本研究計畫的主旨，在於釐清東晉廬山慧遠(334-416 C.E.)詮解《大智度論》的哲學觀點，反思其觀點與《大智度論》是否一致。若是一致，則檢視多數研究視慧遠為實在論者是否合理。反之，若非一致，則進一步探究慧遠帶著怎樣的前理解來詮解《大智度論》。 在《大乘大義章》中，慧遠數次援引《大智度論》的觀點與鳩摩羅什往來問答。若細究文本脈絡，可發現慧遠詮解《大智度論》的觀點似乎是某種實在論的型式，歷來的慧遠研究中，多數也將慧遠視為實在論者。然而，《大智度論》對實在論乃採取批判的哲學立場，若慧遠是實在論者，其詮釋觀點與文本如何相容？是否這是慧遠多元思想的詮釋結果？若是如此，仍可視慧遠為實在論者嗎？ 針對以上議題，本研究希望能細緻地處理並作適當的回應。最後，本研究希望藉由慧遠佛學詮釋的影響作為基礎，未來將逐步沿著《大智度論》在中國被接受、理解與詮釋的脈絡，探究《大智度論》如何影響與開展中國佛教哲學之論述。 This research project is mainly an inquiry into Lushan Huiyuan’s (Eastern Jin dynasty； 334-416 C.E.) views and interpretation of the Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa (Da-zhi-du-lun,大智度論, hereafter abbreviated as MPPU). It moreover reflects on whether or not his viewpoints are consistent with the MPPU. If indeed they are, my research will focus on the question of whether or not it is reasonable to consider Huiyuan a realist. If, on the other hand, his views are found to be inconsistent with the MPPU, I will look to establish what kind of pre-understanding led Huiyuan to his unique interpretation of this work. In The Main Ideas of the Mah?#257；na (Da-sheng-da-yi-chang(《大乘大義章》), Huiyuan recorded his dialogues with Kum?j? in which he cited various ideas from the MPPU. Upon reading the context in more detail, Huiyuan’s interpretation of the MPPU appears to be a form of realism. Hence, he has often been portrayed as a realist. However, the MPPU stood very much in criticism of realism. If Huiyan were indeed a realist, how it is possible that his interpretations are consistent with the MPPU? Could it be that his viewpoints were rooted in his background of various philosophical traditions? And if so, would it be fair to still consider Huiyuan a realist? My aim is to respond to the above-mentioned issues in an appropriate manner. And lastly, based on Huiyuan’s Buddhist interpretations, I shall look at how the MPPU shaped and established Buddhist philosophy in China through an understanding, interpretation and acceptance of the MPPU.
