網站導覽關於本館諮詢委員會聯絡我們書目提供版權聲明引用本站捐款贊助回首頁
書目佛學著者站內
檢索系統全文專區數位佛典語言教學相關連結
 


加值服務
書目管理
書目匯出
第二結集記事における『摩訶僧祇律』の特殊性 — なぜ十事が現れないのか —=The Distinguishing Characteristics of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya in its Account of the Second Council: Why Do the Ten Points Not Appear?
作者 佐々木閑 =Sasaki, Shizuka
出處題名 インド学チベット学研究=Journal of Indian and Tibetan Studies=インドガク チベットガク ケンキュウ
卷期n.19
出版日期2015.12
頁次01 - 30
出版者インド哲学研究会
出版者網址 http://www.jits-ryukoku.net/
出版地京都, 日本 [Kyoto, Japan]
資料類型期刊論文=Journal Article
使用語言日文=Japanese
附註項作者單位:花園大学教授
關鍵詞結集; 律蔵; 摩訶僧祇律; 部派; 根本分裂; 十事
摘要The Vinaya, or Buddhist law, contains the account of an event that took place at a Buddhist Saṃgha after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa. This is an account of the First Council convened immediately after the death of the Buddha to compile the Sutras and the Vinaya. The Second Council was convened around 100 years after the death of the Buddha. Accounts in the Vinaya relating to the Second Council differ in content, which has led to various arguments throughout Buddhist academic circles ever since. The most conflicting discrepancy is with respect to the Council agenda. According to the Pali Vinaya and other Vinayas of Sthavira Sects, the Second Council was convened to discuss the rights and wrongs of ten regulations, whereas the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya alone states that the agenda of the Second Council was to discuss only one regulation, i.e., whether the Council should be permitted to receive money, and to take the opportunity to compile a new Vinaya. While many researchers have hypothesized on the cause of this discrepancy between the Vinayas of Sthavira Sects and the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, there has been no definite answer to date. This paper examines each Vinaya’s account of the Second Council in detail in order to ascertain the cause of this mystery. The discrepancy between the Vinayas of Sthavira Sects and the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is because of the fact that the compilers of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya based their position on the assertion that “the Vinaya was compiled at the Second Council, thus resulting in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya.” They altered the original account stating that the Second Council discussed all the ten points and changed the content to say that “the Second Council was convened to discuss the point on the propriety of receiving money, namely, the tenth of the ten points, and the Vinaya was thus compiled for the second time.” The issue of the propriety of receiving money remained in the account solely because of literary manipulation to preserve continuity in the story and bears no historical significance whatsoever. Therefore, there is actually no point in claiming that “the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the legitimate Vinaya completed at the Second Council” or even undertaking a historic examination of whether the Council’s agenda was to discuss the ten points or just one point (receiving money). This paper also asks the question of why the compilers of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya found it necessary to claim that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya was completed as a result of the Second Council. This question inevitably came about as a result of a previous study published by an author on saṃghabheda, or institutional schisms in Buddhism. Originally, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya was structured similarly to the Pali Vinaya and other Vinayas of Sthavira Sects. However, in the later iterations, it was recompiled into a differently structured Vinaya through large-scale, artificial structural modifications. In order to uphold the authority of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, the compilers had to claim that “the compilation of the Vinaya was completed in two stages by the First Council and the Second Council.”
目次I. 研究目的 1
Ⅱ. パーリ律が語る第二結集 4
Ⅲ. 『摩訶僧祇律』が語る第二結集 12
Ⅳ. 異なる第二結集記事の比較 14
Ⅴ. 第二結集記事改変のプロセス 17
Ⅵ. 『摩訶僧祇律』の特殊性の意味 22
Ⅶ. 結論 24

ISSN13427377 (P)
點閱次數159
建檔日期2020.08.21
更新日期2020.08.21










建議您使用 Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) 瀏覽器能獲得較好的檢索效果,IE不支援本檢索系統。

提示訊息

您即將離開本網站,連結到,此資料庫或電子期刊所提供之全文資源,當遇有網域限制或需付費下載情形時,將可能無法呈現。

修正書目錯誤

請直接於下方表格內刪改修正,填寫完正確資訊後,點擊下方送出鍵即可。
(您的指正將交管理者處理並儘快更正)

序號
597063

查詢歷史
檢索欄位代碼說明
檢索策略瀏覽