@article{oai:toyo-bunko.repo.nii.ac.jp:00005647,
 author = {伊藤, 隆寿 and ITO, Takatoshi},
 issue = {3・4},
 journal = {東洋学報, The Toyo Gakuho},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {Until now Kê-i (hermeneutical) Buddhism has been defined as the interpretation of Buddhism through the medium of indigenous Chinese thought. Our conventional understanding has been that this was a phenomenon characteristic of the period from the beginning of the transmission of Buddhism to China until the Wei-Chin dynasties. At that time, this Practice was rectified by Shih Tao-an and Kumārajīva and Buddhism since has been correctly apprehended, transmitted and imported to Japan. Does this way of thinking, however, not result from the fact that because Japanese Buddhists, with Japanese scholars following suit, consider the Buddhism that has been transmitted to and expounded in Japan to be correct, they have been reluctant to gainsay that which is its origin, i.e., Buddhism as it was understood in China?In this article, first we consider true Buddhism to be the Indian Buddhism of Shakyamuni which, from a logical perspective in opposition to the orthodox Brahmanic teaching that set up brahman and atman, etc. as the monistic absolute, presented the theory of pratītyasamutpāda, and precisely advocated the doctrines of “anitya” and “anātman”, thus providing for the refutation of the absolutist theories native to India.Next, an investigation of the manner in which Kê-i has been grasped by Chinese and Japanese scholars, reveals that Japanese scholars, even more than the Chinese, have been ambiguous their definition of Kê-i. With that in mind, as a new definition, we take indigenous thought, i.e., the absolutist theories based upon the Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu and I-ching to be “Tao-Li 道・理 Philosophy” , Kê-i is that which interprets Indian Buddhism through the basis of Tao-Li thought and any Buddhism of this type is called “Kê-i Buddhism”.Finally, from this perspective we investigate the Buddhism of Tao-an as well as the Êrh-ju-ssŭ-hsing-lun 二入四行論, a work of pivotal importance for the Zen school, demonstrating that throughout both works “Tao-Li Philosophy” is the interpretive medium and that these are not texts expounding impermanence and egolessness, doctrines based on the foundation of Buddhism, the theory of dependent origination.},
 pages = {277--309},
 title = {格義仏教考：初期中国仏教の形成},
 volume = {71},
 year = {1990},
 yomi = {イトウ, タカトシ}
}