|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
詮釋傳統重建的多重面向 - 以晚明《成唯識論》註釋傳統的重新建構為例=Many Faces of Commentarial Tradition Rebuilding - Case Studies in How The Commentarial Tradition of Cheng Weishi Lun Rebuilt in Late-Ming |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
楊志常 (著)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
正觀雜誌=Satyabhisamaya: A Buddhist Studies Quarterly
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.93 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2020.06.25 |
|---|
| ページ | 37 - 92 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 正觀雜誌社 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://www.tt034.org.tw/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 南投縣, 臺灣 [Nantou hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| ノート | 作者為政治大學宗教研究所博士 |
|---|
| キーワード | 《成唯識論》=Cheng Weishi Lun; 註釋傳統的重新建構=Commentarial Tradition Rebuilding; 綜攝=Syncretism; 綜合=Synthesis; 性相通融=Xing xiang tong rong(nature-characteristics syncretism); 晚明佛教=Late=Ming Buddhism |
|---|
| 抄録 | 由於過於強調傳統的正統性和延續性，一個千載難逢的歷史現象-晚明的唯識註釋家如何重新建構一個已經中斷的《成唯識論》註釋傳統，一直沒有得到學術界適當的重視和研究。而且目前僅有的少數晚明唯識學相關研究，也止於指出，「性相通融」是此時期唯識學的最大特色。只是，具有「綜攝」意含的「性相通融」一詞，到底代表什麼意義，可能因人而有完全不同的想像，也可能給人一種過於簡化以及同質化的印象。同樣地，「綜攝」一詞，是否是一個定義清楚而且有效的宗教的概念，也曾經引起許多學者的爭論。
藉由有關宗教「綜攝」和「綜合」的文獻討論，本論文首先澄清「綜攝」和「綜合」的差別。接著，透過「性相通融」的出處，以及考察晚明《成唯識論》註釋重統重新建構的歷史事實，筆者認為，就算晚明《成唯識論》註釋傳統的重新建構有所謂「性相通融」傾向，該傾向也不是「綜合」而是「綜攝」。只是，「性相通融」和「綜攝」都過於籠統，而且重統建構的可能綜攝範疇也大於「性相通融」的範疇。所以，本研究特別借用五個晚明《成唯識論》註釋傳統的實際案例來呈現，在實際操作中，傳統重建的多重可能面向。此多重可能面向反映了晚明《成唯識論》註釋傳統的可塑性和時代性。
Due to overemphasis on orthodoxy and continuity of traditions, a rare historical phenomenon - how did late-Ming commentators rebuild the interrupted commentarial tradition of the Chang Weishi Lun – has not been adequately regarded and researched by academic community. Moreover, up to date those few related studies stop at pointing out that “xing xiang tong rong” is the most significant tendency featuring the study of consciousness-only in late-Ming. However, the term “xing xiang tong rong” which has the implication of “syncretism” might tend to give different people different imaginations and/or over-simplistic and homogeneous impression. Similarly, whether or not the term “syncretism” is a clearly defined and valid concept in religious study had caused a lot of academic debates.
First, through the literature review of “syncretism” and “synthesis”, this article attempts to distinguish these two terms. Then, by looking up the origin of ature-characteristics syncretism” and investigating the historical facts of how late-Ming commentators rebuilt the Commentarial Tradition of Cheng Weishi Lum, it is argued that even the late-Ming commentators had the tendency of “xing xiang tong rong”, the tendency is “syncretism”, not “synthesis. However, both “xing xiang tong rong” and “syncretism” are too general. Furthermore, the scope of “syncretism” occurring in commentarial tradition rebuilding is bigger than of “xing xiang tong rong”. Therefore, this article specifically uses five case studies to illustrate multiple possible faces of syncretism that might be occurring in the commentarial tradition rebuilding. Those many faces of commentarial tradition rebuilding reflect how malleable a commentarial tradition rebuilding could be in a contemporary manner. |
|---|
| 目次 | 壹、前言 39
貳、研究範疇和研究方法 43
參、「性相通融」是「綜攝」？還是「綜合」？ 48
一、「綜攝」和「綜合」的差別 48
二、不是「綜合」，但是「綜攝」太籠統 54
肆、註釋傳統重建的多重面向 57
一、個案一 不同心識理論的會通 57
個案一的討論與小結 61
二、個案二 思心所的三種面向 62
個案二的討論小結 64
三、個案三 捨與不捨之間 65
個案三的討論與小結 67
四、個案四 有漏位與無漏位之間 68
個案四的討論與小結 75
五、個案五 因果皆是假施設？ 76
個案五的討論與小結 81
伍、結語 82
參考文獻 86 |
|---|
| ISSN | 16099575 (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 818 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2020.09.22 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2021.11.24 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
