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.