查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 中西印「天人合一」的概念及其異同--比較希羅時代之普提丁奴斯,印度潘檀加利瑜伽及道家丹道之天人合一之理念與方法=The Conception Concerning the Union of Tien with Man--with Special Regard to the Plotinian One, Patanjali's Yoga and the Taoistic Dan-tao |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 鄺芷人; | 書刊名 | 東海學報 |
卷期 | 40:1(文學院) 民88.07 |
頁次 | 頁279-319 |
分類號 | 100 |
關鍵詞 | 太一; 三摩地; 梵我不二; 丹道; The plotinian One; Samadhi; Advaita; Dan-tao; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 「天」這個概念,可從有神論或無神論方面來解釋。例如,有神論意義的「天」 通常稱為上帝。儘管上帝的概念是依不同的宗教與傳統而有所差別,然而,一般來說,上帝 總是被視作絕對與永�琚C道家的「天」又可解釋作「自然」,或是把「天」視為既超越而又 內在,以及永恆不變、非人格的、運行不息的形上原則。本文之目的,一方面是展示不同文 化傳統中的「天人關係」,另一方面要進步比較「天人合一」的不同理念。 在猶太教與基督教傳統中,人與神之間是具有絕對差異性。人是有限的,同時,人性也 因原罪而在本質上變成敗壞;上帝是無限、永恆、全知及神聖。於是,人類只能藉著耶穌的 死與神「和好」,而不能與示合一。與此相反,吠陀經與奧義書則把有限的自我視作梵天。 至於吠壇多的不二哲學,也認為阿特門即梵天。普氏把太一恆等如於柏拉圖的「善之理型」 ,並且用溢出說來解釋也界之創造。 在普氏的理論中,個體之靈魂有欲望與能力回歸其本源,有如流浪漢經過多年的齋泊生 涯後而還鄉一樣。回歸太一就是與太一結合,而這種結合之條件仍在於自我從各種障礎中解 說出來,消除自我與太一之間的「他性」。潘氏則在其《瑜伽經》展示和描繪其內瑜伽,這 包括觀想、禪定及三摩地。一個達至三摩地的瑜伽行者,不但具備各種神通及各種超感官的 知識,而且還能斷業障,遠離各種痛苦及輪迴。這樣的瑜伽師便是勝者,成就真自由。新道 家對道的概念基本上是建基在《道德經》上,把「道」視作天地之母。自我的要素是精、氣 、神三寶。藉著對丹道的修持,自我能一步一步地轉化自己,直至「煉神還虛」及「還虛合 道」的境界。 太一、梵天及道家的道之間的相似性是超越性、絕對性、非人格性,至於達至天人合一 的途徑則各不相同。普氏認為在邁向合一的道途中,自我是藉著不斷地排除他性而超昇。潘 氏及新道家則提出修煉自我的方法,前者達至三摩地的勝者為目的,後者則以「還虛合道」 為最高境界。普氏的理倫與吠壇多的不二哲學之間也有明顯的差別,後者主張「自我就是梵 天」,前者則不承認「我就是太一」。 本文的末段,撰者特別指出道家丹道之重要性,同時祈待通過丹道而建立相對於生命科 學的「生命哲學」。 |
英文摘要 | The Chinese word tien can be interpreted either from the theistic or from the atheistic point of view. For instance, the theistic tien is generally called God in the diverse religions and tradtions, which is considered, in both oriental and occidental tradtions, as absolute and eternal. The taoistic approaches to tien address themselves to two fundamental propositions: "Tien is nature" and "Tien is tao" which is impersonal, energetic and transcendent as well as immanent Being." The aim of this paper is to elucidate the relationship between tien and man on the one hand, and to compare and contrast the different doctrines concerning the unuon of tien with man in different traditions on the other. In the Judaic-Christian tradition, there is an absolute difference between man and God in the sense that man is finite and his nature is corrupted by the original sin, while God is infinite, eternal, omniscient and holy. For these reasons, man can only reconcile with God through Jesus' death but can never be united with Him. In contrast, the Veda and the Upanishads conceive the finite spirit of man as Brahma or Brahman par excellence, and according to the Advaita-Vedanta, the Atman is Brahman. Plotinus speaks of the One which he equates with the Platonic Good. The One is the power and potentiality of all things, and he explains the creation of the world by meams of the theory of emanation. The individual souls have the desire and the power to return to their wource as an odyssey to his fatherland. To return to the One is to unify with It, and the attainment of the union with the One is possible when the soul is freed from its encumbrances, so that the otherness which divides the soul from the One is brought to an end. Patanjali in his Youga-Sutras gives a systematic exposition of the antaranga-yogas which consists of three angas-haraba, dhyana and samadhi. A yogi, having attained samadhi, sets about destroying his past karmas, and acquires all knowledge of super-sensuous verities. A yogi who is in the highest state of samadhi is called dharma-megha and is above all afflictions and karmas. His mind is freed from all taints. Such a yogi, the dharma-megha, is in the state of the true freedom. The Neo-taoistic conception of Tao is exhibited basically in the Book of Las-tze. Hence, tao is regarded as eternal, motionless, fathomless, supreme and the Mother of the universe. The nature of the self consists of three basic and essential components-energetic energy, chih, and spirit. Through the practice of the dan-tao, the individual souls can be annihilated and absorbed, step by step, into the Tao. The Plotinian One, the Vedic Brahma, the Vedantic as well as the Upanishadic Brahman, and the Taoistic Tao are similar in the sense that they are all considered as transcendent, absoulute and impersonal, while the ways for the union between this ultimate Being(tien) and man are diverse. Plotinus argues that in this mystical union the self is transcended by means of putting the otherness away. Both Patanjali and the Neo-taoists, however, develop different systems of disciplinary technique to cultivate the human souls. The major difference between the Patanjali's yoga and dan-tao is in their treatment of the process and their goals, Pataniali's kaivalya or absolute freedom consists in the attainment of the Dharma-Megha Samadhi, while the Neo- taoists emphasize the annihilation of the self and its absorption into the tao. The difference between the Plotinian theory and the Vedantic-Advaita philosophy is also obvious. In the Enneads Plotinus refutes the conception concerning the absolute identity of the soul with One. The Advaita-Vedanta, however, maintains a strict monism and ascertains this identity by eludidation the formula "A tman is Brahman", while we can find nowhere in the Enneads the Plotinian equivalent proposition "I am the One". At the end of this paper, I emphasize the significance of the Taoistic dan- tao systems and expect to develop life philosophy based on them, which is parallel to life science in the contemporary natural science. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。