 |
|
| インド・チベット中観思想史の再構築へむけて ─ 『中観明句論注釈』第1章の写本研究始動=Toward reconstructing the history of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka thought ─ the launch of the study of dBu ma tshig gsal gyi tik I ─ | ||
| 作者 | 吉水千鶴子 =Yoshimizu, Chizuko |
|---|---|
| 出處題名 | 哲学・思想論集=Studies in Philosophy=テツガク・シソウ ロンシュウ |
| 卷期 | n.32 |
| 出版日期 | 2007.03.30 |
| 頁次 | 73 - 114 |
| 出版者 | 筑波大学哲学・思想学系 |
| 出版者網址 | http://www.logos.tsukuba.ac.jp/Nlogoskhp.html |
| 出版地 | 桜村, 茨城県, 日本 |
| 資料類型 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
| 使用語言 | 日文=Japanese |
| 摘要 | The dBu ma tshig gsal gi ti ka (sic) is a complete commentary on Candrakirit's Prasannqpada supposed to have been composed by Zhang Thang sag pa 'Byung gnas ye shes (alias Ye shes 'byung gnas, the last half of the 11th to the first half of the 12th century), one of chief disciples of Pa tshab Nyi ma grags(1055?-1155?). As for its manuscript, the authorship，and Zhang Thang sag pa's fundamental Madhyamaka position, reftr to my previous study in Yoshimizu 2006 including the edition of the eighteenth chapter. The focus of the present paper, in turn, is Zhang Thang sag pa's interpretation of the Buddhapalita-Candrakihi vs. Bhaviveka debate in Prasannqpada. Because Zhang Thang sag pa not only discusses the issue on the basis of careful reading of the original text but also reexamines it from a new perspective of his own era, in which Tibetans first contrasted Candrakihi's Madhyamaka thought with the fully developed system of Buddhist logic, his interpretation greatly serves our understanding of Prasannqpada I as well as of later Tibetan development of the so-called dBu ma thal gyur ba tradition.The study of the dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka will, in my conviction, enable us to depict a new picture of the history of Madhyamaka thought. In the body of the present paper, I have clarified Zhang Thang sag pa's interpretation of the following three crucial points for the Madhyamaka tradition. His own statements are extracted from the manuscript and reproduced in Appendix above in the form of a preliminary edition. ①the distinction between the *Svatantrika and the *Prasangika ②svatantranumana and prasanga ③the reading of Prasannapada I 14, 1-15, 2 and 18, 5-19, 7 ①In the same way as his contemporary Indian Madhyamaka master Jayananda, Zhang Thang sag pa also does not mention the appellation Thal gyur ba(*Prasangika), though he identifies Bhaviveka as rang rgyud pa (*Svatantrika). In contrast with Jayananda who adopted the expression dbu ma rang rgyud pa (*Svatantrika-Madhyamaka), however, Zhang Thang sag pa explicitly distinguished rang rgyud pa from dbu ma pa. His position is clear that those who use an autonomous inference such as Bhaviveka is not a real Madhyamika, for a real Madhyamika makes use solely of prasariga. He states that neither between a dngos smra ba and a rang rgyud pa nor between a rang rgyud pa and a dbu ma pa (or buddha) is a common establishment (ubhayasiddhatva) of the subject of inference possible. ②Zhang Thang sag pa gives a clear definition to rang rgyud (svatantra[-anumana]): "Autonomous [inference] is the proof of what is to be proven (sgrub bya, sadhya) that has a definition (mtshan nyid laksana) [as a real entity] by means of [a logical reason fulfilling] three conditions (tshul gsum, trairupya[linga]) established for both proponent and opponent by a valid means of cognition (tshad ma, pramna). Although he does not define what kind of proof prasafiga is, he seems to share the fundamental usage thereof with Buddhist logicians following Dharmakorti. According to Zhang Thang sag pa, a syllogistic reasoning in the reversal form of prasanga (prasangaviparyaya) cannot be an autonomous inference (svatantra) for Candrakirti. ③For Zhang Thang sag pa, Buddhapalita's statement cited from his commentary on Mulamadhyamakakarika I.1 in Pr 14, lff. was intended to set forth both a prasanga to reveal a contradiction of his opponent and an other-acknowledged inference (gzhan la grags pa'i rjes dpag, paraprasiddhanumana). Bhaviveka criticized it by indicating three faults on three stages: Neither as an autonomous inference (svatantra), nor as an other-acknowledged inftrence (paraprasiddhanumana), nor as a prasanga, Buddhapalita's proof is not correct. Regarding the syllogistic proof Bhaviveka presented by reversing Buddhapalita's prasanga, Zhang Thang sag pa agrees to the proposal of Pandit (presumably Kanakavarman), not that of Lo tsa ba (presumably Pa tshab), to fo |
| 目次 | 0. 序 73 1. 『中観明句論註釈』研究がもたらすもの 75 2. 『中観明句論註釈』第1牽からの提言 78 ①「自立論証派」「帰謬論証派」という中観派の区分について 78 ②「自立論証」「帰謬論証」とは何か 83 ③『明句論』第1章のテキスト解釈への提言 86 ③-1ブッダパーリタの証言とバーヴィヴエーカの批判の論点は何か 87 ③-2『明句論』(Pr)18,5-19,7の解釈 94 |
| ISSN | 02867648 (P) |
| 點閱次數 | 1423 |
| 建檔日期 | 2010.03.16 |
| 更新日期 | 2020.06.23 |
建議您使用 Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) 瀏覽器能獲得較好的檢索效果，IE不支援本檢索系統。
