【作者】 孙幸连；

【导师】 颜炳罡；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 中国哲学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 学术界大多认为圆测的唯识思想和慈恩的唯识思想存有不同之处,但是,要详细探究其究竟在哪些方面存有不同,进一步是怎样造这种不同学术界对言焉不详。本文以“圆测与窥基唯识思想比较研究”为中心,具体探索圆测的唯识思想和窥基的唯识思想各种异同,以及造成这种不同的理论成因。全文共分为六章。第一章,介绍了当代唯识思想领域的研究状况,概述了无着、世亲、玄奘等论师对唯识学以及唯识宗在中国的发展做出的贡献。同时,论述比较研究圆测和窥基的唯识论思想的重大意义:弄清唯识宗的两派的差异,比较研究圆测的唯识论是否为真的“异端”说;圆测法师的唯识学没有完全接受只把护法的唯识学当作正统的窥基的唯识学的思想,吸收了十大论师的所有唯识学,形成了比较合理,比较综合的学说;窥基法师忠实地继承了玄奘的唯识学,其学脉延续了玄奘所继承的护法的唯识思想,并以成唯识论为宗旨创立了法相宗。关于圆测法师和窥基法师唯识学性格不同的比较是这一领域研究的重要内容。第二章,介绍了圆测的生平和思想继承。圆测与玄奘是同门兄弟,就窥基来讲,相当于师叔。在唯识学上,他树立了与窥基系统不同的种种独特的见解,而开创韩国的唯识宗。虽然他受到窥基门下的嫉妒,而被视为异端,但是后来,他的学说远播西藏、敦煌的事迹被发现后,对他的评价才被平反。虽然如此,千余年来,在宗教界没有对此作综合研究者,而似有被遗忘之感。圆测的研究有其新的意义,且含有许多价值。本论文详细地介绍了圆测的求学经历,他的著作以及如何创立西明学派;菩提流支、真谛的唯识论对圆测思想的影响;圆测对新、旧唯识思想的学习。介绍了弥勒和无著、世亲的著作中与圆测唯识学有紧密联系的有关概念。圆测用他所创的“义类之次第”来解决唯识宗三时判教中“年月之次第”的困难。他批判的接受“有、无相唯识”而树立他自己的见解。他虽然是唯识学者,但他的学说不是为了排斥哪一派而树立的。他不偏向任何一方,所以,他的思想可融会中观与唯识的思想。他主张“一性皆成”之说。这是他的唯识学观的特征。第三章,介绍了窥基的生平与慈恩学派的渊源。窥基为中国法相宗的创始人之一。十七岁出家,奉敕为玄奘弟子,二十五岁参加玄奘译场。他主要的贡献除了协助玄奘翻译外,对新译经典作了详细的注疏。玄奘在译经期间,每“黄昏二时讲新经论”,玄奘在印度所学的微言大义,就通过这种方式流传。窥基在玄奘身旁随侍受业,多闻第一,他又是当时造疏最多的一人,他的注疏,很多是在玄奘亲自指导之下写成的,有「百部疏主」之称。他的著作宏富,精细入微,善于提纲挈领,建立体系,对唯识研究有重大意义。弟子有慧沼等,因常住大慈恩寺,世称为慈恩大师,是慈恩宗之祖,他与五台山高僧和五台山慈恩宗的渊源深厚。他的著作被传到日本,成为日本法相宗的重要经典,一直流传至今。本论文对窥基唯识思想的源流进行了研究,并着重指出了玄奘的唯识思想是窥基思想的根本源泉。第四章,讨论教体论和教判论思想。教体是释迦佛一代教法的本体,教体论的主题是研究佛教的本质。本章叙述了圆测所研究的教体论,圆测有关教体的思考方式及思想内容。教判是教相判释的简称。本章简单介绍了天台宗教判的内容,天台宗把佛教分为五时与八教,窥基法师接受了《解深密经》的三时教判思想,对佛陀的一代时教加以分类,定立了教判。窥基依据《解深密经》、《瑜伽师地论》等,判释迦一代教法为有、空、中道三时。第一时有教。为破异生实我之执,于鹿野苑说阿含经等,昭示四谛、十二因缘、五蕴等法,是为初时我空之说。第二时空教。为破除诸法实有之执,在灵鹫山等说《摩诃般若波罗密多经》等,开示诸法皆空之理,令中根品,悟彼法空,舍小取大,是为第二时法空之说。第三时中道教。为破除执着有空,于解深密等会,说一切法唯有识等,即心外法无,破初有执;内识非无,遣执皆空;离有无边,正处中道;是为第三时识外境空之说。此三时教的说法,有依释迦说法年月先后来区分的,称年月次第;有依了义与不了义来区分的,称义类次第;还有兼年月次第与义类次第来区分的。撰述成唯识论掌中枢要称唯识教理是第一,在大乘法苑义林章中使五重唯识的真理体系化;法相宗以六经十一论为所依经论,使三时教判更加清晰、明朗。而圆测的教判在根本形式上采用了三时教判的模式,对三时教判作出了独特的解释。他认为三时教判具有相对性,他所关心的问题不是在三种教之间的差别上,而是在三种教义之间的道理上。他主张三时教与时间的前后没有关系。第五章,介绍了两法师唯识教学与根本差异。在认识的对象论上,窥基主张有相论,肯定“存在的实在”,而圆测主张无相论,肯定“存在的非实在”;在思维对象论上,圆测根据龙树·清辨等的大乘空思想,从胜义谛的立场出发,把“所诠的意味论”作为思惟对象。而窥基则根据“护法说”,从世俗谛的立场,把“言语论”作为思惟对象,从认定被认识对象的实在的立场出发,认定存在的实在性,这是两者的相违说;对于唯识三十颂的分析,根据古代印度论师的三种分析方法,唐窥基把现象和存在分成相·性·位三类加以说明时,从三性和三无性的角度进行否定,从唯识的角度说明修行的位。他继承三性说(三性即遍计所执性、依他起性、圆成实性)且结合唯识说,认为三性也不离识,谓诸识生起之时,现似见分与相分两分是依他;意识从而周遍计度,执为“能”、“所”二取,则是遍计所执为了使一切众生成佛,圆测认为自性主体是没有差别的,但佛法的相和性是不同的,菩萨教说的话是“言教”,而教说的内容从“意味”的角度说明,虽然话的体是声,但思惟对象的体则是意味。关于教法的论体,窥基把总体论分为四种教体论来说明存在论,而新罗圆测则把摄妄归真门,把摄妄差别门的2种教体论当作基本,再一次细分和说明。同时又介绍了四分成立说和四分相的关系。并阐述了窥基和圆测在这一方面的不同见地。第六章,主要介绍了五性各别说和一性平等说的差异。成佛是佛教的最终目的。但是法相宗的立场不容许一切众生都能成佛,所以主张五性各别说。圆测从一性皆成的立场主张一切众生都能成佛。法相宗主张‘会一立五’思想,而圆测积极引用经文的内容阐明自己的主张,把统合两种潮流的论争和思想作为目标;圆测的一性皆成论的主张以羽溪了谛论文为代表,圆测以橘川智诏论文为代表归属于五性差别说的门下。羽溪了谛认为西明虽然属于唯识宗,但他继承真谛一性皆成说,不赞同五性差别说。而橘川智昭认为《瑜伽论》、《善戒经》等是关于圆测五性差别说的论文。圆测的一乘观是通过“实说一乘假说三乘”和“实说三乘假说一乘”的融会来展开的。五种种性说属于印度后期佛教大乘有空、无著、世亲的哲学体系。玄奘把五种种性说传授给窥基。窥基用唯识所现来解释世界,认为世界现象都由人的第八识即“阿赖耶识”所变现,而前七种识再据以变现外境影像,缘虑执取,以为实在。又认为在阿赖耶识中蕴藏着变现世界的潜在功能,即所谓种子。其性质有染有净,即有漏无漏两类。有漏种子为世间诸法之因,无漏种子为出世间诸法之因。从而说明未来出世者种姓有声闻、独觉与菩萨三乘之别,又有不定为何乘之“不定种姓”与三乘也不得入的“无种姓”,因而建立五种姓说。这与向来所说一切众生皆有佛性之说不同,是该宗中心思想之一。窥基《枢要》中五性个别说的总体特征是,不仅仅将其作为方便论证自身观点的一种文献,对一性皆成家所依的教义也加以论证研究。窥基以“小分一切”去会通《涅槃经》中所说的“一切众生悉有佛性”。除了把“小分一切”的一切解释为一阐提之外,还用这种方式论证五性差别。在《涅槃经》中,慈恩派主张一阐提不成佛论,而圆测则主张一阐提成佛论,两位法师各自用不同的方式展开了论战。更多还原

【Abstract】 Most scholars believe that there are differences between the vijn～apti-ma^trata ideas of Yuan Ce and Ci En;however,few of them have tried to explain in detail what are the differences,and further explore what brings about such differences.This treatise focuses on the comparative study between the vijn～apti-ma^trata ideas of Yuan Ce and Kui Ji,analyses in detail their differences and similarities,and then further probes the reasons causing such differences.This treatise is divided into six chapters.The first chapter makes a general introduction to the present research in the field of contemporary vijn～apti-ma^trata,explaining the contributions made by such a^bhidha^rmikas as Asanga,Vasubandhu and Xuan Zang to the development of Chinese vijn～apti-ma^trata and vijn～apti-ma^trata zong.At the same time,this chapter also analyses the significance of making such a comparative study between the vijn～apti-ma^trata ideas of Yuan Ce and Kui Ji as follows.Firstly,making clear the differences between the two parties of vijn～apti-ma^trata zong is beneficial to judge whether Yuan Ce’s vijn～apti-ma^trata idea is true miscreant.Secondly,Yuan Ce didn’t totally take Dharmapāla’s vijn～apti-ma^trata idea as orthodox Kui Ji doctrine, nevertheless,he absorbed all the vijn～apti-ma^trata ideas of the ten a^bhidha^rmikas, which led to the formation of a more reasonable and integrative vijn～apti-ma^trata doctrine.Thirdly,Kuiji faithfully inherited Xuan Zang’s vijn～apti-ma^trata idea,and therefore continued the Dharmapāla tradition,which contributed to the foundation of Faxiang zong based on his doctrines in Vijn～aptima^trata^siddhi-s/a^stra.In the second chapter,the author introduces the life story of Yuan Ce and his thought origins.Yuan Ce and Xuan Zang inherited from the same master.Kui Ji was Xuan zang’s student.Yuan Ce had many original ideas,which were different from those of Kui Ji,and thus initiated Korean vijn～apti-ma^trata zong.Although he was envied and prejudiced as a miscreant by Kui Ji’s students,later his reputation has been restored with the discovery of his doctrine which spread as far as Tibet and Dunhuang.In spite of this fact,very little research has been made on Yuan Ce in the religious circle during the following 1000 years,and thus it seems that people will gradually forget him.In this chapter,the author firstly introduces Yuan Ce’s school experiences,works and how he founded Xi Ming Study Case.Then the author focuses on the influence of Bodhiruci and Parama^rtha’s vijn～apti-ma^trata ideas on Yuan Ce,as well as his study on both the new and the old vijn～apti-ma^trata ideas.Relevant ideas to Yuan Ce’s vijn～apti-ma^trata doctrine in Maitr=eya,Asanga and Vasubandhu’s works have also been mentioned.Yuan Ce has tried to use the concept of "sequence of artha-gati" to solve the difficulty of "sequence according to period" among "classification of sutra of three periods" in vijn～apti-ma^trata zong.He has set up his own point of view with a critical heritage from vijn～apti-ma^trata of bhava-abhava.As his doctrine usually holds a middle ground,without any prejudice against either party of vijn～apti-ma^trata zong, he can effectively combine the ideas of Madhyamika and vijn～apti-ma^trata.He believes "all flesh have Buddha-nature",which can be a proof.This is also the characteristic of his vijn～apti-ma^trata doctrine.In the third chapter,the author introduces the life story of Kui Ji and his relation with Faxing zong.At 17,he ran into religion,became a disciple of Xuan Zang,and began to participate in Xuan Zang’s project of translating sutra at 25.His main contribution not only lies in the assistant work of translating sutra,but also includes detailed annotated work for newly translated sutra.During the period of translating sutra, Xuang Zang often instructed Buddhist disciples his own insights on sutra.Kui Ji was often in company when Xuang Zang gave instructions,so he remembered a lot and made most of his annotations under instruction of Xuang Zang himself.Thereby Kui Ji was also called "master of one hundred annotations" for he made far more annotated work than others.His annotated works are of great significance to the study of vijn～apti-ma^trata,as they are abundant in number,subtle in explanation,as well as good at concentrating and constructing theoretical system.Huizhao,one of his disciples, was the founder of Faxiang zong.Huizhao was also called the great master of Cien,as he often lived in the big temple of Cien.Huizhao associated frequently with the dignities in Wutai Mountain,therefore he had close relation with Cien zong in Wutai Mountain.Later his works were introduced to Japan,and became classics of Japanese Faxiang zong.This treatise concentrates on the origins of Kui Ji’s vijn～apti-ma^trata idea,pointing out the influence of Xuan Zang’s vijn～apti-ma^trata idea is the key.The fourth chapter mainly deals with Body of sutra and Classification of sutra. Body of sutra is the noumenon of Buddha’s Dharma,which studies the nature of Buddhism.The author explains Yuan Ce’s view on Body of sutra,his way of thinking on Body of sutra and the contents of his thoughts.In addition,the Classification of sutra in Tiantai zong is also mentioned,which has divided Buddhism into "five periods" and "eight kind methods of cultivation".Kui Ji accepted the idea of"Classification of sutra of three periods" in Sam!dhi-nirmocana-su^tra,and established the Classification of sutra based on the classification of Buddha’s Dharma.Kui Ji classified Buddha’s Dharma as "bhava","s/u^nya","madhyama^-pratipad","three periods" according to Sam!dhi-nirmocana-su^tra and Yogaca^rabhu^mi.Bhava is the first period.In order to break a^tma-gra^ha of pr!thag-jana,Buddha instructes a^gama in Mr!gada^va to declare catvary a^rya-satya^ni,dva^das/a^n%gaprati^tya-samutpa^da,pan～ca skandha^h!.This is the doctrine of a^tma-s/u^nyata.S/u^nya is the second period.In order to break abhinives/a of dharma,Buddha instructs prajn～a in Gr!dhraku^t!a, explains the troth of s/u^nya of dharma and makes it understood by common flesh,who will therefore give up hi^na-ya^na to accept maha^-ya^na.This is the doctrine of s/u^nya of dharma,madhyama^-pratipad is the third period.In order to break abhinives/a of s/u^nya,Buddha instructs sarva-dharma,vijn～a^na and so on.This is called the doctrine of s/u^nya of dharma of vijn～a^na.Three periods can be distinguished according to the sequence of Buddha’s giving instructions,which is called "sequence according to period";it can also be distinguished according to ni^ta^rtha and neya^rtha,which is called sequence of artha-gati;Some distinguish it by both. Zhang zhong shu yao of Vijn～aptima^trata^siddhi-s/a^stra views vijn～apti-ma^trata dogma as the first;Fa yuan yi lin zhang of maha^-ya^na systematizes the truth of vijn～apti-ma^trata of five levels;Faxiang zong is based on six su^tra and eleven s/a^stra, and makes Classification of sutra of three periods more clear and intelligible.Yuan Ce’s Classification of sutra basically adopts the mode of Classification of sutra of three periods,while he makes his own explanations to it.He believes Classification of sutra of three periods is relative,so he focuses on the relation among the three dogmas rather than their differences and insists that Classification of sutra of three periods have nothing to do with the sequence of time.In the fifth chapter,the author introduced the essecential difference between Kuiji’s and Yuance’s thought.On the aspect of object of knowledge,Kuiji advocated the theory of sa^ka^ra,and approved "truthfulness of existence";while Yuance advocated the theory of ainmitta,and approved "nihility of existence".On the aspect of object of thought,basing his thought on maha^-ya^na s/u^nya zong of Na^ga^rjuna and Bhavya, and taking the position of Parama^rtha,Yuance regarded meaing as the object.However, Kuiji based his thought on Dharmapa^la’s theory,took the position of sam!vr!tti-satyatva,and regarded "language" as object of thought.Furthermore,on the position of holding the object being "truthfulness of existence",he advocated reality of existence.When anlylizing Vijnaptimatratasiddhi-trimsai-kakarika-sastra,Kuiji categorized the phenomenon and existence into laks!an!a prakr!ti and svabha^va and explained them according to three kinds of methods of a^bhidha^rmika of ancient India. In his explanation,he showed his doubt in perspectives of tri-svabhava and trividha^ nih!svabha^vata^,and explained the anukrama of study on the angle of Vipacyana in Consciousness.He inherited theory of tri-svabhava and Vipacyana in Consciousness, and holded that tri-svabhava cannot exist without vijn～a^na,which means as consciousness appears,it forms para-tantra-svabha^v,then mano-vijn～a^na abhiniru^pan!a^-vikalpa,and takes the seperation of "subject" and "object",which is parikalpita-svabha^va.For the sake all flesh becoming Buddha,Yuance holded subjects have no differeen in svabha^va.Nevertheless,laks!an!a and prakr!ti are different in Buddhism.What Bobhisattva has said is only language,and the content must be acknowledged from the perspective of meaning.On dharma and body,Kuiji seperated them into four aspects to analysize the theory of exitence;while Yuance took She wang gui zhen men and She wang cha bie men as two basic categories,and make further explanation.At the same time,the author introduced the relation of Si fen cheng li shuo and Si fen xiang,and states the different ideas of Kuiji and Yuance on this aspect.The 6th chapter mainly introduces the difference between "difference among gotra" and "all flesh have Buddha-nature".To be Buddha is the ultimate goal of Buddhism.Nevertheless,Faxiang zong,which didn’t deem that all flesh can be Buddha, avered "difference among gotra".Yuance held the opinion that all flesh can be Buddha from the standpoint of all flesh have Buddha-nature.Yuxiliaodi considered Yuance inherited Parama^rtha’s notion of "all flesh have Buddha-nature",and disagreed "difference among gotra",though he belonged to Faxiang zong.But Juchuanzhizhao thought that Yuance avered "difference among gotra".Yuance’s ekaya^na- idea evolved through digesting "discussing ekaya^na really while tri^n!i ya^na^ni feignedly" and "discussing tri^n!i ya^na^ni really while ekaya^na feignedly".Gotra belongs to the philosophy system of India’s late- Buddhism,including maha^-ya^na bhava,Asan%ga and Vasubandhu.Xuanzang imparted gotra to Kuiji,who used vijn～apti-ma^trata^ to explain the world.He thought phenomena were all visualized from a^laya,while vijn～a^na considered phenomena as hypostatic.Besides,in his view,a^laya contains a potential that can change the world,which is called Bi^ja.Bi^ja consists of two parts, sa^srava and srava.The former is the cause of loka-dharma coming into being,and the latter asam!skr!ta-dharma.Thereby all flesh contains three types,s/ra^vaka, pratyeka-buddha and bodhi-sattva;it can also be divided by aniyataikatara-gotra and non-gotra.Consequently,gotra was established.It differs from the theory of all fresh have buddha-dha^tu.The general characteristic of the "difference among gotra" in Kuiji’s Shuyao is that not only to consider it as a kind of proof of itself,but also to analyze the literature quoted by those who avers "all flesh have Buddha-nature".Kuiji used "Shao fen yi qie"to understand"all fresh have buddha-dha^tu",which is said in Maha^-parinirva^n!a-su^tra.He interpreted"Shao fen yi qie" as icchantika;what’s more,he demonstrated the differences among gotra by this way.In the Maha^ -parinirva^n!a-su^tra,Faxiang zong thinks icchantika cannot be Buddha,but it can in Yuance’s view.Therefore,the two sides debated in their own way.更多还原