淨土思想=thoughts of Pure Land; 往生=Rebirth; 無生=Non-Rebirth; 曇鸞=Tanluan; 道綽=Daochuo
摘要
思想對比是思想創造的前機，「往生」與「無生」的兩種對比思想，其同異之間的會通，恰可顯示彼此的統一性，並使各別及統一的辯證關係，邁向更高的創造境界。往生淨土是修持淨土法門行者之終極關懷，但彌陀淨土之往生觀念與大乘空觀之無生觀念似有矛盾之處。 因而有人否定淨土的實際存在，使得淨土信仰產生危機。淨土宗學人如道綽認為掌握大乘法不僅要「依法性實理」，還得「順其二諦」，故在真空和妙有的二諦說裏，淨土之「妙有」亦不容否定，否則將墮入斷滅空。道綽這說法引用曇鸞「因緣生」、「假名生」，故往生淨土屬「無生之生」的意見，解決了淨土之「有相往生」與空觀之間的矛盾。這其中以真俗二諦融合「往生」與「無生」，且協調此二種觀念的矛盾處。這 種會通在淨土思想的演變上具有創發意義，且大大影響後來的淨土思想。本研究計畫以「往生」、「無生」為線索，尋繹曇鸞、道綽的思想淵源，論證他們如何引用空（中觀教義）、有（瑜伽教義）二宗的思想，做為淨土信仰之立據；並依此思想來源看出淨土信仰在與他宗發生關係的交涉過程裏，所呈現的實際內涵。假設曇鸞、道綽兩人尚存大量空宗思想（實則「生無生」即以此證成），那麼，後來之迦才、善導、懷感等人如何承繼其思想？他們特加宏揚的是哪部份？跟曇鸞、道綽全部涵攝之思想差距有多大？換言之，他們汲取的輕重比率為何，這可看出中國淨土思想後續的演化情況。 Conceptual contrast is the precursor of creation. The integration of the contrast concept of “rebirth”and “non-rebirth”can show the resemblance of the two. The dialogue between the discretions can advance the understanding to a higher level. Rebirth to the pure land is the ultimate goal of pure land practitioner; but the definition of “rebirth”by the pure land of Amitabha is contrast from the “non-rebirth”of Mahayana’s observing emptiness. Therefore, the denial of the existence of pure land causes the crisis of the belief. Pure land practitioners such as Daochuo thought that the way to grasp Mahayana is by the real state of things and follow the twofold truth. Hence, in the twofold truth of “empty”and “wondrous existence”, once the later is refuted, the emptiness is engrossed. Such perspective is inherited from Tanluan’s view of born of the non-rebirth resolves the disparity between rebirth with real state of thing and “empty”. This transformation in pure land thinking has greatly influenced its posterities. This research uses “rebirth”and “non-rebirth”as the axial to trace back to the thinking context of the Tanluan and Daochuo, and finds evidences of how they used emptiness and wondrous existence to be the foundation of the pure land belief. At the same time, from the interaction of the diverse thinkings between pure land and other houses can we examine its inner essence. The conviction of the subsistence of “empty”thought in Tanluan and Daochuo, as to confirm “rebirth is the non-rebirth”, leads to the prejudiced inheritance of Jiacai, Shandao, and Huaigan. What did they promote in particular? How far away from the overall thinkings of two previous masters did they view? In other words, how do they weight the diverse concepts? From the series of questions, we can have a view of the transformation of the Chinese pure land thought.
目次
目次 III 摘要 IV ABSTRACT V 報告內容 1 前言 1 研究目的 2 文獻探討 3 研究方法 6 結果與討論 7 結論 7 參考文獻 9 【古籍】（依作者、譯者姓名筆畫排列）9 【近人中、日文論著】（依作者姓名筆畫排列） 10 【近人英文論著】13 計畫成果自評 13
