|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Questioning the Revival=關於佛教復興的質疑：後毛澤東時代的中國佛教僧侶狀況 |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
Gildow, Douglas M. (著)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
Review of Religion and Chinese Society
|
|---|
| 巻号 | v.7 n.1 Special Issue |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2020.05 |
|---|
| ページ | 6 - 33 |
|---|
| 出版者 | Brill |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
https://brill.com/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | Leiden, the Netherlands [萊登, 荷蘭] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 英文=English |
|---|
| ノート | Special Issue: Chinese Buddhism from Holmes Welch to the Present edited by Gareth Fisher |
|---|
| キーワード | Chinese Buddhism; monastic institutions; monasticism; revival |
|---|
| 抄録 | A common narrative of Buddhist monasticism in modern China is that monastic institutions were virtually eliminated during the Cultural Revolution period (1966–1976) but have undergone continuous revival since that time. This simplistic narrative highlights differences in state-monastic relations between the Maoist and post-Maoist eras, even as it oversimplifies various developments. In this article, I analyze the notion of revival and assess the state of Han Buddhist monasticism in the prc. My focus is on clarifying the “basic facts” of monasticism, including the numbers and types of monastics and monastic institutions. I draw on studies published since Holmes Welch’s works as well as on my own fieldwork conducted in China since 2006.
This article questions the revival metaphor and shows that it is misleading. First, as Welch noted for the Republican period, recent developments are characterized by innovations as much as by revivals. Second, evidence for the growth of monasticism from around the year 2000 is weak. Yet in two aspects, monasticism today revives characteristics of Republican-period monasticism: ritual performance is central to the monastic economy, and Buddhist seminaries are important for monastic doctrinal education.
對中國佛僧的狀況，西方學界普遍認為，僧團組織在文革時期（1966–1976）幾乎被消滅，而在文革後不斷複興。這種簡化的認知凸顯了中國當局與佛教界的關係在毛澤東時代前後所產生的變化，卻嚴重忽略了僧侶制度自身的發展。此篇論文分析了「復興」的概念 ， 并評估中華人民共和國漢傳佛教僧侶制度的狀況。此篇的焦點放在釐清僧侶制度的「基本情況」，如僧侶與僧侶組織的數量及類型。本文引用在 霍姆斯·維慈（Holmes Welch, 1924–1981）的著作以後所發表的學術論文，以及我自己從2006年以來在中國進行的田野研究。
本文對「佛教復興」這個常見的認知提出了質疑，並指出這可能是一種誤導。首先，就像維慈就民國時期佛教所言，新的演變與其說是「復興」不如說是「創新」。其次，自2000年以來，有關僧侶制度總體成長的證據很薄弱。不過在另外兩方面，當今的僧侶制度確是復興了民國時期的樣貌：儀式仍然是僧團經濟的核心，以及佛學院依然對僧侶教育起著舉足輕重的作用。 |
|---|
| ISSN | 22143947 (P); 22143955 (E) |
|---|
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1163/22143955-00701002 |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 70 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2024.01.30 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2024.01.30 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
