藏传因明与汉传因明的异同

藏传因明与汉传因明虽同源印度,由于汉藏两地文化背景的差异,发展成为两种不同理论体系的因明学说。本文分析这两种因明学说在发展历史和思想理论方面的异同,旨在进一步探求因明学说的发展走向和寻求因明研究的合理方法。     

藏传因明推论式与形式逻辑“三段论”

藏传因明推论式是以“因三相”原理进行逻辑推理的一种二支推论武。因它简化了古印度因明的论式成份，从而摆脱了三支论式的传统模式，使因明推理这一复杂的混合性推理逐步趋向于简明、科学的形式逻辑推理格式。这一重大改进，不但象征着因明逻辑在我国藏区得到了充分发展，而且标志着因明推理已发展到一个更为科学的新的高度。二支推论式是藏传因明区别于印度因明的一大特点，也是藏传因明优于世界其它因明的一个重要标志。为进一步研究藏传因明推理的特点与科学价值，我们将藏传因明二支推论式与形式逻辑三段论在推理方法与规则上的异同作…     

吐蕃西夏文化交流与西夏藏传风格唐卡

藏语称西夏为mi-nyag,这一称呼既指西夏建国以前的党项人,也指西夏建国以后的西夏人。【1】《西夏纪事本末》卷首“西夏地形图”记西夏陵为“木纳西夏祖坟”,“木纳”即“木雅”minyag。【2】论及西夏与吐蕃的历史文化联系,从公元7世纪初党项羌与吐蕃王朝发生联系开始,到13世纪初西夏亡国时为止,长达600多年,其间你来我往,水乳交融,是中国历史上较为少见的现     

内蒙古藏传佛寺壁画与唐卡中的地域特色

本文以元代遗存的一幅唐卡为引入点,阐述藏传佛教绘画融入的蒙古元素。明末格鲁派再次传入漠南蒙古土默特部地区,在内蒙古掀起了建寺高潮,清代藏传佛教格鲁派在内蒙古的发展达到鼎盛。从内蒙古地区遗存的明清壁画、唐卡中可以看到逐步融入佛寺绘画的内蒙古地域特色。文章列举了内蒙古佛寺壁画中的蒙古元素,以及在佛寺发现的有蒙文题记的唐卡和博物馆收藏的多幅反映蒙古族民俗风情、偶像崇拜的唐卡,以此证实,这些画作为蒙古族在吸收藏文化中出现的本民族绘画特色。     

海棠山摩崖造像与阜新地区清代密教特征

佛教以其造像众多而称“像教”,由汉代初传至晋,造像尚具有浓郁的犍陀罗的风格。南北朝出现具有汉族士大夫瘦骨清相、褒衣博带特点的造像,及至唐代,造像的结构更趋于合理生动,佛、菩萨神态庄严、形象饱满、特征中原化,体现大唐活泼自信的审美情怀,故唐代佛教造像有“菩萨如宫娃”之喻。同时由于密教的流行,神奇而狰狞的密教造像也开始出现。元明清三朝是密教盛行时期,由尼泊尔艺术家阿尼哥传授的“梵式”造像自元代流传下来,并由西藏传入内地,不同程度地与中原传承的唐代造像风格相融合,进而形成内地略异于西藏的密教造像风格。清代,密教的弘传有着特殊的政治背景,内地的密宗造像是以当时著名的佛教圣地如承德、北京、五台山为中心的。东部地区密宗造像则一直鲜为人知,该文介绍的正是有“黄教东部中心”之称的阜新蒙古族自治县的密宗摩崖造像。     

吐蕃西夏历史文化渊源与西夏藏传绘画

藏语称西夏为ｍｉ ｙａｇ。这一称呼既指西夏建国以前的党项人 ,也指西夏建国以后的西夏人。① 论及西夏与吐蕃的历史文化联系 ,从 7世纪初党项羌与吐蕃王朝发生联系开始 ,到 1 3世纪初西夏亡国时为止 ,长达 60 0多年 ,其间你来我往 ,水乳交融 ,是中国历史上较为少见的现象之一。②唐时 ,吐蕃和党项部落之间的战争使得大批的党项人归属于吐蕃王朝治下 ,两族杂居者为数众多 ;雅隆王朝解体以后 ,东迁河陇、河湟一带的吐蕃人与内徙的党项人部落杂居共处 ;西夏建国以后 ,上述地方有很大一部分吐蕃人成了西夏的“编户齐民”。吐蕃与党项统治者之…     

藏传因明"定义与被定义"理论探析

定义与被定义理论是藏传因明的重要逻辑内容,历代藏族学者都非常重视对它的研究。经过历代藏族学者的不断努力和发展,这一逻辑理论到现在已经达到了全面、系统、臻熟的地步。藏传因明对"定义"理论的研究,不仅是多层次和多角度的,同时对"定义"理论的各细节性和终极性问题作了深入细致的探究和总结。因此,本文以现代文论的形式,对其"定义与被定义""非定义与非被定义"理论作了较深刻的分析研究和总结归纳。     

藏传七音品音阶体系与民族五声音阶体系之比较

论述藏传七音品体系和民族五声音阶体系的异同;两种音阶体系有着怎样的不同源流;从音律学的角度对藏传七音品体系与民族五声音阶体系中各音的缘起进行比较研究;并探讨两种体系里音的产生和音乐美学观的异同。     

杭州飞来峰藏传名刻造像的风格渊源与历史文化价值

本文通过分析飞来峰造像雕造过程、蒙元时期以至后期蒙古喇嘛教美术的历史 ,认为飞来峰造像间接反映了西夏藏传美术的影响 ;同时探讨了飞来峰布袋弥勒和尚对藏传佛教罗汉造像中“和尚”图像的影响 ;并强调了飞来峰造像的历史文化价值 :它是一座我国各民族共同创造中华民族文化的里程碑。     

西藏西部佛教石窟中的曼荼罗与东方曼荼罗世界

近年来,我国考古工作者在西藏西部的东嘎、皮央等地调查发现了一批佛教石窟,这一发现不仅极大地丰富了西藏高原佛教艺术的宝库,也填补了我国石窟寺艺术在空间分布上的空白,引起国内外学术界极大的重视与关注。 西藏西部石窟壁画中有大量的密教美术题材,其中尤其是以东嘎洞窟所绘的大幅密宗曼荼罗图最为精美、最为丰富多彩。作为一种特殊的密教图案,曼荼罗在东方佛教美术世界中占有十分重要的位置,在南亚印度、尼泊尔等国以及东亚的中国、日本等国历史上都曾经一度甚为流行。但现存于世的曼荼罗图案,却仅在藏密系统的中国西藏、尼泊尔、拉达克,以及称之为“东密”的日本密教中得以保存流传至今。本文拟通过对于西藏西部石窟壁画中的曼荼罗遗存与这些地区密教曼荼罗图像的比较研究,揭示东方曼荼罗世界在表现形式与精神象征等方面的异同,进而探讨其文化上的相互关系。     

关于卫藏地区几处佛教石窟遗址的调查与研究

佛教传入吐蕃之后 ,佛教石窟寺艺术也随之在西藏高原兴起。开凿石窟、雕刻塑造佛像之风在当时的政治、宗教、文化、经济中心拉萨初开其端 ,被称之为“吐蕃第一窟”的拉萨药王山查那路甫石窟 ,便是其中的一处重要的早期石窟寺遗存。① 但由于田野考古工作的局限 ,长期以来 ,学术界对西藏高原这一佛教艺术重要的表现形式并未能够从文献与考古材料两方面加以认真的识别与研究 ,西藏一直被认为是佛教石窟寺艺术分布图上一个几乎是空白的地区。近年来 ,随着西藏西部以皮央、东嘎石窟遗址为代表的一批石窟遗址的考古发现 ,② 学术界对这一问题的研…     

北魏石窟寺中的“双窟”与“二圣”政治

北魏天安到太和时期(466-490),在云冈、麦积山等石窟寺营建过程中,出现了具有鲜明时代特色的双窟样式,其规模宏大、内容丰富、雕刻精湛,融合了诸多中原及西域造像特征,是外来佛教艺术中国化的重要标志之一。它与当时北魏文明太后冯氏和献文帝、孝文帝共同临朝执政有密切关系,也是世俗政治力量在佛教窟龛造像中的具体反映。     

川青藏交界地区藏传摩崖石刻造像与题记分析——兼论吐蕃时期大日如来与八大菩萨造像渊源

文章对川藏青藏交界地带现今公布的9世纪前后吐蕃时期的摩崖造像及其古藏文题记内容进行了系统的著录考释,并就各处造像之间在构图、题材、图像特征之间的联系进行了分析.文章重点探讨了这一区域大日如来与八大菩萨图像与风格的来源及其与敦煌与藏区西部同类图像的关系.     

含过渡金属水滑石的合成与表征

用中温水热法合成了含过渡元素钻的类水滑石[CdxMg6-xal2（OH）16][S·2H2O]，并用XRD、FT-IR和EPR等手段进行了表征。     

书风的时空性 ——巩义石窟寺北朝造像题记的风格特征与成因

巩义石窟寺北朝造像题记产生并生存在魏晋南北朝动荡的时代背景下,却能一直保持着相对稳定的书风特质.政权的更替、文化的多元、地域的特殊等空间因素对这一时期的石窟寺造像题记交替熏染,丰富了石窟寺北朝造像题记的风格内涵,本文以巩义石窟寺北朝造像题记的书法风格为主线,将这一时期的书法风格特征做一个梳理和归纳,并根据结果进行推导、...     

乡土传统与精神指归——石舒清创作心理解析

石舒清的文学创作依托宁夏南部山区回族村落的社会生活背景,阐释了一种具有地方性特色的文化。其文本流露出底层立场、恋土情结、怀旧心理、神秘主义体验、尚洁意识等主体创作心理,并从中折射出作者的文化心理:作为农民之子认同乡土传统的农耕文化之根;作为回回后代承续宗教信仰的民族文化之根。     

石达开的“爱民”与大渡河的悲剧——评石达开远征与西南少数民族

天京事变以后,石达开远征出走,最后在大渡河全军覆没。许多研究石达开的人,曾从各个不同的角度探索了这个血的教训。有的认为主要是由于“天时”,即山洪暴发,抢渡失败,“祗以命薄时乖,故尔事拂人谋”。有的认为主要是由于“地理”,即误入紫打地绝     

拱心石与神王——施鲁克人的nyikang神与神圣王权的研究

In his famous book The Golden Bough,James Frazer mentioned one special custom found along the shores of Lake Nemi in Italy. The forest king who lived beside Lake Nemi, was not only once a prisoner, but also the murderer of his predecessor. Why did the King have to be killed? How could he be killed? This was the very starting point of James Frazer’s divine kingship study. This was in contrast to the common idea held in many cultures, that kings, or even gods, would die. However, in the most primitive societies, kings and gods also had a symbolic duty. People be-lieved that their king took the responsibility to maintain the order of society and the natural world. In that case, it was obvious that if the king became old and weak, the society and order would be in danger. The way used by primitive people to solve this problem was to kill the king when he became weak, and to rebuild this symbol of order through the accession of a new king. This worry about the loss of order and fertility, Frazer explained, was the reason why they choose to kill their king, who was also a god to them. To prove his theory, Fra-zer used many examples. Among them, the exam-ple of the Shilluk of Nilotic Sudan was the only real case of a people killing their king. All the kings were possessed by the spirit of Nyikang, who was not only a hero and king in their history, but also the god who created the universe of the Shilluk people. In Shilluk, it was not the king who ruled the country, but the spirit who possessed him. For that reason, once the king showed his weakness and age, he had to be killed or commit a suicide so as to keep Nyikang in a healthy body. This case was mentioned by James Frazer, re-examined by Evans-Pritchard, and discussed by Henri Frank-fort and David Graeber. The Shilluk people lived in Sudan, in the Ni-lotic area alongside the Nile River. Their kingdom consisted of y many hamlets and occupied by linea-ges. But all these hamlets and lineages shared the same king, who was believed to be the descendant of their semi-divine hero and first king, Nyikang. Nyikang was believed to bring the fertility of men, of cattle, and of the crops. He lived among his people and blessed them. He was a mythological figure who represented a changeless moral order and the stable structure of the state. The Shilluk people believed that the king was the embodiment of Nyikang, and, thus, shared his divinity. All the Kings were believed to be descended from Nyi-kang. The king could be killed for two reasons:when he could no longer satisfy his wives, it was time for him to die and make room for a more vig-orous successor; or he would be killed by one of the prince who coveted the shrine at night. There were many graves of kings and of Nyikang all a-round the kingdom, but all the Shilluk people knew that Nyikang was not buried in any of them, he would never die. The king, however, was the container of the Nyikang’s spirit. Thus, after his death, he was no longer divine, so his funeral would be a clan affair rather than a national affair. In Frazer’s opinion, Shilluk kings confirmed their rule and power by maintaining their connec-tion with the god, Nyikang. And, he gained divin-ity from this connection. However, this divinity was not permanent. In the same way, the stability of the Shilluk social order was also not permanent, so the complete failure of that power would cause the danger to the entire society. When the new king ascended the throne, the social order would be re-established. So, to kill the old king when he could no longer take responsibility for the whole of society was the way for the Shilluk to release the tension and handle the danger which resulted from their king’s death and to keep the social order. Several decades after the publication of The Golden Bough, Evans - Pritchard gave a talk at The Frazer Lecture ( 1948 ) . He looked at the Shilluk custom of killing their king together with the social structure of the Shilluk kingdom, and pointed out some of the unreasonable explanations made by James Frazer. He believed that this cus-tom, which Frazer explained as the way the Shilluk maintained the divinity of kingship, had political reasons and social functions. Based on his field-work, Evans - Pritchard described the political structure of Shilluk as follows: Shilluk hamlets consisted of one to fifty different families. Each hamlet was occupied by members of an extended family or a small lineage. The headman of a hamlet was also the head of a lineage in the settlement. All the Shilluk settlements composed a common polity, i. e. the land belonging to the Kingdom of Shillukland. There were two chiefs in the hierarchy between the king and the settlements. These were the Ger, who represented northern Shillukland, and the Luak, who represented the southern shil-lukland. Those two chiefs each ritually represented half of the kingdom, and they played a very impor-tant role in the election of the new king. Evans-Prichard discovered that there were very close con-nections between the kings, the princes and their villages where they were born. The pregnant wives of the kings would be sent back to their natal villa-ges to bear their children, and the princes were brought up by the headmen of their natal villages. Except them, all of the princes had their royal cli-ents ( Ororo) in the villages. These were the com-panions of the prince, so they would live in the capital with the prince if he was chosen to be the king, and would return to their village to guard the king’s tomb. This information will help us to see and understand the social structure of Shilluk soci-ety. The dual balanced structure of Shilluk society was represented by the southern-northern opposi-tion. We find that the Shilluk kingdom had a double configuration—one that was politically re-flected in its territorial division, which was divided into northern and southern parts, and the other one was ritually reflected in the rituals related to the cult of Nyikang. The king and the capital specific-ally stayed in the center. As Evans - Pritchard said, Northern Shillukland and Southern Shil-lukland were the arches of the kingdom of Shilluk, and kingship was the keystone. This duality was clearly represented in the election system and in-vestiture. The investiture of the new king would take place about a year after his election. Since this ceremony was meant to rebuild the social or-der, all the hamlets would participate in it. After the old king’s death, the spirit of Nyikang would no longer stay in his body. Instead, it would move to an effigy of a hamlet which was in a far north dis-trict of Shillukland. The effigy would be sent by the army of north to the outskirts of the capital, where there would be a ceremonial war with the king’s army. Since Nyikang was in the northern army, it was obvious that the king would fail. Then, the ef-figy of Nyikang would be put on the king’s chair. Then, the king would sit on the chair, and, as a result, the spirit of Nyikang entered into the body of the new king. Now, there would be another war— because Nyikang had entered into the body of the new king, the northern army failed, and, they would then take the effigy back to the shrine. This ceremony not only illustrated the tension be-tween the north and the south of Shillukland, but also the tension between the god Nyikang and the human king. And all these tensions were resolved through a unified kingship. We find that Shilluk society, no matter whether within the vertical and horizontal structure of the southern -northern op-position, or among the different hamlets, they all had different objects to show their loyalty. Howev-er, all these differences would be reduced when they faced a unified national symbol— Nyikang or divine kingship. The king did not belong to any single tribe or hamlet after the ceremony. He be-came the symbol of the happiness and continuity of all the Shilluk people. From this ceremony, Evans -Pritchard re -explained the reason for the special custom of the Shilluk. He asserted that in Shilluk society, the king’s death would cause chaos and many dangers. The king had died in the way they described be-cause they were afraid of exposing the tensions hid-den within the social structure. So, this tradition was only a political myth hidden under the facts. The second kind of death of the king was that he was killed by a prince. Evans-Pritchard believed that all Shilluk princes received support from their natal villages. If all the tribes had their own king, the Shilluk kingdom would definitely be torn apart. So, they still needed a center from which to build the whole kingdom, i. e. the kingship. In a king-dom of this kind, if the king attached himself to one hamlet, other hamlets would fight for their own rights. So, because the kingship was permanent and ensured the unity of the whole kingdom, it should be emphasized. In contrast to Evans-Pritchard’ s structural-functionist explanation, the American archaeolo-gist, Henri Frankfort, made his analysis of the customs of the Shilluk based upon the methodology of mythology. He compared the divine kingship of Egypt and Shilluk in his book Kingship and the Gods. And, based upon the process of the combi-nation and separation of the king and the gods, he discussed the function of divine kingship. In E-gypt, the pharaoh was called “the Lord of Two Lands”. This title involved two gods who were en-emies:Horus and Seth. They were respectively the Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt. Even when Seth had been defeated by Horus, it did not mean that he totally disappeared. This is because he had his own function within the existing order. Horus was not only a mythological figure, but also was one which reflected on the pharaoh. The pharaoh was always regarded as Horus or his embodiment. This idea is quite similar to the connection of Nyikang with the Shilluk king. However, in Egypt, there was another god who had a close connection with the kingship, that is, Osiris. In Egypt, the dead king was believed to change into Osiris, and the king on the throne, just as Horus, was regarded as the son of Osiris. Beside this connection, in the myths, Osiris was said to be the “Ka ” of Horus, which was something like energy, and for the king, it was somewhat like a kind of ruling power. This kind of father-son relationship also ex-isted among the Shilluk people. When Evans -Pritchard described the ceremony, he mentioned that Dak, the son of Nyikang, was also honored. However, in Shilluk, Nyikang meant all the kings, no matter whether dead or alive. What was more important is that Shilluk kings themselves were not gods, they were just processed by Nyikang, and it was Nyikang who was the real ruler. That was the reason why the accession ceremony of the king was so important. However, in the Egyptian view, the concept of kingship itself was more complicated than that of the Shilluk. All the Egyptian kings themselves were gods, and their orders, as god’s order, must be obeyed. So, although there was a stable kingship in the two societies, the roles played by the king were totally different. However, we can still find some basic elements of the divine kingship from these two cases. Because the king himself was a human being, he would definitely turn old and die. In order to resolve the social stress caused by the succession of the kingship, the kingship had to be stable. So, the king must have a relationship with the gods. It was the god and the kingship that maintained the unity of this structure. In 2011 , David Graeber published his paper titled The Divine Kingship of the Shilluk in which he used theories from political science to discuss the relationship between Nyikang and the Shilluk king . He tried to use this case to understand the e-mergence of the state and power. He compared the political status of Shilluk with their myth and cos-mology. He proposed three very important con-cepts:i) divine kingship which was absolutely dic-tatorial and had god-like authority—and was one in which this divine god went beyond the morality;ii) the sacred kingship which was ritualized and exemplary—this was a kind of prophetic and legis-lative king ; iii) violence and antagonism with no reason - the subject of the violence was the sover-eign and the people. All of these three concepts, David Graeber said, could be found in the Shilluk Kingdom. That was not because they were so -called primitive ethnic groups, but because this kingdom was a “Utopian State”. In other words, this kingdom, or the construction of its main cit-ies, was an imitation to the cosmic order, and, therefore, did not need a management institution to rule it. However, because this could never exist in the real world, violence appeared. David Graeber divided the kingship into two types: the divine and the sacred. In the former, the king was believed to be the god itself. And, in the latter, the kings were those who brought and created order. However, if order was set up by a king, it was asked whether or not the king himself still stayed within the order? So, the extreme type of sacred kingship would be the denial of the limi-tation of the king’s life. David Graeber suggested that the King of Shilluk did not have real power. The responsibility the Shilluk king undetook was the order of the whole cosmos. When he became weak, he could no longer judge and rule based on the cosmology. This is the reason why he had to be killed. We can see that the king who ruled the state according to the cosmology was more like a divine king, so his fate was that he must be killed by people. However, after he was killed, the for-mer “scapegoat” became the god and was wor-shiped by the people. The social order was rebuilt because of the king’s death, and in doing so he be-came the embodiment of the strength needed to re-build the social order. So, we can note that in Shilluk society, although people expect stability and order, they cannot allow the rule to become a central control and monopoly. The king should be in the center of order, but because the king would definitely become old, people tried to reduce the disorder through killing him. Due to the limitations of the king, he was trapped in the absolute authori-ty of the divine kingship, and the infinite order of the order. Hence, he was killed again and again. The appearance of the king was to resolve the dilemma within this society. He tried to build a U-topia, but was trapped in it because of his own limitations. Just like the kings were killed con-stantly, the conflict between sovereignty and the people would never stop. David Greaber pointed out that this constant opposition was the origin of state. This opinion totally refuted existing political theories, o matter whether they were that of Max Weber or of those who believe that it was through making law and rules to solve the conflict or the so-cial tensions in Africa, for their opinions were based on the perspective of nation state. However, in Africa, at least in Nilotic Sudan, they were u-sing this conflict to build their state. Graeber’s ar-ticle indicated that in the war between the sover-eign and the people, the sovereign is limited, and can never win truly. It reveals a new possibility for the construction of a nation state and political sys-tem. To sum up the discussions above, we have found that in those societies with divine kingship, the reason for the king’s divinity was because he undertook the people’s expectation of a stable soci-ety, and the fertility of crops, and livestock. Be-cause these expectations were not stable in them-selves, people either believed that their king him-self was a god, or tried to ensure that their king was in a healthy state. The similarity between them was that people had to keep the kingship stable and reduce the tension and chaos caused by the king’s death. From their fear of disorder and the fear of powerful order, we can even find a variety of ways of thinking about a perfect and eternal order, as well as on an imperfect and limited life. Thus the King always connected with a stone, for people al-ways expect a stable and changeless eternity.     

节日文化展演与家族民俗保护——以吉林九台石姓满族龙年春节为例

石姓满族是吉林省九台市的世居满族,据家谱记载,其家族在此居住已有300余年历史。他们与当地的汉族、朝鲜族长期共处,其语言、信仰、生活习俗等方面都发生了较大变化,但这个家族一直保留着颇具民族特色的习俗文化,延伸着满族及其先民的传统信仰和丰富的精神文化生活。以石姓满族2012龙年新春节庆中的系列活动为背景,探讨该家族对满族民俗文化的传承与保护的当下意义。     

回忆与自我欺骗——石黑一雄《远山淡影》与《浮世画家》中的不可靠叙事

不可靠叙事是石黑一雄的小说中常见的叙事手段,而回忆正是他达成不可靠叙事效果的重要方式.在《远山淡影》和《浮世画家》中,记忆本身的不可靠性以及小说主人公出于种种原因的自我欺骗共同构建了扑朔迷离的故事,在体现个体内心挣扎的同时也展现出特定时代背景下人们的精神创伤.