韓儒鄭三峰的闢佛論
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2014-03-??
Authors
楊祖漢
Cho-Hon Yang
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立臺灣師範大學
National Taiwan Normal University
National Taiwan Normal University
Abstract
韓儒鄭道傳（？～1398）是高麗朝末、朝鮮朝初的大儒，他在當時的朝代更迭之際，有極大的影響力。由於他得到朝鮮朝開國君王的信任，得以實行其重儒的見解，奠定了朝鮮朝以儒學為國教的基礎。在他的〈佛氏雜辨〉中，很有系統地對佛教的主要見解提出批評，他的批評主要以朱子的思想為根據，而又有深化的發展。本論文分析鄭三峰〈佛氏雜辨〉的要點，並透過比較顯出他所理解的儒佛義理之不同。本文認為，朝鮮朝實行重儒政策，並非只是為了現實政治上的需要，而有其理性上的原因。
Jeong Dojeon (pen name: Sambong) was a noble Confucian in the early Joseon Dynasty. He was also a major advisor to King Taejo, the founder and first king of the Joseon Dynasty. Asa Confucian, Sambong was a strict critic of Buddhism. The base of his criticism was Chu Hsi’s philosophy. Sambong used the Chinese neo-Confucian philosophers’ theories in the Song Dynasty, such as Chou Lien-his, Chang Tsai, and Cheng brothers (Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi), to refute the Buddhism. His representative work is “Bulsijapbyeon,” which has 20 sections. Six critical sections of “Bulsijapbyeon,” were analyzed. I attempt to show that Sambong profoundly understood the difference between Confucianism and Buddhism. His critical standpoint toward Buddhism was based on a crucial contention regarding Confucianism: what a person morally ought to do is only for the sake of morality itself but not for the sake of any interests or other purpose.
Jeong Dojeon (pen name: Sambong) was a noble Confucian in the early Joseon Dynasty. He was also a major advisor to King Taejo, the founder and first king of the Joseon Dynasty. Asa Confucian, Sambong was a strict critic of Buddhism. The base of his criticism was Chu Hsi’s philosophy. Sambong used the Chinese neo-Confucian philosophers’ theories in the Song Dynasty, such as Chou Lien-his, Chang Tsai, and Cheng brothers (Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi), to refute the Buddhism. His representative work is “Bulsijapbyeon,” which has 20 sections. Six critical sections of “Bulsijapbyeon,” were analyzed. I attempt to show that Sambong profoundly understood the difference between Confucianism and Buddhism. His critical standpoint toward Buddhism was based on a crucial contention regarding Confucianism: what a person morally ought to do is only for the sake of morality itself but not for the sake of any interests or other purpose.