期刊文献+

论韩愈眼中的佛道文学 被引量:1

Buddhist and Taoist Literature in Han Yu's Eyes
原文传递
导出
摘要 韩愈历来被视为儒家排挤佛道最重要的代表,但他对于佛道文学则不乏认同,一则认同其恢奇之风格,一则认同其平淡之风格。究其因,首先在于儒释道三家的思想体系都能容纳这两种风格;其次在于当时士人面对时代困境,需要通过这两种风格克服自己内心的痛苦。儒释道三家在此点上遂得以共通,韩愈的态度即是其例。然而韩愈坚定的儒家立场使其不满足于风格气质的克服,他需要在其中注入实质的道德内容,所以他对于佛道文学的认可只停留于浅层,实质上仍对其予以辨斥。这说明韩愈实际上已意识到儒家与佛道之间根本性差异的问题,这些问题在后世乃成为新儒学体系建设之焦点。 Han Yu has long been considered as the most important representative of the Buddhism-banishing and Taoism-banishing Confucians. But he showed his appreciation for Buddhist and Taoist literature to a certain degree. On the one hand, he appreciated their style of huiqi (恢奇, singularity), while on the other hand, he spoke highly of their style of pingdan (平淡, plainness). Firstly, this is because of the compatibility of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism with these two different styles. Secondly, this is because the scholars at that time needed these two different styles to overcome their inner anguish caused by the predicament they were faced with. Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism shared something in common at this point. Han Yu's attitude was a typical example for this compatibility. But his firm standpoint of Confucianism made him unsatisfied with merely overcoming his inner anguish by using the two different styles. He needed to put substantial morality into his thinking. So his appreciation for Buddhist and Taoist literature only rested on the surface level, and in essence he still banished Buddhism and Taoism. This suggests that Han Yu had actually been aware of the fact that Confucianism was essentially different from Buddhism and Taoism. This issue became the focus of system-constructing for later New-Confucianism.
作者 杨朗
出处 《北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》 CSSCI 北大核心 2014年第2期89-95,共7页 Journal of Peking University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)
关键词 韩愈 佛教文学 道教文学 恢奇 平淡 Han Yu, Buddhist literature, Taoist literature, huiqi (恢奇, singularity), pingdan (平淡, plainness )
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

  • 1《咏怀诗》之五十四,陈伯君.《阮籍集校注》卷下,北京:中华书局1987年版,第351页.
  • 2陈柱《证韩篇》且认为韩愈"道统"之说本于《庄子·大宗师》及《孟子·尽心下》,《韩愈文集汇校笺注》卷一,第45页.青.
  • 3方介.《韩、柳对儒、释、道的取舍》,《韩柳新论》,台北:学生书局1999年版,第347—349页.
  • 4艾蒂安·拉莫特(EtienneLamotte).《对佛教文本解释的评价》,唐纳德·洛佩兹编.《佛教解释学》,周广荣、常蕾、李建欣译,上海:上海古籍出版社2009年版,第1—16页.

同被引文献14

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部