Full recordShow full item record
Abstract关于吕澂唯识学的思维向度，可以用八个字来概括，即：正本澄源，返本开新。吕氏是从回归印度瑜伽行派（指护法所传、玄奘移植的唯识今学）路向中，寄托其在近现代中国社会人间佛教革新之祈愿。其特征是：回归是途径，批判是手段，革新是目的。 本文从四个方面来探究吕氏的唯识学思想：第一部分“正学”，阐述了吕澂对唯识学基本教义的理解，从教、理、行、证的范畴出发，一一进行界定判别、剖析辨明。第二部分“清源”，揭示了吕澂如何把唯识学溯源到印度佛学的律动性，他发现唯识学来源于小乘佛学的线索，还捏合唯识学与大乘般若学判若鸿沟的界限，并以唯识学为准绳对大乘如来藏学典籍《法华》、《华严》、《楞伽》进行重新判教。第三部分“料简”，探讨了吕澂对唯识学与中国佛学关系的简别，考证魏译《楞伽》为“错谬百出”、《楞严》乃“集伪说之大成”、《起信》是“伪书、似说”，然后对天台、华严、禅宗的“性觉”说进行批判，再把中国佛教的源头统统引入到唯识学上来，评判的标准是吕氏所宗的护法、玄奘系唯识学。第四部分“革新”，强调了吕澂是怎样致力于唯识学理论在社会实践中的推展工作，以“人间佛教”这个时代话题作为切入点，以实现其革新人生、变革人间社会的祈愿。 吕澂唯识学思想始终贯彻着“证伪存真”的批判精神，通过复兴玄奘传来的印度纯粹之唯识学，对中国佛学出现的种种弊端进行纠正。意图从“回归原典”的通路中开出中国佛教，乃至人生、社会新的风貌出来。这种“返本开新”的佛学研究路径与现代性是息息相关的，作为居士佛学的代表，他也在积极思考如何把佛学理论推向现代化进程，与整个时代民主、科学的浪潮相顺应。吕澂的唯识学思想既有正面价值，又有负面效应。吕氏是一名具有国际佛教学术水平的学院派哲学家，他的批判理性同时也给佛教界和思想界造成了极大的心理压力，故而多遭到摈斥、弃绝。如何在理性与信仰之间的张力中理解吕澂是一个交织的两难问题。
Lü Cheng’s consciousness-only philosophy on the dimensions of thinking can be summed up that: clarify the original source and return to open the new. Lü is sent from the regression line of the Indian Yogacara (Dharmapāla—Hsüan-tsang’s system) on the way of Buddhism innovation in modern Chinese society which is characterized by the channel of returning, the method of criticism and the goal of innovation. There are four parts included in this essay. In the first part of "positive learning", Lü Cheng’s philosophy is expounded on the basic consciousness-only doctrine from conception, creed, practice and result area to define, identify and analyze. In the second part of "original source", the rhythm is revealed that how Lü Cheng traces consciousness-only back to Indian Buddhism. He finds consciousness-only clues from Hinayana, also links the gap boundaries between consciousness-only and Mahayana prajna, and re-judges Mahayana Tathagatagarbha Sutras such "Lotus", "Kegon", "Lankavatara" as the criterion of Yogacara. In the third part of "analytical criticism", Lü Cheng explains the relationship between consciousness-only and Buddhism in China, he finds out many Errors in Wei translated "Lankavatara", the culmination of false in "Shurangama" and forgeries and non-truth in "Awakening of Mahayana Faith", then criticizes original enlightenment of Tendai, Kegon and Chan Buddhism in order to introduce the source of all Chinese Buddhism to consciousness-only philosophy. The evaluation criteria is Dharmapāla—Hsüan-tsang’s department. In the fourth part "innovation", it is stressed that how Lü Cheng applies consciousness-only theory on social practice of Worldly Buddhism as an entry point in this era of topic so as to achieve his wish of revolutionary life and changeable human society. Lü Cheng’s consciousness-only thinking is always implemented the critical spirit of "non-falsification and truth". He corrects the drawbacks of Buddhism in China through the revival of Hsüan-tsang’s consciousness-only purely from India and intends to open the new style of Chinese Buddhism, even life and society from the "returning of original code". This "origin returning and new opening" path of Buddhist studies is closely linked with modernity. As a lay Buddhist representative, he is also actively considering how to use Buddhist theory in the process of modernization, following the wave on the era of democracy, science. There are both positive and negative effects in Lü Cheng's consciousness-only philosophy. Lü is an international academic standards of academic Buddhist philosopher, but his criticism of reason more was rejected, renounced because of causing great psychological pressure on the Buddhist community and thinkers. It is a cutting dilemma on the tension between reason and faith in the understanding of Lü Cheng.