净影慧远与嘉祥吉藏的判教思想及其意义

慧远以二藏、四宗、顿渐局来判释佛陀所说经教.吉藏则以二藏三法轮来判释佛教经教.二者的共同之处在于皆以二藏判教思想为旨归.慧远、吉藏的二藏判教思想,是对整个南北朝判教思想的总结,标志着南北朝佛教判教思想的成熟.     

佛教常识答问

问:什么是八教?答:此宗从教理的内容上把佛教分为浅深不同的四个级别,就是藏教、通教、别教、圆教,称为“化法四教”。藏教是声闻小乘教;通教,通前小乘,通后大乘,通大小乘的大乘初级名为通教;别教是纯大乘教,但分别诸法各别有碍名为别教;圆教是大乘圆融无碍、圆满无缺的法门称为圆教。藏、通、别、圆就是以从浅至深为次第的四教。此宗又从佛陀说法的机感不同,将佛的教法分为顿、渐、秘密、不定四种,称为“化仪四教”。     

六乘次第论

释尊出世,说法四十余年,开示如来知见,所说经教,积数千卷。言说教诫之外,还有秘密付授的心印、放光、表示、口耳、定中(甚深净境)等传承。所开法门,何止八万四千。对此众多法门,《华严》《解深密》《法华》《涅槃》等大乘经中,就有一乘、二乘、三乘、三时、五味等分类分期之说,开“教判”、“判教”或“教相判释”之端。后来印、汉、藏等地区的诸宗祖师大德,又各立一家的判教说,如天台宗之五时     

慈悲与愿力:净影慧远判教观中的佛陀与众生

慧远的判教观,可以从佛陀与信众两个层面理解。佛陀层面,慧远从根本上否定以时间为判教依据的"顿渐五时判教"。慧远根据佛陀慈悲济世的立教本怀,认为佛陀可以在任何时间、地点,为追求大乘的信众开示究竟佛法,而不受时间的限制。所以,佛陀所说的大乘经教都是平等究竟的。信众层面,慧远认为声闻众和菩萨众的根本区别不在于"智力"而在"愿力",强调"愿力"在大乘佛教信仰中的核心地位。     

判教视域下的文明对话观

<正>一、判教的传统文化渊源判教,是佛教祖师们通过对印度佛教的思想资源和理论学说进行系统化的分析,按照佛陀说法的先后顺序或教义深浅进行判释,使之在教理体系中各安其位,并获得相应价值的一种理论模式。判教的意义在     

天台宗讲要(下)

佛救自汉代传入中国,到了南北朝时期,佛经的翻译既多,讲经、著述的风气盛极一时。那时讲经的法师,因各家师承的见解不一,怎样判摄佛陀一代所说的教法,也有各种不同的见解,最著名的共有十家,通称“南三北七”。南方三家比较单纯,大都从顿、渐、不定三类来判教,北方七家比较复杂,从主张佛说一音教至六宗的判释,异说纷陈。智者创立天台宗时,对“南三北七”的判教都不满意,遂以《法华经》为中心     

论天台智顗判教的三条标准

天台智者大师诠释《法华经》的目的,旨在将佛陀整个说教看成一个前后连贯的体系,其判释各种教相即是对一代佛教作体系化的梳理。大师之判教相,即是设立三条判教的标准,以为诸教有关教化方法和内容性质的特征做纲领性的定位。一曰根性融不融,二为化道始终不始终,三是师弟远近不远近。以下分述之。     

南北朝判教略说

南北朝时期出现了各种佛教判教学说。判教亦称教相判释 ,萌芽于大乘经典中对大小二乘的分判 ,由来华梵僧译介经论时将其传入 ,为中土高僧所继承和发展。在南朝 ,自慧观分二教五时始 ,经刘虬、成论师的发挥 ,形成了三教五时等判教。北朝的判教学说以地论师为主 ,出现了四宗、五宗、六宗等异说。南北朝判教是自印度传入的佛教获得创造性发展、实现自身形态中国化的非常关键的一步 ,是中国佛教创宗立派的先声     

多罗那他大师判教思想论略

藏传佛教的判教是判别佛教显密教法次第和高下的理论.多罗那他大师作为明代藏地藏传佛教觉囊派的中兴大师,他通过宗义阐释和密宗经典梳理的方式,对佛教显密教法进行了判释,立“大中观”为自派的“了义”见.这既是多罗那他大师修证体悟的结果,也是当时时代背景下回击藏传佛教其它教派诋毁、维护觉囊派独立的现实选择.     

《圆觉经》是一部什么书

《圆觉经》是《大方广圆觉修多罗了义经》的简称,一般认为是唐代(?)宾沙门佛陀多罗所译。 此经在经录中列于大乘修多罗藏,由于唐代宗密禅师在《圆觉经大疏钞》中提出此经“分同华严圆教”的说法,后世将此经更列入华严部。此经自在中国问世以来,就受到禅、教(天台、华严)各宗的重     

"Psychotherapy" versus "treatment"

Presents a comment on "Psychological treatments" by D. H. Barlow. Barlow proposed that we distinguish between the terms "treatment" and "psychotherapy." The author believes that not only is the distinction unnecessary, but that its implications could have negative consequences for the field of clinical psychology. It is the proposed distinguishing feature that treatments are "specifically tailored to the pathological process that is causing the impairment and distress" that is most problematic. Clinical psychology does not need a distinction that further exacerbates the split between researchers and practitioners.     

"Enmeshment" and "Fusion"

The paper examines two related concepts utilized by two different schools of family therapy. Any family seen to be "enmeshed" is also seen as "fused," and vice versa. The difference in the level of focus, on the "system containing the individuals" (structural) or the "individual in the system" (fusion), determines the difference in therapeutic approach of these two schools.     

“对的”与“好的”

什么是“对的”,和对它的证立,是道德哲学中具有争议性的核心问题,也是效用主义和道义论间的主要差异之所在。统合效用主义对于“好的就是对的”这个陈述有一套完整周延的说法。而道义论对这个问题的证立不够周延或没有足够的说服力。     

"本体论"与"伦理学"--形而上学的两个向度

形而上学有两个密切相关的内在向度,就是本体论向度与伦理学向度.在哲学史上,哲学家们之所以在"追求形而上学"的同时,又总是"反形而上学",并非是人们的形上本性出了问题,而是因为人们总是将形而上学视为单纯的"一维性",总是用一个向度来取代或遮蔽另一个向度.而所谓的"后形而上学思想",也并不是消解了形而上学,而是指形而上学从"本体论向度"转向了"伦理学向度".     

从"管制"到"平衡"--政府与公众理想关系模式的构建及其制度化

论文从行政民主的角度探讨政府与公众之间的理想关系模式及其制度化构建过程 ,将我国在改革之前的政府与公众模式概括为管制模式。论文指出 ,在制度变迁的过程中 ,这一模式日益受到挑战。而在新的制度环境下 ,我国政府与公众的关系模式应该是平衡模式。这一模式的制度化措施包括培育自主的市民社会 ,赋予公众以独立的活动空间 ;促进行政公开 ,建立一个开放负责的政府 ;推进行政法建设 ,抑制行政恣意     

"石狮"、"风水"与"吉祥"

谁都知道,在古老的中国,不管是衙门、宫殿、庙宇的门前,还是豪宅、大户人家的门口,人们都能看到摆着一对石狮。据说,这对石狮子在许多中国人的心目中,它不但是一种气派的象征,而且还是一种被人认为是好的“吉祥物”。如今,旧时的衙门没有了,但遗留下来的宫殿、庙宇的门前,其中有些石狮仍有保存。然而,想像不到的是,这号称“吉祥物”的石狮今天却开始“走”进某些党政机关的大门口,它们(石狮)在那里时时都在保护着这些政府要员“平平安安”、“吉祥如意”。这不仅使我联想起一些极端的报道,有些政府官员为升迁,请算命先生定位,用风水术为政府…     

PREFERRING "HOUSEWIVES" TO "FEMINISTS"

Four studies are described outlining the favorability of attitudes toward women. In Study 1, participants indicated their attitudes toward women and men and their construal of the term "women". The results revealed that women were evaluated more favorably than men, but that male right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) who construed women as referring primarily to feminists were least favorable in their attitudes. In Study 2, participants indicated their attitudes toward both "housewives" and "feminists". The results revealed that feminists were evaluated less favorably than housewives, and that the most negative attitudes toward feminists were expressed by authoritarian men. Study 3 revealed that high-RWA males held more negative symbolic beliefs concerning feminists (i.e., beliefs that feminists failed to promote participants'values) and that these beliefs accounted for variation in attitudes among high RWAs and much of the RWA-attitude relation. Finally, Study 4 revealed that high RWAs perceived greater value dissimilarity between them-selves and feminists. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.     

"Us" and "Them":

Abstract: In the Aristotelian tradition, politics is a matter of public deliberation over questions of justice and injustice. The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has been uniformly hostile to this notion, and it has instead promoted a jingoistic politics of self‐assertion by an America largely identified with the executive branch of its government. This is doubly disturbing, as the executive branch has sought to free itself from international law, multinational commitments, and domestic judicial regulation, even as it has sought to validate itself by demonizing its enemies. This essay draws out the disturbing echoes here of Carl Schmitt's work of the 1920s, in particular of Schmitt's conception of the sovereign as the ungrounded ground of the law and the political as the site of mortal conflict between friend and enemy. The essay argues that Schmitt's position in the twenties, for all of its evident problems, is superior to that of Bush, Wolfowitz, and Ashcroft in at least two senses: Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the “inhuman”; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one's enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination.