汉地佛教与藏传佛教本土化之历史考察

Localizing Han and Tibetan Buddhism:A Historical Study

本文对印度佛教在汉地和藏区本土化发展的历史轨迹进行了考察 ,并对二者进行了比较。作者着重根据自己爬梳藏文文献所得资料 ,对佛教在藏地本土化的历史过程进行了论述。作者指出 ,佛教在两地本土化的路径可分为前宗派时期和形成宗派后两个时期。前宗派时期 ,在汉地表现为佛教始终居于已有社会体制之外 ,自身则逐渐吸收本土的文化因子 ;在藏地 ,表现为与当地的制度建设相融合 ,并致力于自身的体制化。形成宗派后 ,两地佛教宗派的发展一方面具有相似的内在逻辑 ,另一方面 ,在教义教规、修持方式以及与政治的关系等具体问题上 ,则呈现出历史的多样性。在汉地 ,佛教同汉地之儒、道两家发生了既相互排斥 ,又相互吸收的关系。其结果 ,一方面是佛教的儒学化 ;另一方面 ,是儒学冶儒、释、道三教于一炉 ,建立了以心性义理为纲骨的理学体系 ,儒、佛、道三教并行不悖 ,形成了以儒为主 ,以佛、道为辅的不均衡三角关系。在藏区 ,首先是佛教的苯教化 ,之后 ,佛教居于主导意识形态的地位 ,而苯教则吸收了佛教的理论、体系和仪轨 ,成为“阳苯阴佛”的佛教化的苯教 ,退居边缘 ,佛教与苯教从而形成了“中心—边缘”的格局。文末 ,作者从文化传播的角度 ,对印度佛教在汉地和藏区本土化发展不同历史轨迹所体现的内在逻辑进?

An account is offered of the localization of Buddhism in Han and Tibetan regions following its introduction from India, based on a close reading of Tibetan manuscripts and documents. Each region's history is divided into pre-sectarian and sectarian periods. In the pre-sectarian era, Buddhism was excluded from local social institutions in the Han area while gradually assimilating local culture; in Tibetan regions it entered into local institutional construction, itself undergoing institutionalization. As different sects formed, Buddhism developed along a similar intrinsic logic in each area, yet was greatly diversified in terms of doctrines, methods of practice, and relations with politics. In the Han area, mutual rejection and permeation of Buddhism with Confucianism and Taoism took place. While on the one hand Buddhism was Confucianized, on the other, a new school, lixue (later dubbed Neo-Confucianism), featuring concepts like xin (mind), xing (nature), yi (principle) and li (norm), arose, combining Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. Confucianism now took a dominant position over Buddhism and Taoism. In Tibetan areas, Buddhism, having been influenced by the indigenous Bon religion, gradually attained dominance. Bon itself, however, having drawn from Buddhist theology, system and rituals, was ultimately marginalized. A centre-periphery relation took form between Buddhism and Bon. We conclude with an account of the inner logic of these divergent development paths in terms of cultural communication.