{"created":"2023-05-15T11:19:00.177727+00:00","id":20,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"9013cc7c-ef74-45cf-aaab-3c774788dabf"},"_deposit":{"created_by":9,"id":"20","owners":[9],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"20"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:kogakkan.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000020","sets":["21:104","2:17"]},"author_link":["43","40"],"item_10002_biblio_info_7":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"2016-03","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicIssueNumber":"2","bibliographicPageEnd":"86","bibliographicPageStart":"65","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"皇學館大学研究開発推進センター紀要"},{"bibliographic_title":"Bulletin of the Research and Development Center of Kogakkan University","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_10002_description_5":{"attribute_name":"抄録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"本論考は、全真教を「新道教」とするこれまでの研究史の枠組みを再検討したものである。全真教は従来、同時期に勃興した太一教・真大道教と並び、「新道教」とされてきた。この「新道教」とう用語は、日本人研究者の常盤大定に始まる。常盤は全真教が仏教の影響を受け、従来の迷信から離脱したとして評価した。だが常盤自身、僧籍を持つ仏教研究者であり、ここには仏教中心の視\n点がある。一方、中国でも陳垣が全真教と太一教・真大道教を「新道教」と呼び、北宋の遺民として金に抵抗したとして評価した。そこには抵抗史観がその背後に存在している。\n戦後、窪徳忠は両説を受け、Ｍ・ウェーバーの宗教社会学理論を念頭に、全真教・太一教・真大道教を「新道教」と位置づけた。ここには両説を総合したことによる矛盾が見られるものの、全真教を「新道教」とする位置づけはここに完成したといえよう。\n新中国が誕生すると、中国では全真教はマルクス主義による歴史観の下、階級闘争の先鋭化を妨げたとして否定的な評価が下された。ただし改革開放以降、全真教などを「新道教」と見る陳垣の主張が復活してきている。他方、日本では宮川尚志が「旧道教」とされた林霊素や張伯端以下の内丹道の点検を行い、また秋月観暎は浄明道を「新道教」に位置づけようとした。なお欧米では「新儒教」という用語に関する議論は見られるが、現在のところ「新道教」という用語は定着していない。\n全真教を「新道教」ととらえる日中の研究史の背景には、近代史の影響が色濃く投影されている。しかしこれは「新道教」や「旧道教」とされる諸派に対して先天的な評価を下したり、必要以上の両者の断絶を強調したりすることにつながる危険性がある。今後、全真教研究を進めるにあたってはそれぞれの持つ時代意識に注意しつつ、実証主義的な研究を進めていくことが必要であろう。\n","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"},{"subitem_description":"This paper re-examines the framework of research which has regarded the Quan-zhen sect(Quan-zhen-jiao 全真教) as “Neo-Daoism (新道教)”.\nThe Quan-zhen sect, alongside the Tai-yi sect (Tai-yi-jiao 太一教) and the Zhen-da-dao sect(Zhen-da-dao-jiao真大道教) founded in the same period, has been considered as “Neo-Daoism”. The　first person who used the term “Neo-Daoism” was Tokiwa Daijo (常盤大定). He appreciated theQuan-zhen sect as detached from the traditional superstition affected by Buddhism. But Tokiwa　was a Buddhism researcher who was in the priesthood himself, so his research has a Buddhist perspective. And then, in China, Chen Yuan (陳垣) designated the Quan-zhen sect, the Tai-yi sect, and the Zhen-da-dao sect as “Neo-Daoism”, and appreciated that they resisted Jin (金) as refugees of the northern Song (北宋); therefore, there we can see a historical view of resistance.\nAfter World War Ⅱ, on the basis of the preceding studies, Kubo Noritada(窪徳忠) insisted that the Quan-zhen sect, the Tai-yi sect, and the Zhen-da-dao sect were “Neo-Daoism” by modeling after Max Weber’s sociology of religion theory. We can see that the designation of the Quan-zhen sect as “Neo-Daoism” was accomplished at this point.\nAfter new China was established, the Quan-zhen sect was negatively associated with Marxism. However, Chen Yuan’s view revived again recently. In Japan, Miyakawa Hisayuki (宮川尚志) researched Lin Linsu (林霊素) and southern school of inner alchemy regarded as “Old-Daoism”, and Akizuki Kan’ei (秋月観暎) insisted on designating Jing-ming dao(浄明道) as one of “Neo-Daoism.” Meanwhile, in Europe and the United States, the term “Neo-Daoism” has not been established currently yet.\nWe can point out that the influence of modern history is reflected in the background of research history that regards the Quan-zhen sect as “Neo-Daoism” in Japan and China. However,the concept of “Neo-Daoism” risks of evaluating some sects as “Neo-Daoism” and “Old-Daoism”with prejudice, or emphasizing the break-off of both more than is required. It will be necessary for studies of the Quan-zhen sect to push forward a philological empiricism while paying attention to each era.","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"}]},"item_10002_identifier_registration":{"attribute_name":"ID登録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_identifier_reg_text":"10.20778/00000013","subitem_identifier_reg_type":"JaLC"}]},"item_10002_publisher_8":{"attribute_name":"出版者","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"皇學館大学研究開発推進センター"}]},"item_10002_relation_12":{"attribute_name":"論文ID（NAID）","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_relation_type":"isIdenticalTo","subitem_relation_type_id":{"subitem_relation_type_id_text":"40020762011","subitem_relation_type_select":"NAID"}}]},"item_10002_source_id_11":{"attribute_name":"書誌レコードID","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AA12713776","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_10002_source_id_9":{"attribute_name":"ISSN","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"2189-2091","subitem_source_identifier_type":"ISSN"}]},"item_10002_version_type_20":{"attribute_name":"著者版フラグ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_version_type":"VoR"}]},"item_creator":{"attribute_name":"著者","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"松下, 道信"},{"creatorName":"マツシタ, ミチノブ","creatorNameLang":"ja-Kana"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{}]},{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"MATSUSHITA, Michinobu","creatorNameLang":"en"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{}]}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_date","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2017-03-30"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"センター紀要2-04.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"1.3 MB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_11","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"label":"センター紀要2-04","url":"https://kogakkan.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/20/files/センター紀要2-04.pdf"},"version_id":"2ec8f15f-22aa-4903-bbd1-00ef15a8feaa"}]},"item_keyword":{"attribute_name":"キーワード","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_subject":"全真教"},{"subitem_subject":"新道教"},{"subitem_subject":"常盤大定"},{"subitem_subject":"陳垣"},{"subitem_subject":"窪徳忠"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper"}]},"item_title":"「新道教」再考 : 全真教研究の枠組みについての再検討","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"「新道教」再考 : 全真教研究の枠組みについての再検討"},{"subitem_title":"A Reconsideration of \"Neo-Daoism\" : Re-Examining the Framework for Research on the Quan-zhen Sect"}]},"item_type_id":"10002","owner":"9","path":["17","104"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"2017-03-30"},"publish_date":"2017-03-30","publish_status":"0","recid":"20","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["「新道教」再考 : 全真教研究の枠組みについての再検討"],"weko_creator_id":"9","weko_shared_id":-1},"updated":"2023-06-23T08:47:03.664778+00:00"}