 |
|
| 『般若灯論』におけるミーマーンサー学派批判：漢訳とチベット語訳の相違箇所に着目して=Bhāviveka’s Criticism of the Mīmāṃsaka in the Prajñāpradīpa: The Differences between the Chinese and the Tibetan Translations | ||
| 作者 | 田村昌己 (著)=Tamura, Masaki (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.69 n.2 (總號=n.153) |
| 出版日期 | 2021.03.25 |
| 頁次 | 891 - 886 |
| 出版者 | 日本印度学仏教学会 |
| 出版者網址 | http://www.jaibs.jp/ |
| 資料類型 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
| 使用語言 | 日文=Japanese |
| 關鍵詞 | バーヴィヴェーカ; ミーマーンサー学派; 般若灯論; 一切智者 |
| 摘要 | In the twenty-second chapter of the Prajñāpradīpa, which was translated into Chinese by Prabhākaramitra and into Tibetan by Klu’i rgyal mtshan, Bhāviveka, a Mādhyamika philosopher, criticizes the Mīmāṃsaka in a context where he makes a ‘‘digression’’ on the Tathāgata’s omniscience. In the beginning, Bhāviveka introduces a syllogism by which the Mīmāṃsaka tries to reject the Buddhist view of omniscience. Bhāviveka’s counter-argument differs in, respectively, the Chinese and the Tibetan translations. However, previous studies have studied only one of these translations. The Chinese translation points out that the reason presented by the Mīmāṃsaka would be unestablished (asiddha), arguing that Buddhist scriptures are authorless. This argument is based on Bhāviveka’s own view of the Tathāgata’s teachings, which is found in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Prajñāpradīpa. Conversely, the Tibetan translation points out that the thesis presented by the Mīmāṃsaka would be fallacious (pakṣābhāsa) through an examination of the meaning of ‘‘one who is not omniscient’’ (asarvajña). Both translations can be considered to contain valid arguments, so they should be dealt with equally. |
| 目次 | 1．はじめに 891 2．文脈 890 3．漢訳の議論 890 4．チベット語訳の議論 889 5．おわりに 888 |
| ISSN | 00194344 (P) |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.69.2_891 |
| 點閱次數 | 322 |
| 建檔日期 | 2022.11.25 |
| 更新日期 | 2022.11.25 |
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。
