|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Author |
王奇 (著)=Wang, Qi (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
印度學佛教學研究 =Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies=Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū
|
|---|
| Volume | v.67 n.1 (總號=n.146) |
|---|
| Date | 2018.12.20 |
|---|
| Pages | 285 - 282 |
|---|
| Publisher | 日本印度学仏教学会 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.jaibs.jp/
|
|---|
| Location | 東京, 日本 [Tokyo, Japan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 日文=Japanese |
|---|
| Keyword | 珍海; 三論宗; 三輪説; 大品; 傍論 |
|---|
| Abstract | Chinkai (1091/92–1152) discussed the ‘conviction’ chapter (信解品) of the Lotus Sūtra in his work Sanron gensho mongi yō (三論玄疏文義要) and questioned whether the Three Turnings of the Wheel (三輪説) could fully contain all the meaning of the Buddha’s preaching. Chinkai thought that some scriptures such as the Larger Prajñāpāramitā and the Vimalakīrinirdeśa are neither fundamental nor insignificant. They should belong to the Mahāyāna, as scriptures about Bodhisattvas. As he pointed out, although the Zhonglun (中論) was used to explain the Three Turnings of the Wheel as a general theory, it was not difficult to see that, from the two aspects of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, Chinkai included the Larger Prajñāpāramitā into Mahāyāna, and thought it was a mistake to consider the Mahāyāna scriptures other than the Huayanjing and Lotus Sūtra as mere expedient teaching (枝末法輪). In conclusion, Chinkai believed that the Three Turnings of the Wheel (三転法輪) was an incorrect and subordinate view in terms of Tenet Classification (教判). |
|---|
| Table of contents | 1．はじめに 285
2．『中論』を科段して三輪説を解釈する 285
3．三輪説において『大品般若経』を位置付ける 284
4．おわりに 283 |
|---|
| ISSN | 00194344 (P); 18840051 (E) |
|---|
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.67.1_285 |
|---|
| Hits | 37 |
|---|
| Created date | 2022.08.11 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2022.08.11 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
