透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.149.214.21
  • 期刊

華嚴與淨土的對話-以日本淨土教為例

The Conversation between Huayen and Pure Land Take Jōdo-Shū as an Example

若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


在中國佛教,淨土法門和華嚴思想有密切的關連,華嚴和淨土基本上是合一的;在日本佛教,華嚴和淨土則似乎是偏於對立,尤其在所謂「日本的霊性」特別高揚的鎌倉時代,出現對立姿勢極為鮮明的両位高僧-法然(1133-1212)和明惠(1173-1232);但在法然高徒親鸞(1173-1262)的著作中,却有頗多《華嚴經》的引用,顯見和華嚴宗旨相通之心情。法然和明惠的年齢差約四十歳,法然是鎌倉時代新佛教的創始者,主張絶對他力的專修念佛;明惠為兼修華嚴教學和真言密教的聖僧,他本來十分敬慕法然的人格,但在閲讀法然死後半年開版的《選択集》,態度幡然一變,遂著《摧邪輪》,嚴格批判《選択集》,其批判的要點雖然有二,一是捨棄菩提心的過失,二是以羣賊比喩聖道門的過失,主要是針對專修念佛的問題。日本當時佛教的主流,是真言或天台、華嚴.法相等所謂的「顯密佛教」。淨土信仰則是通佛教的信仰、並不属於特定的宗派。念佛既不属於特定的宗派,只是修行的一形態,所以真言.天台.華嚴的僧侶也修念佛(不管口稱念佛或觀想念佛),並不排斥念佛。但自法然、親鸞等所代表的「鎌倉新佛教」興起,則提唱專修念佛,否定自戒作善的自力,排斥阿彌陀佛以外諸佛或淨土經典以外的大乗經典、也不拝神祇,遂引起南都、叡山的學僧反弾,担憂佛教根幹的動揺而紛起攻撃。一般的研究,毎偏重於比較法然和明惠之不同,忽略華嚴與淨土的對話,若然,可能無法理解日本佛教華嚴和淨土對立的真正意味,更無法理解從法然到親鸞的轉折。有鑑於此,本論文将以專修念佛為主軸,探討從法然到親鸞的變遷,並透過其内在理路的分析,釐清華嚴和淨土的辯証關係。

並列摘要


In the Chinese Buddhism, there seems to be a connection between the school of Pure Land and Huayen School, as Pure Land and Huayen are integrated into one. However, in the Japanese Buddhism, Huayen and Pure Land seems to be opposite, especially in the period of Kamakura (Kamakura jidai) where the "Japanese Spirit" is raising highly. The two most distinct characters represented in this opposing situation, are the two monks - Hōnen (1133-1212) and Myōe (1173-1232). Despite Hōnen is the supporter of Pure Land, Shinran (1173-1262), the apprentice of Hōnen, cited a lot of Avatamsaka Sutra in his treatises. It is obvious that there is a certain connection with the purpose of Huayen can be found here. The age difference between Hōnen and Myōe is about forty. Hōnen is the initiator of the New Buddhism in Kamakura period. He insisted that the recitation of Buddha should primarily be focused on the outer force, while Myōe was a holy monk who studied both the teachings of Kegon and Shingon Mikkyo. Initially, Myōe really admired Hōnen, but after he read the "The Senchaku Hongan Nembutsushū", which was published half year after Hōnen’s death, he changed his attitude. He not only completed a treatise "Zaijarin (Tract for Destroying Heretical Views)", but also made strict criticisms on "The Senchaku Hongan Nembutsushū". The criticisms are mainly focused on the problems of recitation of Buddha, despite there are two points of criticisms; the first is the discard of awakened mind, and the other is the metaphor between a crowd of thieves and the faulty of Buddhist Door. The main Buddhism stream in Japan during that period is Shingon, Tiantai, Kegon and Hossō those so called "Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism". The belief of Jōdo (Pure Land in Japanese) is actually belonged to the belief of Buddhism rather than to a specific school. If recitation is not belonged to a specific school, then it is only a form of practices. Therefore, the monks of Shingon, Tiantai and Kegon also practice recitation (whether it is vocally recited or in the mind). However, the representative of the rise of "New Buddhism of Kamakura", Hōnen and Shinran, claimed the recitation of Buddhism. They denied one’s own power of controlling and restraining oneself, as well as rejecting the Mahāyāna sutras those are other than Buddha or Jōdo sutra and Amitābha. Besides, they don’t worship the Gods either. This act caused the resilience of monks of Nanto and Eizan, because they worried that the root of Buddhism might be shaken where attacks might be aroused. Generally speaking, in most of researches, the controversies are focus mostly on the difference between Hōnen and Myōe rather than the conversation between Kegon and Jōdo. If that is the case, then it will be more difficult for us to understand the true meaning of the controversy of Kegon and Jōdo in Japanese Buddhism; making it more difficult to comprehend the transition from Hōnen to Shinran. In such case, the core value of this paper is to focus on the recitation of Buddhism, to examine the transition from Hōnen to Shinran, and through the analysis of inner logic to differentiate the controversy between Kegon and Jōdo.

延伸閱讀