|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
圓測唯識學具有「本覺思想」的嫌疑？——來自於《仁王經疏》的線索=Was Woncheuk Possibly Influenced by the “Notion of Original Awakening”? –Based on the Clue from the “Renwang Jing Shu” |
|
|
|
| Author |
楊得煜 (著)=Yang, De-yu (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
2021 第八屆漢傳佛教與聖嚴思想國際學術研討會
|
|---|
| Date | 2021.06.30 |
|---|
| Publisher | 財團法人聖嚴教育基金會 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://www.shengyen.org.tw/index.aspx?lang=cht
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北, 臺灣 [Taipei, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 會議論文=Proceeding Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 阿摩羅識=Amalavijñāna; 本覺=Original Awakening; 反照=Fan Zhao; 能緣=Nengyuan; 仁王經疏=Renwang Jing Shu |
|---|
| Table of contents | 「圓測唯識學思想型態歸屬」一問題，從1916 年羽溪了諦〈唯識宗の異派〉一文開始至今，過去近一世紀的主流觀點是：圓測是玄奘門下歧出，屬於真諦一系。近年來也有諸多學者開始反省羽溪等人的觀點，認為圓測並為背離玄奘唯識學，而證成的方式是：在現存圓測的文獻中，找出相應於玄奘唯識學的觀點。但雙方論諍至今仍是方興未艾，未有定論。筆者認為如果要挑戰羽溪等人的觀點，較有力的論述方式是：重新考察圓測相關文獻中，最具有「真諦思想」嫌疑之處。在討論嫌疑處之前，筆者先接受一個預設，即：在東亞唯識學中，將真諦與《起信論》「本覺思想」視為相同傳承。據此，在圓測文獻中，最有真諦思想嫌疑處將會是：圓測據《九識章》立「阿摩羅識」就「能緣義」言「本覺」。如果嫌疑能夠被著實，不僅僅「真諦-起信論-圓測」一系之觀點確實能夠成立外；透過圓測的文獻，亦能支持筆者的預設，即：在東亞唯識學中，真諦與《起信論》「本覺思想」屬於相同傳承的觀點。反之，此嫌疑被排除的話，不僅能證明羽溪等人的立場是站不住腳外；將真諦與《起信論》「本覺思想」視為一系的觀點，亦有必要再進一步檢討。
“Where Woncheuk’s Yogâcāra thought form belongs to” has been an issue since Hatani Ryotai wrote “The Heterodox Faction of the Yogâcāra School” in 1916. In the past century, the mainstream viewpoint has been that Woncheuk diverges from Xuanzang’s teachings and belongs to the Paramârtha thought. In recent years, many scholars have begun to reflect on the views of Hatani and others, and they think that Woncheuk did not deviate from Xuanzang’s teaching. The way they proved it was to find ideas that correspond to Xuanzang’s teachings in Woncheuk’s existing literature. However, the argument between the two is still unfolding and there is no conclusion. The author believes that if one wants to challenge the viewpoints of Hatani and others, a more effective way of discourse is to reexamine the portions of Woncheuk’s texts that are most suspect of “Paramârtha’s thoughts”. Before discussing the suspected areas, the author first accepts a presupposition; namely, in East Asian Yogâcāra, Paramârtha is regarded to be of the same inheritance as the “notion of original awakening” in “the Awakening of Faith". Therefore, in Woncheuk’s literature, the part that is most suspicious of Paramârtha thought will be: Woncheuk established “Amalavijñāna” according to “Jiushi zhang” and wrote about the “original awakening” based on the “meaning of nengyuan”. If the suspicion can be confirmed, not only can the viewpoint that there is a relationship between “Paramârtha - the Awakening of Faith –Woncheuk” be proved, but the author’s presupposition can also be supported by the literature of Woncheuk, which is that, in East Asian Yogâcāra, Paramârtha and the “notion of original awakening” in “the Awakening of Faith” are of the same inheritance. On the contrary, if the suspicion is ruled out, it will not only prove that the standpoint of Hatani and others is untenable. The point of view that regards Paramârtha and the “notion of original awakening” in “the Awakening of Faith” as one family should be reviewed further.
|
|---|
| Hits | 586 |
|---|
| Created date | 2022.06.14 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
