潮州讀書會2 NanZen Study Club2

 南禪28號潮州讀書會2

 

讀書會問題之1，比較太虛大師跟虛雲老和尚的入定境界，

 

把以前讀過的資料，找出來看，

我的眼光通常是比較全面性的，因為「入定」通常佔據的時間不多，而影響一位修行者的是很多有關於他個人的遭遇跟時代背景，

 

所以我喜歡用比較全面性的問題來看待，最近會想為什麼我當年沒有去追陳寅恪先生的研究，

 

剛好讀書會有問題要回答，就去找一下來做個解答，入定也應該去看看，修行者的背後背景，或許可以了解到更多。

 

半寄

 

 

以下AI資料： 陳寅恪先生的佛學研究與日本學者（如高楠順次郎、宇井伯壽、鈴木大拙等）的關係，可以用**「同源而異流」**來形容。   兩者在20世紀初都深受歐洲「東方學」（Orientalism）的洗禮，強調利用梵文、巴利文、藏文等多種語言對勘佛典。但在研究的終極關懷上，兩者存在著顯著的差距：   1. 研究動機的差距：以佛證史 vs. 以佛證佛   這是兩者最大的分歧點。 • 陳寅恪（以佛證史）： 他對佛教教義（如涅槃、空性）的哲學辯證興趣不大。他研究佛學是為了**「補史之闕」**。 他想知道的是：這個佛經故事如何演變成中國民間傳說？這部譯經如何反映了當時的民族遷徙或政治權力？   • 日本學者（以佛證史/佛學主體）： 日本擁有深厚的宗派傳統，日本學者（如宇井伯壽）的研究更傾向於**「佛學主體化」**。 他們致力於建立嚴密的「印度哲學史」或「佛教邏輯學（因明）」，側重於教義的演變與哲學體系的構建。   2. 資料處理的差距：微觀考據 vs. 宏觀集成 • 陳寅恪： 像是一名**「外科醫生」**。他往往從一個極小的點切入（如一個譯名、一個神話原型），精確地解剖出背後的歷史真相。他的作品多為隨筆、跋文，缺乏像日本學者那樣的大型通史著作。   • 日本學者： 像是一群**「建築師」。日本學界在20世紀完成了驚人的基礎建設，例如編纂了《大正新脩大藏經》**（這是現代佛學研究的標準版本）。他們的研究通常具有極強的系統性，涵蓋從原始佛教到大乘各宗派的完整發展史。   3. 語言應用的差距：考據工具 vs. 文獻整理 • 陳寅恪： 他將梵、巴、藏語視為**「偵探工具」**。他能利用語言的細微差別發現漢譯佛經的誤譯， 進而推翻某段歷史記載。   • 日本學者：  他們將多語言對勘**「標準化」**。日本學者如荻原雲來、河口慧海等人， 對梵、藏文獻的整理是全面性的，旨在還原整部經典的原始風貌，而不僅僅是為了解決某個歷史問題。   具體優劣對比表   陳寅恪 核心目標：解決中國中古史問題 主要貢獻：發現佛經對中國文學、史實的滲透 研究視野：民族、政治、文化交流史 侷限性：缺乏系統性的佛學理論著作   日本學術界（20世紀中期） 核心目標：建立佛教哲學與歷史體系 主要貢獻：完成《大正藏》編纂、系統化印佛史 研究視野：宗教學、文獻學、心理學 侷限性：早期部分研究帶有強烈的宗派成見。

 

 

NanZen Study Club in Chaozhou on March 28 2

 

The first question in our study club concerns a comparison between the meditative states of Master Taixu and Elder Master Xuyun.

 

I looked back at materials I had previously read. My perspective is usually more comprehensive, because “entering samadhi” does not occupy most of a practitioner’s time. What truly shapes a cultivator is often their personal experiences and the historical context in which they lived.

 

So I prefer to approach such questions from a broader perspective. Recently, I have also been wondering why I did not pursue research on Mr. Chen Yinke in the past.

 

Since the book club required an answer, I decided to look up relevant materials and prepare a response. When discussing meditative absorption, we should also examine the background of the practitioner. This may help us gain a deeper understanding.!

 

Master Banji

 

 

AI Data Mr. Chen Yinke’s study of Buddhism and the work of Japanese scholars like KōnanJunjirō, Ui Hakuju, and Suzuki Daisetsu can be described as “coming from the same source but going in different directions.” In the early 1900s, both were influenced by European Orientalist scholarship. They compared Buddhist texts in Sanskrit, Pāli, Tibetan, and Chinese. However, their main goals were quite different. 1. Different Goals • Chen Yinke: He did not focus much on Buddhist philosophy itself, such as nirvana or emptiness. He studied Buddhism mainly to solve problems in Chinese history. For example, he asked: How did a Buddhist story become a Chinese folk tale? What does a translation tell us about politics or ethnic groups at that time? • Japanese scholars: Japan had strong Buddhist traditions. Scholars like Ui Hakuju wanted to build Buddhism as a complete academic field. They studied Indian philosophy and Buddhist logic and tried to explain how Buddhist ideas developed over time. 2. Different Research Styles • Chen Yinke: He worked like a careful surgeon. He would start from one small detail—such as a translated word—and use it to uncover historical truth. He mostly wrote essays instead of large, systematic books. • Japanese scholars: They worked more like architects. They built large research systems. For example, they compiled the Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō, which became the standard modern edition of the Buddhist canon. Their work covered the whole history of Buddhism. 3. Different Use of Languages • Chen Yinke: He used Sanskrit, Pāli, and Tibetan as tools to check translations and correct historical mistakes. • Japanese scholars: They carefully organized and compared texts in different languages to restore the original form of entire scriptures. Comparison Table (Summary) Chen Yinke • Main goal: Solve problems in medieval Chinese history • Contribution: Showed how Buddhism influenced Chinese literature and history • Focus: Ethnic, political, and cultural exchange • Weakness: Did not build a full Buddhist philosophical system Japanese scholars (mid-20th century) • Main goal: Build a full system of Buddhist philosophy and history • Contribution: Compiled the Taishō Canon and systematized Indian Buddhist history • Focus: Religion, texts, philosophy • Weakness: Some early research was influenced by sectarian bias