English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88866/118573 (75%)
Visitors : 23552097      Online Users : 300
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 文學院 > 宗教研究所 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/119663
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119663


    Title: The Contrast of Late Ming Weishi Commentaries and Edo Weishi Commentaries on Xuanzang’s Guan suoyuanyuan lun
    晚明和江戶唯識註釋的比較--以《觀所緣緣論》為例
    Authors: 楊志常
    Contributors: 宗教博三
    Keywords: Weishi;Conscious-only;Late Ming Buddhism;Edo Buddhism;Guan suoyuanyuan lun
    唯識;晚明佛教;江戶佛教;觀所緣緣論
    Date: 2017-12
    Issue Date: 2018-08-28 10:39:03 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: In the late Ming there was a renaissance of Weishi (consciousnessonly) in which at least thirty-five Weishi commentaries were produced in China without access to the key Weishi commentaries authored by Kuiji, Huizhao, and Zhizhoh. On the other hand, the Weishi lineage of Faxiang Zong in Japan together with those key Weishi commentaries have never been interrupted since Tang dynasty. Due to the lost Weishi lineage and texts, those late Ming made Weishi commentaries have been in doubt and challenged. Especially some Weishi experts in Japan in the Edo period criticized some late Ming authors for producing valueless and incorrect Weishi commentaries. This article attempts to investigate if such challenges and criticisms are fair enough and if the differences between the late Ming commentaries and the Edo commentaries in terms of the access to the key Tang Weishi commentaries shape how these two groups understood and interpreted the same Weishi text. Thus, this study selects Xuanzang's Guan suoyuanyuan lun which is Xuanzang's translation of Dignaga's Alambana-pariksa as a base text and compares two late Ming commentaries that were written by Mingyu and Zhixu with two Edo commentaries that were authored by Kiben and Kaidou. The analysis is conducted in two levels: the high-level analysis and the deeper dive analysis. In the high-level analysis, several interesting areas are identified including: 1) the Edo commentators had much longer commentator's introduction. 2) Kiben, Kaidou and Mingyu spent most effort in commenting on the second verse & the second prose. 3) The quotation accounts for approximately 40% of the Edo commentaries. On the contrary, in the late Ming group Mingyu quoted about 10% and Zhixu quoted less than 1%. In the deeper-dive analysis of the sources and the frequencies of quotations, of the longer Edo commentator's introduction, of the controversial about the second moon as "drstanta" (example), of what making the appearance of the collection, and of what making the sense faculties, it is found that the access to the key Tang Weishi commentaries does significantly impact the commentators' capacity to identify controversial issues, to distinguish different realists' views, and to address the Weishi internal arguments. However, there are some occasions that commentators seemed choosing not to use all the sources that available to them. Several possibilities were discussed. In addition, the commentators' different agendas, sense of subjectivity, and personal expertise also play important roles in determining whether and/or how they comments on what.
    在晚明的唯識復興期間,中國出現了至少三十五本唯識註釋本,這些唯識著作都是在唐朝窺基、慧沼和智周等重要唯識註疏佚失中完成的。然而,自唐以來,日本法相宗的法脈和唯識的重要經典註疏,卻未有類似的中斷和佚失。因此,晚明的唯識著作不免遭受質疑與挑戰。其中,來自日本江戶註釋家的批評,尤其嚴苛,毫不留情地指責晚明的唯識註釋錯誤百出,沒有參考價值。本文試圖考察江戶唯識註釋家如此的批評是否公允,以及晚明與江戶註釋家之間有沒有唐朝唯識註疏輔助的差異,如何型塑他們對於同一個唯識文本的了解和詮釋。本研究選擇玄奘譯的《觀所緣緣論》當作基準文本,比較晚明唯識註釋家智旭、明昱與江戶唯識註釋家基辨、快道的註釋。分析先以綜觀高度的分析來尋找差異點,如江戶註釋家有比較長的導言和比較大比例的引述等差異。再深入地分析差異點,如引述的來源和頻率、為什麼有比較長的導言等議題。分析發現: 有沒有唐朝唯識註疏的輔助,的確對於註釋家尋找爭議點、區別不同的實在論、和處理唯識派內部爭論的能力有很大的影響。此外,分析也發現,註釋家的主體性、不同的議程和個人專長,對於註釋家決定要註釋什麼以及如何註釋上,扮演著舉足輕重的角色。
    Relation: 臺大佛學研究, No.34, pp.29-86
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/10.6727/TJBS.201712_(34).0002
    DOI: 10.6727/TJBS.201712_(34).0002
    Appears in Collections:[宗教研究所] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    29-86.pdf809KbAdobe PDF133View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback