法相唯识学与船山哲学

<正> 船山重视法相唯识学,近人时有发明。熊十力先生说,他早岁十分崇拜船山学问,后读佛典,“始知船山甚浅。然考船山遗书目录,有《相宗络要》、《八识规矩赞》二书,自邓显鹤、曾国藩之伦,皆莫为之刊行。诸为船山作传者,亦置弗道。吾臆船山晚年或于佛学有所窥,陋儒或讳其书不传,未可知耳。”(《新唯识论·心书》)梁启超在其《清代学术概论》中也说:“尤可注意者,遗书目录中有《相宗络索》及《三藏法师八识规矩论赞》二书。在彼时以儒者而知治唯识学,可不谓豪杰之士耶!”船山对法相唯识学如何理解?法相唯识学与船山哲学有何关系?船山于佛学研究为何独着意于法相唯识学?本文试作一些初步探索。     

唯识与唯了别——“唯识学”的一个基本问题的再诠释

一、问题的缘起对瑜伽行派的唯识学而言 ,“唯识”概念具有首要的意义。对“唯识”概念的不同诠释 ,导致了唯识思想的复杂发展。汉传玄奘唯识学派对“唯识”概念作了“单面化”诠释。其中“识”与眼识等八识的“识”同 ,即梵文的vijnana ;“唯识”相应即vijnana -matra(或vij nana -matrata,简为～ta)。而其“唯识”概念有两方面基本含义 ,一是遮诠义 ,即无离识的 (外 )境 ;二是表诠义 ,又分三 :( 1 )限定识唯有八 ,即眼识、耳识、鼻识、舌识、身识、意识、末那识、阿赖耶识 ;( 2 )识有四分 ,即相分、见分、自证分、证自证分 ;( 3)有不离识…     

梵本《唯识三十颂》汉译问题试解

近日重温了《唯识三十颂》的梵语原文和玄奘法师的汉语译文,同时也认真选读了《成唯识论》,做了一些研究,自觉有几点新知和收获。特别是对玄奘法师的《唯识三十颂》译文的准确性和艺术性加深了理解和确认,这在不小程度上使我自己能够澄清和解决有关玄奘法师《唯识三十颂》译文中的一些“热点”问题。一、梵语“vij`apti”一词的解释记得不久前有学者对《唯识三十颂》梵本原文中“vij`apti”一词出现在梵本《唯识三十颂》的第2、3、17、25、26、27六个颂里,其中除第2、3两个颂外,其余四个颂的vij`apti(识)是与mqtra(唯)组成一个复合名词“vij…     

无为依唯识学在印度的发展

一、无为依唯识学在印度的发展简述无为依唯识学[1]是在瑜伽行派根本唯识学发展时期由弥勒、世亲的著述(如《究竟一乘宝性论》、《辩中边论》、《大乘庄严经论》、《佛性论》等)提出的,与《瑜伽师地论》、《摄大乘论》、《唯识三十颂》等提出的有为依唯识学构成瑜伽行派唯识学的两支。“无为依唯识”作为一个概念描述范型,可以看成是用“无为依”对“唯识”的一个限定。“无为依”意为,无为法心性真如是一切法(万有)之根本所依,这主要从本体论意义上而言。“唯识”则指一切法的唯心(识)性,以及一切法以心为因而缘起,主要从识境论以及缘起论(…     

评熊十力所著书(续三)

七、评所谓世亲护法的唯识论多从数论胜论脱胎而出《新唯识论》第六十六页至六十七页云:“大乘以一心而分为八(自注云:此心本是浑一之全体,故曰一心,而大乘乃分之为八),每一识又非单纯,乃为心、心所组合而成。大乘建立种子为识因缘(自注云:利子为能生识之因缘,识即是种子所生之果),无著造《摄论》授世亲,明种子有六义。第四曰决定,第六日引自果。世亲释云:言决定者,谓此种子各别决定,不从一切,一切得生(自注云:意云,非一切种子各各能遍生一切法)。从此物     

第九识的建立及争议

多数唯识学经论中,皆说心由八种识构成。如《入楞伽经》卷九谓“心意识八种,俗故相有别”——从世俗谛而言,心识有八种。但有些佛经中于八识之外还说涅槃心、真识、如来藏识、阿摩罗识等为清净离染的真常心,它究竟是第八识所转,还是八识底层的最深心灵构件第九识,或是心识的体性,是一个中国佛教界直到今天尚有争议的重大问题。一、真识、如来藏识、根本心、泥洹识、阿摩罗识《楞伽》等经论中虽然有阿赖耶识即如来藏的说法,但又多处说阿赖耶识是应断灭的杂染法或生灭与不生灭和合,而如来藏是纯净无染、不生不灭的,阿赖耶与如来藏并非完全同一…     

耿宁唯识学研究管窥

胡塞尔现象学和玄奘唯识学都是对意识或心识的卓越研究。耿宁通过对二者的比较得出了这样两个结论:意识一般之三分结构、过去之特殊现实性。但是他对玄奘唯识学中四分说的性质的理解可能并不准确,这导致他依据三分说来质疑唯识三世说。玄奘四分说本质上是一种意识发生学描述,陈那三分说才是意识结构描述。唯识学三世说可以在发生学上借"自缘返缘"结构得到完满说明。     

熊十力与内学院的《新唯识论》之争评议

《新唯识论》问世后即饱受争议,熊十力与内学院诸君曾为此多番辩难。通过回顾双方几次正面交锋的情况,可知熊十力对唯识学的一些关键性概念的理解是有意误读,而刘定权对熊十力的批评多为意气之辩,吕澂则意在借批评《新唯识论》抨击整个如来藏佛教宗派,只有王恩洋对《新唯识论》的回应是立足《新唯识论》义理本身而发。实际上,《新唯识论》之争在佛教内部是唯识学与如来藏学之争的延续,而内学院诸君与熊十力之间的根本分歧在于双方儒佛立场的不同。     

论唯识学的第八识及其种子

本文着重讨论了佛家唯识学是如何通过建立第八识及其种子学说,以解决众生的生死轮回与觉悟解脱等等问题。     

佛教唯识学与荣格人格发展理论的比较研究

佛教唯识学与荣格分析心理学都强调心识拥有复杂的内部结构和独立的动力系统.心识与外界环境的相互作用使得每个人心识的发展具有不同轨迹,构成个体独特的人格特征,这个过程荣格称之为"个性化"进程,而佛教唯识学认为此过程主要是八个识的相互作用,本质上是第七末那识的"我执"以及第八识种子的功能.     

"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.     

"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".     

“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。     

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     

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.     

"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…     

"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.