|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
《維摩詰經》不可思議解脫之研究：以僧肇、吉藏、智顗注疏為主=A Study on the “Inconceivable Liberation” in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra – Based on the Commentaries of Seng Zhao, Jizang, and Zhiyi |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
方靜慧 (著)=釋慧通 (au.)
|
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2016 |
|---|
| ページ | 149 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 華梵大學 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
https://www.hfu.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 新北市, 臺灣 [New Taipei City, Taiwan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 博碩士論文=Thesis and Dissertation |
|---|
| 言語 | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| 学位 | 修士 |
|---|
| 学校 | 華梵大學 |
|---|
| 学部・学科名 | 東方人文思想研究所 |
|---|
| 指導教官 | 康特 |
|---|
| 卒業年 | 104 |
|---|
| キーワード | 不可思議解脫=inconceivable liberation; 不二法門=the Dharma-door of Non-duality; 權實=expedient and real; 本迹=root and traces |
|---|
| 抄録 | 談到《維摩詰經》，大部份的人都會直接想到「不二法門」，然而在支謙、羅什譯本中，卻將「不可思議解脫」標為此經「副題」，以顯此經維摩詰所說之「法」，如果「不二法門」如此重要，為何不將不二法門標為「副題」？究竟維摩詰在《維摩詰經》中說此「不可思議解脫」的目的與用意為何？它到底是什麼樣的解脫？與不二法門的關係是什麼？歷代祖師們如何理解與詮釋？
羅什譯本以來的《維摩詰經》注疏，僧肇為第一人，之後的注釋家莫不以此為撰述依據。本文因為基於以漢地中觀學思想為基礎之研究，於是針對僧肇、吉藏及智顗的《維摩詰經》注疏作討論：
僧肇以「智、權」為此解脫之「本」，吉藏卻認為是「不二法門」，但二位皆以借座燈王等神通境界為解脫之「迹」；智顗則以「真性解脫」為此解脫之「體」。另外，智顗以所依理為「本」，能依事為「迹」，開出「五重本迹」。又，僧肇、吉藏說不可思議解脫即是「不二法門」，以「不二」之「理」為本的解脫，智顗則說是不離文字、煩惱的「不斷斷」解脫。
顯然，三位大師對不可思議解脫的看法存在著同異性，於是，本文將運用思想、義理分析的方法，釐清三位大師的詮釋立場與特色，並論述其思想上的演變與關聯性，尤其是在龍樹中觀學上的特色與見地，舉出「不可思議解脫」與「不二法門」間的關係，以及在此經的定位與重要性。
作為初期大乘佛教之《維摩詰經》，其煩惱、涅槃「不二」，不離文字、婬怒癡性之解脫，即是「不可思議解脫」，是僧肇、吉藏詮釋大乘佛法徹證「畢竟空」所得的解脫；智顗甚至強調不需要離開世間煩惱而求取出世間之解脫。三位大師不論是「雙照」或「雙遣」的詮釋方式，都代表了漢地中觀學及初期大乘佛法「解脫觀」之特色。
When talking about Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, most people would immediately think of “the Dharma-door of Non-duality.” However, in Chih-ch'ien and Kumārajīva’s translations, its subtitle is Acintya-vimokṣa (the Inconceivable Liberation), taking it as the “main theme” of this sutra. On the other hand, if the Dharma-door of Non-duality is so important, why was it not listed as the subtitle? What, indeed, is the import and purpose of the Inconceivable Liberation as expounded in Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra by Vimalakīrti himself? What kind of liberation is that, after all? What does it have to do with the Dharma-door of Non-duality? How was it comprehended and interpreted by patriarchs in history?
The first commentator on Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra since Kumārajīva’s translation was Seng Zhao. Since then the commentators all followed his commentaries. Based on the study of the thoughts of Chinese Mādhyamaka, this thesis discusses the commentaries of Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra by Seng Zhao, Jizang, and Zhiyi.
Seng Zhao considered “wisdom” and “expedient” as the “root” of liberation while Jizang thought it was the Dharma-door of Non-duality that held the key to liberation. Both of them took the psychic state of “Borrowing seats from the Lamp King” as the manifestation of liberation. On the other hand, Zhiyi took “the Mokṣa of the Authentic Nature” as the “body” of liberation. He also based the objective principle as the “root”, the subjective matters as the “trace”, and developed his theory of “Fivefold root and traces”. Then again, Seng Zhao and Jizang maintained that the Inconceivable Liberation was the Dharma-door of Non-duality, taking the “principle” of “non-duality” as the root of liberation, while Zhiyi’s way of liberation was “Non-abandon to abandon”, which is not to abandon verbal words and annoyances.
Apparently, these three masters had their similar and different insights into the Inconceivable Liberation. Therefore, our study here will apply the methodology of analytical thinking and import to clarify the standpoints and characteristics of these three masters. We will also trace the development and transformation of their thoughts and their connections, especially their different features and insights in terms of Nāgārjuna’s Mādhyamaka. The relationship between the Inconceivable Liberation and the Dharma-door of Non-duality, their position and importance in this sutra, shall be elaborated as well.
In history, Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra belongs to the early stage of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Its idea of liberation lies in the non-duality of afflictions and Nirvāna, the non-separation from verbal words, lust, anger and ignorance, which is the Inconceivable Liberation, as interpreted by Seng Zhao and Jizang to be the liberation after having completely realized the “Atyantaśūnyatā”(absolute emptiness). Further than that, Zhiyi even stressed the liberation obtained by one who did not abandon the worldly annoyances, yet striving to go beyond the world. Whether they are “Two-fold affirmation” or “Two-fold negation” as adopted by the three masters, both ways of commentaries reflect the Chinese Mādhyamaka and the characteristic of “Thought of Liberation” in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism. |
|---|
| 目次 | 摘要 I
Abstract II
目錄 IV
第一章、緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 2
第二節 研究範圍與方法 4
第三節 文獻回顧與述評 5
一、不可思議解脫 5
二、與僧肇、吉藏及智顗《維摩詰經》注疏相關 7
三、涉及闡述不可思議解脫內涵 10
第四節 本文章節大要 13
第二章、《維摩詰經》與「不可思議解脫」 15
第一節 《維摩詰經》成立年代及背景 15
第二節 《維摩詰經》譯本及其注疏 19
一、漢譯本 19
二、藏譯本 23
三、梵文本 23
四、注釋書 24
第三節 從經題、副題、異名看「不可思議解脫」 28
第四節 從全經各品看「不可思議解脫」之定位 35
第三章、僧肇對「不可思議解脫」之理解 41
第一節 僧肇與《注維摩詰經》 41
第二節 境智 48
第三節 權智與本迹 54
第四節 不二 60
第四章、吉藏對「不可思議解脫」之詮釋 69
第一節 吉藏與《維摩經義疏》 69
第二節 權實二智 73
第三節 不二法門 80
第四節 本迹之發揮 88
第五節 理智教與境智教 93
第五章、智顗對「不可思議解脫」之開演 101
第一節 智顗與《維摩玄疏》 101
第二節 不離文字之解脫 106
第三節 三德解脫 116
第四節 權實與本迹 123
第六章、結論 135
第一節 研究成果 135
一、「不可思議解脫」之定位與重要性 135
二、從僧肇、吉藏、智顗的詮釋 135
第二節 研究限制與未來展望 140
參考文獻 141
一、原典 141
二、專書 142
三、期刊論文 144
四、學位論文 148
五、工具書及網路資料 149 |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 570 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2020.02.05 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2023.01.18 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
