重新思考杨文辉在与Jōdo-Shinshū的论战中作为“中国”净土佛教徒的身份

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Jakub Zamorski
{"title":"重新思考杨文辉在与Jōdo-Shinshū的论战中作为“中国”净土佛教徒的身份","authors":"Jakub Zamorski","doi":"10.1080/23729988.2020.1763684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article I would like to re-examine the doctrinal debate that ensued between the Chinese Buddhist layman and scholar Yang Wenhui (1837–1911) and Japanese priests of the Jōdo-Shinshū 淨土真宗 school – notably Ogurusu Kōchō (1831–1905) and Naiki Ryūsen (1861–1922) – between 1899 and 1901. The debate in question has been most often portrayed as a clash between two divergent understandings of Pure Land Buddhism that developed independently of each other in China and Japan. Yang’s arguments have been taken to illustrate larger exegetical and doctrinal tendencies characteristic of the ‘Chinese’ approach to the Pure Land, regarded as quite foreign to Japanese readers. However, as will be argued below, Yang did not participate in this debate merely as a spokesman for a putative generalized ‘Chinese’ Pure Land Buddhism; he was also an apologist who weighed in the ongoing domestic Chinese debates on the Pure Land, and a reformist who played a pivotal role in the process of negotiating a modern orthodoxy for the so-called ‘Pure Land tradition’ of China.","PeriodicalId":36684,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Chinese Religions","volume":"6 1","pages":"201 - 219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23729988.2020.1763684","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking Yang Wenhui’s identity as a ‘Chinese’ Pure Land Buddhist in his polemics against Jōdo-Shinshū\",\"authors\":\"Jakub Zamorski\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23729988.2020.1763684\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this article I would like to re-examine the doctrinal debate that ensued between the Chinese Buddhist layman and scholar Yang Wenhui (1837–1911) and Japanese priests of the Jōdo-Shinshū 淨土真宗 school – notably Ogurusu Kōchō (1831–1905) and Naiki Ryūsen (1861–1922) – between 1899 and 1901. The debate in question has been most often portrayed as a clash between two divergent understandings of Pure Land Buddhism that developed independently of each other in China and Japan. Yang’s arguments have been taken to illustrate larger exegetical and doctrinal tendencies characteristic of the ‘Chinese’ approach to the Pure Land, regarded as quite foreign to Japanese readers. However, as will be argued below, Yang did not participate in this debate merely as a spokesman for a putative generalized ‘Chinese’ Pure Land Buddhism; he was also an apologist who weighed in the ongoing domestic Chinese debates on the Pure Land, and a reformist who played a pivotal role in the process of negotiating a modern orthodoxy for the so-called ‘Pure Land tradition’ of China.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Chinese Religions\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"201 - 219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23729988.2020.1763684\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Chinese Religions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1095\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23729988.2020.1763684\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Chinese Religions","FirstCategoryId":"1095","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23729988.2020.1763684","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要在这篇文章中,我想重新审视中国佛教门外汉、学者杨文辉(1837-1911)与日本神道会牧师之间的教义争论淨土真宗 1899年至1901年间,学校——尤其是Ogurusu Kōchō;(1831–1905)和Naiki Ryúsen(1861–1922)。这场争论通常被描述为两种对净土宗的不同理解之间的冲突,这两种理解在中国和日本相互独立发展。杨的论点被用来说明更大的训诫和教义倾向,这是“中国人”对待净土的方式的特点,对日本读者来说是相当陌生的。然而,正如下面将要讨论的那样,杨并没有仅仅作为一个公认的“中国”净土宗的发言人参与这场辩论;他还是一名辩护者,参与了中国国内正在进行的关于净土的辩论,也是一名改革派,在为所谓的中国“净土传统”谈判现代正统观念的过程中发挥了关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking Yang Wenhui’s identity as a ‘Chinese’ Pure Land Buddhist in his polemics against Jōdo-Shinshū
ABSTRACT In this article I would like to re-examine the doctrinal debate that ensued between the Chinese Buddhist layman and scholar Yang Wenhui (1837–1911) and Japanese priests of the Jōdo-Shinshū 淨土真宗 school – notably Ogurusu Kōchō (1831–1905) and Naiki Ryūsen (1861–1922) – between 1899 and 1901. The debate in question has been most often portrayed as a clash between two divergent understandings of Pure Land Buddhism that developed independently of each other in China and Japan. Yang’s arguments have been taken to illustrate larger exegetical and doctrinal tendencies characteristic of the ‘Chinese’ approach to the Pure Land, regarded as quite foreign to Japanese readers. However, as will be argued below, Yang did not participate in this debate merely as a spokesman for a putative generalized ‘Chinese’ Pure Land Buddhism; he was also an apologist who weighed in the ongoing domestic Chinese debates on the Pure Land, and a reformist who played a pivotal role in the process of negotiating a modern orthodoxy for the so-called ‘Pure Land tradition’ of China.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Chinese Religions
Studies in Chinese Religions Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信