| 摘要 | The Pudgalavādins are a school of Indian Buddhist thought well known for their unique theory of the individual (Pudgala) that is said to be “not the aggregates, nor independent of the aggregates” and “inexpressible but really existent.” According to the Chinese pilgrim, Xuanzang (玄奘, 602–64), the Pudgalavādins were one of the most active branches of Buddhism in the 7th Century India. Some other Buddhists, however, regarded their doctrine as affirming the reality of the self (ātman) and accodingly rejected it as being unorthodox and counter to the Buddha’s teaching. In the 6th chapter of his Madhyamakāvatārabhās. ya (hereafter abbreviated MABh), Candrakīrti, a Buddhist thinker from circa 7th Century, used “sevenfold considerations” (tshul du rnam pa bdun gyis btsal ba), and the analogy of a cart to severely criticize the Sām. mitīya, one school of the Pudgalavādins. Although he based his “sevenfold considerations” on “the five investigations countering ātman” (pañcadhā mṛgyamāṇa) in Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā which in turn was based on “the twenty kinds of considerations countering ātman” (satkāyadṛṣṭi) found in early Buddhism, the “sevenfold considerations” is a unique idea of Candrakīrti. The content and structure of the “sevenfold consideration” is contained in verses 152–57 in the 6th chapter of the MABh. In his analysis, Candrakīrti claims that an “I” or “We” is not ultimately existent because an “I” or “We” is the collection of dependent aggregates by which we conceive (prajñapti) Ourselves” and that, therefore, a pudgala does not exist as a real entity. His this conclusion seems not a new point of view about “I” or “We,” so called ātman, however, Candrakīrti added two items, “assembly” (tshogs, *samudāya) and “form” (dbyibs, *samṣthāna) to “the five investigations countering ātman.” If he simply had the intention of rejecting existence of the pudgala as one of ātman, the five investigations against ātman” might have been a sufficient argument. We, therefore, could conjecture a specific purpose in his “sevenfold considerations,” the purpose related to not only to criticize the ātman of non-Buddhist thought, but to criticize the Pudgala, “substantial and inexpressible.” Fom this critical mind, we will show the important functions and objectives of new two articles with comparing them to the Pudgalavāda, conclusively we understand Candrakārti’s thoughts about anātman. |
|---|
