 |
|
| 評析當代關於《中論》 “sā prajñaptir upādāya”之解讀上的歧義=A Review of Divergent Understandings regarding “sā prajñaptir upādāya”in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā | ||
| 作者 | 釋長明 (著) |
|---|---|
| 出處題名 | 福嚴佛學研究=Fuyan Buddhist Studies |
| 卷期 | n.18 |
| 出版日期 | 2023 |
| 頁次 | 109 - 152 |
| 出版者 | 福嚴佛學院 |
| 出版者網址 | https://www.fuyan.org.tw/ |
| 出版地 | 新竹市, 臺灣 [Hsinchu shih, Taiwan] |
| 資料類型 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
| 使用語言 | 中文=Chinese |
| 關鍵詞 | 中論=Mūlamadhyamakakārikā; 緣起=dependent origination; 空性=emptiness; 假名=dependent designation; 中道=middle way; 絕對分詞=absolute in Sanskrit |
| 摘要 | Douglas L. Berger 於 2010 年在 Philosophy East and West 期刊上發表了一 篇題名為“Acquiring Emptiness: Interpreting Nāgārjuna’s MMK 24:18”的文章， 提出自身對《中論》〈觀四諦品〉第 18 頌之新的讀法。論文中，他反對眾多 西方學者依月稱《明句論》之理解而來的詮釋，並質疑月稱論注的解讀，認 為 將“sā prajñaptir upādāya”中 之“prajñaptir upādāya”視為一術語，諸如 “dependent designation”（相當於鳩摩羅什所譯之「假名」）等之詮釋並非龍樹 此處之原意。 在 Berger 的文章發表之後，學術界出現了幾篇不同意其觀點的文章。Jay Garfield 和 Jan Westerhoff 於 2011 年發表了一篇文章，舉出 Berger 的此一新 解讀在方法上的潛在錯誤，以及指出 Berger 在文章中關於定義上的幾項疑 點，表示不贊同 Berger 的觀點。在同一期學刊中，Berger 亦提出他自己的回 應。同年，Mattias Salvini 基於自己在梵語文法研究領域中的文獻考察結果， 也對 Berger 的看法表示反對。研究結果顯示，儘管 Berger 的異解在梵語文法 上的支持點顯得薄弱，就義理上來說，在西方佛學學術文獻上亦有一些正面 的貢獻與意義。從表面上來看，雙方的論述彼此對立；然就義理上的詮釋結 果來說，並不一定相互否定。此外，透過梵語文法及義理上之解析的相關研 究，24.18 詩頌之下半頌的「假名」與「中道」除了可以直接指涉空性外，亦 可以直接指涉緣起。 In 2010, Douglas L. Berger published a paper in the Philosophy East and West titled, “Acquiring Emptiness: Interpreting Nāgārjuna’s MMK 24.18.” In this article he puts forth a new interpretation for the eightieth verse in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter on Investigation of the Four Noble Truths. Most contemporary western academics in the field of Madhyamaka philosophy adopt Candrakīrti’s commentary on this verse in the Prasannapada, but in his paper, Berger disagrees with this approach and even questions the accuracy of Candrakriti’s interpretation. Based on Candrakriti’s interpretation, the wordings, “prajñaptir upādāya” in the line “sā prajñaptir upādāya” has long been regarded as a technical term and translated, for example, as “dependent concept,” which parallels Kumārajīva’s translation of jiǎ míng 假名 (dependent designation). Berger claims that this is not what Nāgārjuna intended in that verse. Following Berger’s paper, several papers with opposing views have been published. In 2011, Jay Garfield and Jan Westerhoff published a paper disagreeing with Berger’s position. They argue that the method adopted by Berger to reach his new interpretation contains errors, as well as raising some questions concerning definitions adopted by Berger in his paper. In that same journal issue, Berger’s response to Garfield and Westerhoff was also published. The conclusion of this paper shows that, although Berger’s alternative interpretation may not have strong grounds of support based on the Sanskrit language, from a doctrinal basis, his findings offer a positive contribution to the study of Buddhist Philology. At face value, Berger’s paper is in opposition to Garfield and Westerhoff’s paper. However, if we look at the doctrinal interpretations presented, it is not necessarily that one rejects the other’s interpretation. In addition, this paper also analyzes the verse 24.18 based on doctrinal approaches and the Sanskrit grammar, which shows that the pronoun “sā”in the third pada “sā prajñaptir upādāya” and in the fourth pada, “pratipat saiva madhyamā” not only refers to “śūnyatā” in the second pada but can also refer to “pratītyasamutpādaḥ” in the first pada. |
| 目次 | 一、前言 二、學界中對《中論》24.18 偈頌之一般理解方式 （一）漢語中觀學者的見解 （二）日本與西方中觀學者的見解 三、Berger 對《中論》24.18 偈頌之理解方式 四、關於雙方之諍論點及所持之的理由 （一）概述 Berger 不同意理解為 upādāya-prajñapti 的理由 （二）其他學者對 Berger 之梵語文法解讀的回應 （三）回應 Berger 詮釋“prajñaptir upādāya”之觀點 （四）從龍樹的教化背景揣測 prajñapti 的其他理解方式 （五）小結 五、進一步評析雙方討論的內容 （一）關於絕對分詞被動態之文法 （二）般若經存在 upādāya-prajñapti 的可能性和部派教學的差別 （三）sā 只指涉 śūnyatā 之不完整性 六、結論 |
| ISSN | 20700512 (P) |
| 點閱次數 | 121 |
| 建檔日期 | 2024.05.28 |
| 更新日期 | 2024.05.28 |
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。
