|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
大乘起信論の再檢討=Reconsideration of Ta-sheng-chi-hsin-lun |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
吉津宜英 (著)=Yoshizu, Yoshihide (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
東アジア仏教の諸問題：聖厳博士古稀記念論集= An Anthology of East Asian BUddhism:A Commemorative Volume in Honor of Ven.Sheng-yen on His 70th Birthday
|
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2001.03.20 |
|---|
| ページ | 133-149, 207-208 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 山喜房佛書林=Sankibo busshorin佛書林=Sankibo-Busshorin |
|---|
| 出版地 | 東京, 日本 [Tokyo, Japan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 專題研究論文=Research Paper |
|---|
| 言語 | 日文=Japanese |
|---|
| ノート | English Abstract：p. 207-208. |
|---|
| キーワード | 止觀 |
|---|
| 抄録 | English Abstract
It is traditionally said that Ta-sheng-chi-hsin-lun (Chi-hsin-lun) was written by Asvaghosa (馬鳴) in India and translated by Paramartha (真諦) in Liang Dynasty of 6th century. But，some scholars insist that Chi-hsin-lun was not written by the Indian Buddhist but compiled by the Chinese Buddhist.
Kashwagi Hiroo (柏木弘雄) published the epochmaking book on Chi-hsin-lun in 1981，in which he examined various opinions critically and proposed a new view that，although the author is not a famous poet Asvaghosa in 2nd century，this work was written by someone who was acquainted with Indian Buddhist，translated and modified by Paramartha himself with his group.
In 1985，Takemura Makio (竹村牧男) published very contentious book on Chi-hsin-lun，demonstrated his objection against acknowledging Paramartha as the translator and displayed many examples of that words, usages and contents of Chi-hsin-lun are similar to those of other sutras and sastras translated by Bodhiruci (菩提流支) or Ratnamati (勒那摩提) in the northern Wei dynasty. Later，Takemura insisted that Tao-chung (道寵)，the disciple of Bodhiruci，is the true author.
Then，I have been researching Ta-sheng-chih-fa-men (大乘止觀法門) and recently wrote an article on it. Through the study，I have shaped these new ideas on Chi-hsin-lun.
1. Originally，this treatise had no relation to Paramartha.
2. Translator had been uncertain but later Paramartha came to be attributed to be the translator around Sui dynasty (隋代).
3. The attribution was due to the fact that those famous leaders, such as Tan-yen (曇延) and Hui-yuan (慧遠) and Tan-chien (曇遷)，took common attitude toward Chi-hsin-lun and She-ta-sheng-lun (攝大乘論) simultaneously cited in their commentaries or works.
4. She-ta-sheng-lun was clearly translated by Paramartha. Then，people began to recognize Chi-hsin-lun also translated by the same person，Paramartha.
5. But，factually，Chi-hsin-lun has not brought the translator's name.
We can recognize the fact because of lacking of concrete comments on translator，in early commentaries, such as Tan-yen's and Hui-yuan's Won-hyo's (元曉).
6. Historically speaking，the translator's name，Paramartha, appeared in Fa-tsang's (法藏) commentary first of all.
7. In my opinion，Chi-hsin-lun was not translated by Paramartha. We cannot recognize the true translator at present. But，I cannot entirely agree with Takemura's idea that this treatise was written by Chinese Buddhist. I rather agree with Kashiwagi's opinion that Chi-hsin-lun was originally created by Indian Buddhist who was versed in the history and doctrine of Buddhism in India. |
|---|
| 目次 | 一. はじめに
二. 柏木弘雄說について
三. 竹村牧男說について
四. 真諦への假託說
五. 高崎直道說について
六. 柏木弘雄說再論
七. まとめと今後の課題
|
|---|
| ISBN | 479630102X |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 473 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2001.12.27
|
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2014.05.30 |
|---|
 |
Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac)での検索をお勧めします。ＩＥではこの検索システムを表示できません。
|
|
|
