 |
|
| 無自性性論証を行う際のバーヴィヴェーカとカマラシーラの立場について：無原因から生起しないことの論証を中心に=The Standpoint of Bhāviveka and Kamalaśīla in Proving Absence of Self-nature: Focusing on the Proof of Being not from no Cause | ||
| 作者 | 林玄海 (著)=Hayashi, Genkai (au.) |
|---|---|
| 出處題名 | 印度學佛教學研究 =Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies=Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū |
| 卷期 | v.67 n.1 (總號=n.146) |
| 出版日期 | 2018.12.20 |
| 頁次 | 390 - 387 |
| 出版者 | 日本印度学仏教学会 |
| 出版者網址 | http://www.jaibs.jp/ |
| 出版地 | 東京, 日本 [Tokyo, Japan] |
| 資料類型 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
| 使用語言 | 日文=Japanese |
| 關鍵詞 | カマラシーラ; バーヴィヴェーカ; 無原因 |
| 摘要 | Previous researches have pointed out that Kamalaśīla, a Mādhyamika, engages the criticism of the inference system of Bhāviveka, and defends Bhāviveka. Because of this, it can be said that when Kamalaśīla proves the absence of Self-nature, his standpoint is basically the same as that of Bhāviveka. However, is this true? I consider the point through the proof of being not from no cause. Candrakīrti criticizes Bhāviveka’s explanation of ahetu as *kuhetu. Kamalaśīla does not defend Bhāviveka on this point, and Kamalaśīla himself does not explain ahetu as *kuhetu. Because of this, Kamalaśīla does not explain ahetu as *kuhetu as does Bhāviveka, and in regard to this point, Kamalaśīla does not always hold the same standpoint as does Bhāviveka. |
| 目次 | はじめに 390 1. 先行研究の指摘 390 2. バーヴィヴェーカの「無原因」とそれに対するチャンドラキールティ の批判 389 3. 「無原因」におけるカマラシーラの態度 389 おわりに 388 |
| ISSN | 00194344 (P); 18840051 (E) |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.67.1_390 |
| 點閱次數 | 307 |
| 建檔日期 | 2022.08.11 |
| 更新日期 | 2022.08.11 |
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。
