| Project/Area Number |
11410006
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
印度哲学(含仏教学)
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Nagoya University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
KATO Junsho Nagoya University, Graduate School of Letters, Professor, 文学研究科, 教授 (40101638)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
SUGIYAMA Hiroyuki Nagoya University, Graduate School of Letters, Professor, 文学研究科, 教授 (50135274)
MIYAJI Akira Nagoya Uuiversity, Graduate School of Letters, Professor, 文学研究科, 教授 (70022374)
WADA Toshihiro Nagoya University, Graduate School of Letters, Professor, 文学研究科, 教授 (00201260)
OHNO Hideto Aichigakuin Univereity, Faculty of Letters, Professor, 文学部, 教授 (10113060)
SAITO Akira University of Tokyo,Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Professor, 大学院・人文社会系研究科, 教授 (80170489)
佐野 公治 名古屋大学, 文学部, 教授 (90086166)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1999 – 2001
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2001)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥14,700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥14,700,000)
Fiscal Year 2001: ¥3,600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,600,000)
Fiscal Year 2000: ¥3,600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,600,000)
Fiscal Year 1999: ¥7,500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥7,500,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Daichidoron (『大智度論』) / Mula-madhyamaka-karika (『根本中頌』) / Nagarjuna / Hyakuron (『百論』) / Kumarajiva / Jujubibasharon (『十住毘婆沙論』) / Mirokudaijobutsukyo (『弥勒大成仏経』) / Zoku-Kosoden (『続高僧伝』) / 百論 / 大荘厳経論 / 衆経撰雑譬喩 / 弥勒大成仏経 / 十住毘婆沙論 / ヴァイシェーシカ思想 / 無表 / 無作 / akriya / Bodhicaryavatara / Navya-nyaya / ガンダーラ / 吉蔵 / 智ぎ / 鳩摩羅什 / 空性 / 成実論 / 西域 / 僧叡 / 三論宗 / Vaisesika学派 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
1. Kato has found brief but complete quotations of the『十住』、the『百論』、and the『弥勒』etc, which are also translated by Kumirajiva in the Daichidoron. By investigating how Kumarajiva's translations are quoted in the Daichidoron, it will become clear to what extent he is concerned with this text. It is also sure that only by the investigation of the quotations in the Daichidoron., we can nat survey its author problem.
2. Takeda claims that it is necessary for this problem to clarify what is the genuine theme of the Daichidoron.
3. Saito has discussed differences between the Daichidoron and the Mula-madhyamaka-karika.
4. Wada has more deeply clarified the Vaisesika thought presented by the Padlctha-dharma samgraha. This clarification helps to understand the Daichidoron.
5. By comparing the Daichidoron and the Sutras belonging to the Maitreya Group and by illustrating the figures of the Maitreya found in Central Asia, Miyaji has claimed that the Maitreya cult prevailed in various places through the Silk Road in the period.
6. By using the Zoku-kosoden (『続高僧伝』), Ohno has proved that the Daichidoron was studied extensively in the period of Sui and early Tang that Kichizo (吉藏) of the Sanron (三論) School criticized the Daichidoron from a political point of view even though he often utilized this text, and that great influence of the Daichidoron eventually bore fruit in the Samadhi system of Tendai-Chigi (天台智〓). We have not arrived at the conclusive view of the author problem of the Daichidoron, but we believe that we have made an important step forward in our research on this text.
|
