English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 75711/106341 (71%)
造訪人次 : 19522823      線上人數 : 363
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧:
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號",以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋,建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位,可獲得較完整資料
  • 進階搜尋
    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/100160


    題名: 東晉慧遠是實在論者嗎?:以其詮解《大智度論》之觀點為線索的哲學研究
    作者: 嚴瑋泓
    YEN, Wei-Hung
    關鍵詞: 慧遠;《大智度論》;《大乘大義章》;〈大智論抄序〉;實在論
    Huiyuan;Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa;Da-zhi-du-lun;Da-sheng-da-yi-chang;Da-zhi-lun-chao-xu, realism
    日期: 2015-07
    上傳時間: 2016-08-11 16:45:01 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本文的主旨在於釐清東晉廬山慧遠(334-416 C.E.)詮解《大智度論》的哲學觀點,反思其觀點與《大智度論》是否一致。若是一致,則檢視多數研究視慧遠為實在論者是否合理。反之,則進一步探究慧遠帶著怎樣的前理解來詮解《大智度論》。\r 在《大乘大義章》中,慧遠數次援引《大智度論》的觀點與鳩摩羅什往來問答。若細究文本脈絡,可發現慧遠詮解《大智度論》的觀點似乎是某種實在論的型式,多數的慧遠研究中,也將慧遠視為實在論者。然而,《大智度論》對實在論乃採取批判的哲學立場,若慧遠是實在論者,其詮釋觀點與文本如何相容?是否這是慧遠多元思想的詮釋結果?若是如此,仍可視慧遠為實在論者嗎? 針對以上議題,本文已做適切的回應。在探究與分析慧遠詮解《大智度論》的線索後發現,慧遠的思想相當駁雜,不能單以實在論的視角來理解之,必須回到他所關切之問題的脈絡,才能客觀地理解他的詮解觀點。因此,本文結論以多元的視角來理解慧遠的哲學,理由在於,假若任意以某種哲學主張來把握慧遠對佛學經論的理解與詮釋,都可能在他的著作中找到反例。
    This paper is mainly an inquiry into Huiyuan’s (Eastern Jìn dynasty; 334-416 C.E.) views and interpretation of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Da-zhi-du-lun,大智度論, hereafter abbreviated as MPPU). It moreover reflects on whether or not his viewpoints are consistent with the MPPU. If indeed they are, my research will focus on the question of whether or not it is reasonable to consider Huiyuan a realist. If, on the other hand, his views are found to be inconsistent with the MPPU, I will look to establish what kind of pre-understanding led Huiyuan to his unique interpretation of this work. In The Main Ideas of the Mahāyāna (Da-sheng-da-yi-chang(《大乘大義章》), Huiyuan recorded his dialogues with Kumārajīva in which he cited various ideas from the MPPU. Upon reading the context in more detail, Huiyuan’s interpretation of the MPPU appears to be a form of realism. Hence, he has often been portrayed as a realist. However, the MPPU stood very much in criticism of realism. If Huiyan were indeed a realist, how it is possible that his interpretations are consistent with the MPPU? Could it be that his viewpoints were rooted in his background of various philosophical traditions? And if so, would it be fair to still consider Huiyuan a realist? This paper responds to the above-mentioned issues in an appropriate manner. After investigating and analyzing t Huiyuan’s interpretations and understandings of the MPPU, this paper find that to consider Huiyuan mainly in accordance with a realistic view is not a suitable approach to understand his thought because of Huiyuan’s philosophy is quite a complicated system. The best way to comprehend Huiyuan is stand on the context of his writings. The conclusion of this paper provides a view that the pluralistic perspectives would be the best approach to understand Huiyuan’s philosophy. The reason is that when we take any fixed perspectives to read Huiyuan dogmatically, we can also find counterexamples in his writings.
    關聯: 政治大學哲學學報, 34, 165-208
    The national Chengchi university philosophical
    資料類型: article
    顯示於類別:[政治大學哲學學報 THCI Core] 期刊論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    34-165-208.pdf679KbAdobe PDF125檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    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 ©   - 回饋