著者

張 文良

出版者

日本印度学仏教学会

雑誌

印度學佛教學研究 (ISSN:00194344)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.68, no.2, pp.734-739, 2020-03-20 (Released:2020-09-10)

参考文献数

1

---

According to the Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda Sūtra, the birth and death of all living creatures and the cause of every conditioned existence (生滅法) is not the Tathāgatagarbha, but avidyāvāsabhūmi (entrenchment of ignorance 无明住地). However, the question “Why would the Tathāgatagarbha, which is originally free from evil and defilement, generate mountains, rivers and lands (如来藏本来清净, 為什麼突然生出山河大地)?” is asked in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, which indicates that the sūtra has a tendency to consider the Tathāgatagarbha as the origin of mountains, rivers and lands. Additionally, in the same sūtra, the Tathāgatagarbha as cittaprakṛti (心性) is qualified with the function of knowing (知). Compared to the theories of Tathāgatagarbha in Indian Buddhism, the theory in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is apparently of a different nature. Then how did this theory form? Combining the theories of Tathāgatagarbha which were presented by Huiyuan of the Jingying-si and Fazang, this article evaluates the theory of the Tathāgatagarbha in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra on the basis of how these theories of the Tathāgatagarbha were altered.

著者

張 文良

出版者

東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科インド哲学仏教学研究室

雑誌

インド哲学仏教学研究 (ISSN:09197907)

巻号頁・発行日

no.10, pp.46-60, 2003-03

著者

張 文良

出版者

東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科・文学部インド哲学仏教学研究室

雑誌

インド哲学仏教学研究 (ISSN:09197907)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.20, pp.95-106, 2013-03-31

---

According to Lü Cheng, the Consciousness-Only or Yogācāra School of Indian Buddhism claims that the essence of all sentient beings is “tathatā,” which is lack of cognitive ability, and therefore is a theory of what he calls“Primal Purity.” On the other hand, he claims that Chinese Buddhist philosophers believe that the nature of all sentient beings is pure and intelligent, by their theory of “Original Bodhi.” With these contrasting, Lü Cheng claims that there is a radical rupture between Chinese Buddhism and Indian Buddhism, and he regards Indian Buddhism as orthodox, Chinese Buddhism is therefore “pseudo-Buddhism.” Lü Cheng’s criticism of Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism points out a difference between Chinese and Indian Buddhist theories, which may be valuable for understanding Chinese Buddhism. However, in contrast to Lü’s analysis, Buddha-nature and tathāgata-garbha theory are both found in Indian Buddhism originally, and in fact are both the source of the theory of “Original Bodhi” found in Chinese Buddhism. Furthermore, there is the tradition of “Original Bodhi” and “Primal Purity” in Chinese Buddhism as well, the latter is represented by the thought of Consciousness-only (weishi zong 唯識宗) school in Chinese Buddhism. Therefore, in contrast to Lü’s view, there is in fact both continuity and discontinuity between Chinese and Indian Buddhism, and Lü Cheng’s chracterization of Chinese Buddhism as “Original Bodhi” cannot be considered complete. Altogether, as for Lü Cheng’s Buddhist research methodology, he is unsatisfied with the current objective Buddhist research, and tries to put a value judgment on Buddhist thought from his standpoint of the Consciousness-Only or Yogācāra School of Indian Buddhism, criticizing what he considered “pseudo-buddhism.” With regard to his research method, further discussion is required.