順導師「人間佛教」思想主軸 173
(一)「人間佛教」精神:佛在人間 174
(二) 佛法:人間凡夫學菩薩行 176
四、聖嚴法師思想根本立場 180
(一) 聖嚴法師對人間佛教的繼承與發揚 180
(二) 太虛、印順二大師的思想立場 186
(三) 聖嚴法師的抉擇 190
五、結語 197 |
|---|
| Hits | 75 |
|---|
| Created date | 2021.07.22 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2022.05.20 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
