Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/77345300/24979
Title: 格義新探
Authors: 李幸玲
Issue Date: Mar-1997
Publisher: 國文學系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract: 近人佛學論著中,討論到漢末魏晉南北朝佛學思想時,對「格義」、「六家七宗」等主題多有論及。但對「格義」一詞的詮釋、原始意義的探究、創始時代的假設、流行地域的考察,意見並不統一。本文所處理的內容,即是對前人研究仍有疑義之處加以釐清,提出幾點看法,並對「格義」方法的使用作一內在的反省,另外,也探討今人對「格義」相關名義使用的商榷。本文結論包括:格義始於漢末魏初,方法為「配說」,並非由竺法雅所始創。「格義」一詞的內容,自歷史發展的角度來看,由漢末魏初的「配說」,至東晉竺法雅的「以經中事數擬配外書,為生解之例」,可能稍有不同。「格義佛學」一詞的使用,較「格義佛教」一詞來得恰當。「連類」與格義在引例為譬的作法上相類似,但是並未規定以佛經中的事數與外書擬配,在使用上較格義來得寬鬆。「六家」有意地據佛理以為已論,已在開宗立派,並不單純只為解釋佛理為目的,不適合視為狹義的格義。「合本」只在佛典資料之整理,以利讀者查索,未及思想上格義。
When mordern scholars stated the theory of Buddhism as developed in ancient China, many of them would discuss subjects as “格義” (Ke-Yi) and “六家七宗” (Six Schools and Seven Sects) with regard to the Buddhist thikning from 220 to 580AD. Particularly, there were many statements of “格義”, especially for its interpretation, its original meaning, its created age and and its dispersing area. In this paper, I would clarify those suspicions left by scholars of the past, and examine the usage of “格義”. Further, I will explore the concerns on the related terms as “格義” in modern usage. This paper concludes the following points: .The term of “格義” was originated from about 220 AD during Three Kingdoms of Wei Dynasty (漢末魏初). Its method was “配說” (Pei-Shuo), which was not created by ancient Indian monk 法雅 (Fa-Ya). .The original content of “格義” as comparative to “配說” could be slightly different from Fa-Ya's (法雅) description as " to compare matters in the sutra to other writing as examples for “interpretation” when based on historical development. .It would be more appropriate to use term of “格義佛學 " (study of Buddhism about “格義”) rather than “格義佛教”(Buddhist school of “格義”) .“連類” (Lien-Lei) is similar to “格義” while taking examples as comparison. However, the former is not restricted to apply matters in sutra to compare to other writings, of which usage seems to be more flexible than that of “格義”. .The Six Schools were intentionally to employ the theories of Buddhism as their own doctrines, which seemed to rather create new clans than simply to interpret to theories of Buddhism, and they could not be demmed to “格義”. .“合本” (Ho-Pen) should be focused on the management of sutra and data, for the convenience of readers' index, which didn't involve the thinking of “格義”.
URI: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw//handle/77345300/24979
Other Identifiers: B249C6BF-B6BC-F6C0-E388-14CA84067C08
Appears in Collections:中國學術年刊

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.