查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 試論聖嚴法師對「空性」與「佛性」之詮解與貫通
- 印順及聖嚴「如來藏」觀點之對比考察
- 對比聖嚴法師與星雲大師的「人間淨土」涵義與實踐
- 臺灣「人間佛教」之相異與互補:印順法師與證嚴法師「菩薩觀」之對比探索
- 「人間佛教」的經典詮釋--是「援儒入佛」或是回歸印度?
- 近代中國佛教改革思想中「回溯原典」之意涵及其實踐進路--以太虛、印順、歐陽竟無之論點為核心的開展
- 經世佛教--太虛的新佛教運動
- 略析「佛性與般若」在牟宗三哲學思想進展中的位置
- The Significance of Tathāgatagarbha: A Positive Expression of Śūnyatā
- 初論《佛性與般若》之中觀思想
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 試論聖嚴法師對「空性」與「佛性」之詮解與貫通=Ven. Sheng-Yen's Exposition and Integration of the Concepts of Śūnyatā and Buddhatā |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 林建德; | 書刊名 | 法鼓佛學學報 |
| 卷 期 | 21 2017.12[民106.12] |
| 頁 次 | 頁131-180 |
| 分類號 | 220.132 |
| 關鍵詞 | 佛性; 空性; 太虛; 印順; 牟宗三; 聖嚴; Buddha-nature; Emptiness; Tai xu; Yin Shun; Mou Zong San; Sheng Yen; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 聖嚴法師晚年曾清楚定位自己為「一個帶動思想的人」,認 為自己不是學問家、不是學者,但承認自己是一個宗教思想家; 法師以思想家自我定位,其對佛教思想的詮釋和理解有哪些特 色,成為可關注的點。本文試著從聖嚴法師對「空性」與「佛性」 之詮解與融通,進行初步的分析論述。 「空性」與「佛性」兩大概念之間,在印、漢、藏佛教思想 史上早有廣泛討論,包括近來學界亦有諸多反思乃至論辯。本文 以聖嚴法師觀點為主,在漢傳佛教的脈絡底下作探討,先介紹近 代漢語學界三種觀點:第一以太虛法師為例,簡介佛性高於空性 之說;第二以印順法師為例,概述空性高於佛性之說;第三以牟 宗三先生為例,說明佛性與空性不同但卻互補的立場。對上述三 種觀點,聖嚴法師顯然有不同看法,他認為佛性即是空性,佛性 和空性相通,只是表達方式的不同。 本文藉由聖嚴法師與近現代華人思想家判釋異同之對比,向 佛學界介紹聖嚴法師的特見,並進一步分析、評論他對佛典的解 讀及論證,盼能從中看出現今漢傳佛教弘揚者對於佛性和空性之 主張,顯示聖嚴法師兼容互攝、調和(合)的思想特色。 |
| 英文摘要 | In his old age, Master Sheng Yen once identified himself as “Buddhist thought leader”. He considered himself not an academic nor a scholar but a religious thinker. Since Master Sheng Yen identified himself as a Buddhist thinker, the unique features of his interpretation and understanding of Buddhism are worth exploring. In this paper I try to analyze and discuss Master Sheng Yen’s exposition and integration of “emptiness” (śūnyatā) and “Buddha-nature” (Buddhatā). The relationship between emptiness and Buddha-nature has been discussed extensively in the ancient Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan history of Buddhist thought, and there have been some reflections, and even debates, in modern academic circles. Here I focus on the views of Master Sheng Yen to see how he responds to this issue. In the beginning I introduce three positions in modern Chinese circle: firstly I take Master Tai Xu as an example to illustrate the viewpoint that the teaching on Buddha-nature is superior to the teaching on emptiness; secondly I take Master Yin Shun to illustrate the view that the teaching on emptiness is superior to the teaching on Buddha-nature; thirdly I introduce Mou Zong San’s viewpoint to present the view that the teachings on Buddha-nature and emptiness are distinct but complementary. Compared to the aforementioned views, Master Sheng Yen obviously has a different understanding. He suggests that Buddha-nature and emptiness are simply different ways of expressing the same idea. Comparing the differences and similarities of his views with these contemporary thinkers, I wish to introduce Master Sheng Yen’s syncretic interpretation of emptiness and Buddha-nature to the Buddhist academic circle. I further analyze and comment on his viewpoints on Buddhist scriptures and arguments, not only illustrating the standpoints of a contemporary advocate of Chinese Buddhism, but also representing his unique form of syncretic thought. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。