孟子性善论与印度佛教佛性论之比较  

A Comparison between Mencius’ Theory of Goodness Nature and Indian Buddhism’s Theory of Buddha Nature

作　　者：冯北仲 FENG Beizhong(School of Chinese Language,Literature and History,Shaanxi University of Technology,Hanzhong 723000,Shaanxi)

机构地区：[1]陕西理工大学人文学院,陕西汉中723000

出　　处：《陕西理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第1期37-44,共8页Journal of Shaanxi University of Technology(Social Science)

摘　　要：孟子学说为宋明理学提供了本土哲学的理论基础,最终确立了儒学的官方正统地位。孟子主张的性善论学说,批驳了“性无善无不善”的观点,肯定了人人皆有善“四端”以及“人皆有不忍人之心”的善性,进而得出“尽心知性知天”的天人合一论。印度佛教发源于印度大陆,大乘佛教讲“法空”,主张“人人皆有佛性”的佛性说。小乘佛教讲“法有”,主张自性说。孟子性善论与印度佛教佛性论在价值取向、思维方式、修养途径和政治功用四个方面存在差异,两者在注重成就个体的理想人格和心性论方面又有融通契合之处,并对当今社会具有一定的启示意义。The theory of Mencius provided the theoretical basis of local philosophy for the Song and Ming Neo-Confucianism, and finally established the official orthodox status of Confucianism. Mencius discussed human nature and refuted the view that “there is no good or bad nature in human being”, affirming that everyone has the “four origins” of goodness nature and “everyone has the heart to not bear others’ suffering ”. Then he came up with the theory of the unity of heaven and man, and established the theory of the goodness of nature. Indian Buddhism originated in mainland India. Mahayana Buddhism teaches “Dharma emptiness” and advocates the Buddha nature theory that “everyone has Buddha nature”. Theravada Buddhism says “Dharma being” and advocates the theory of self-nature. There are differences between Mencius’ theory of goodness nature and Indian Buddhism’s theory of Buddha nature in four aspects: value orientation, way of thinking, way of cultivation and political function. The two theories are in harmony with each other in attaching importance to the achievement of individual’s ideal personality and the theory of heart, and have guiding value to the present society.

关 键 词：孟子 性善论 印度佛教 佛性论 差异 融通 

分 类 号：B222.5[哲学宗教—中国哲学]