:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:從達摩禪到慧能禪的演變--印順與胡適及鈴木大拙相關研究觀點之比較
書刊名:玄奘佛學研究
作者:邱敏捷 引用關係
作者(外文):Chiu, Min-chie
出版日期:2006
卷期:5
頁次:頁51-79
主題關鍵詞:達摩慧能印順胡適鈴木大拙Da MoHuei NengYin ShunHu ShihSuzuki Daisetsu
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:42
  • 點閱點閱:48
「從達摩禪到慧能禪的演變」是初期禪宗史上的重要課題。胡適〈楞伽宗考〉以為,從達摩至神秀,都是正統的楞伽宗,神會的「語錄」以及神會一派所造的《壇經》裡,處處把《金剛經》來替代了《楞伽經》。所以慧能、神會的革命是「般若宗革了楞伽宗的命」。胡氏此一破天荒論點發表後,鈴木大拙《禪思想史研究第二》承繼胡適的觀點,區分「《楞伽經》的傳統」與「《金剛經》的抬頭」。在他看來,北宗禪 (神秀派) 秉持《楞伽經》,南宗禪 (慧能派) 尊主《金剛經》,這是兩派交鋒、對立的思想根源。對於胡適與鈴木大拙的這些論點,印順不以為然,他認為印度傳來的達摩禪,從達摩到慧能,方便雖不斷演化,而實質為一貫的如來 (藏) 禪。印順《中國禪宗史》從三條線索來回應胡適、鈴木大拙:一,從《楞伽經》與《文殊般若經》的關係入手,論證楞伽宗已有般若思想;二,從《壇經》與《金剛經》的關係切入,證明胡適所說「慧能、神會以《金剛經》代替《楞伽經》」的觀察不合史實;三,追索頓悟法門的源流,探尋頓悟法門的來龍去脈,反駁胡適的「頓漸殊源」。故不能說慧能、神會以般若宗革了楞伽宗,因為楞伽宗己存在般若思想。
“Evolution from Da-mo Zen to Huei-neng Zen” is an important issue in the history of Zen in the early days. Hu Shih indicates in “A Study of Leng-jia Master” that the Zens from Da-mo to Shen-siu belong to the orthodox Leng-jia Master. It is found in the “Quotations” of Shen Huei and Altar Scriptures written by the sect of Shen Huei that Jin-gang Banroo Scriptures have all along been used to replace Leng-jia Scriptures. Therefore, the revolution initiated by Huei Neng and Sheng Huei is an “annihilation of Leng-jia Master by Ban-ruo Master.” After the publication of such an astonishing argument of Hu Shih, Suzuki Daisetsu’s Research on the History of Zen Thinking II inherits the viewpoints of Hu Shih, and classifies Zen thinking into “the tradition of Leng-jia Scriptures” and “the rise of Jin-gang Scriptures.” In his opinion, the Northern Master Zen (Shen-siu sect) sticks to Leng-jia Scriptures, the Southern Master Zen (Huei-neng sect) follows Jin-gang Scriptures. This is the origin of the confrontation and opposition between these two sects. Nevertheless, Yin Shun disagrees with Hu Shih and Suzuki Daisetsu. He argues that ever since Da-mo Zen is being preached from India, it is convenient for it to evolve continuously from Da Mo to Huei Neng. In fact it is substantially the consistent Ru-lai (Zang) Zen. In response to the opinions of Hu Shih and Suzuki Daisetsu, Yin Shun employs three clues in his History of the Chinese Zen: 1. The relationship between Leng-jia Scriptures and Ban-ruo has proved that Leng-jia Master contains the thinking of Ban-ruo. 2. The relationship between Altar Scriptures and Jin-gang Scriptures has proved that Hu Shih’s observation of “both Huei Neng and Shen Huei having replaced Lengjia Scriptures by Jin-gang Scriptures” is inconsistent with the historical facts. 3. He traces the origin and development of Dun-wu sect, searches the whole story of Dun-wu sect, and refutes Hu Shih’s statement of “unique origin of Dun-wu sect.” Therefore, people cannot say that Huei Neng and Shen Huei have annihilated Ban-ruo Master because Ban-ruo thinking has long existed in Leng-jia Master.
期刊論文
1.馮耀明(19920100)。禪超越語言和邏輯嗎--從分析哲學觀點看鈴木大拙的禪論。當代,69,64-81。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.道宣(撰)。高僧傳。  延伸查詢new window
2.印順(1987)。中國禪宗史。新竹。  延伸查詢new window
3.釋印順(1992)。般若經講記。臺北市:正聞出版社。  延伸查詢new window
4.印順(199202)。淨土與禪--淨土新論。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
5.印順、伊吹敦(199701)。中國禪宗史--禪思想の誕生。東京:山喜房佛書林。  延伸查詢new window
6.釋智昭。人天眼目。  延伸查詢new window
7.印順法師(198806)。中國禪宗史--從印度禪到中華禪。台北:正聞出版社。  延伸查詢new window
8.洪修平(1991)。禪宗思想的形成與發展。高雄:佛光出版社。  延伸查詢new window
9.何國銓(19870000)。中國禪學思想研究:宗密禪教一致理論與判攝問題之探討。臺北:文津。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.呂澂(1985)。中國佛學源流略講。臺北:里仁書局。  延伸查詢new window
11.湯用彤(1987)。漢魏兩晉南北朝佛教史。駱駝出版社。  延伸查詢new window
12.印順(2004)。為自己說幾句話。永光集。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
13.胡適(1990)。楞伽宗考。胡適禪學案。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
14.鈴木大拙(1968)。禪思想史研究第二:達摩から慧能に至る。東京:岩波書店。  延伸查詢new window
15.柳田聖山。胡適博士與中國初期禪宗史之研究。胡適禪學案。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.(唐)淨覺(1988)。楞伽師資記。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.關口真大、關世謙(1988)。《中國禪宗史》要義。法海微波。台北:正聞。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE