 |
|
| ダルマパーラの常住性批判における生因と了因=Dharmapāla on kārakahetu and jñāpakahetu in his Critique of Eternalism | ||
| 作者 | 渡辺俊和 (著)=Watanabe, Toshikazu (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.71 n.1 (總號=n.158) |
| 出版日期 | 2022.12.20 |
| 頁次 | 355 - 349 |
| 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 | ダルマパーラ; 大乗広百論釈論; 文軌; 廣百論疏; Catuḥśataka; jñāpakahetu; kārakahetu; 了因; 生因 |
| 摘要 | In the Indian vāda tradition, there are two different kinds of hetu, i.e., kārakahetu （cause of producing [a result], 生因） and jñāpakahetu （cause of making known, 了因）. While the fact that a thing has a kārakahetu can prove the impermanence of the thing because a pervasion “whatever is produced is impermanent” is commonly acknowledged, the fact that a thing has a jñāpakahetu cannot. However, in his commentary Dasheng guangbailun shilun 大乗広百論釈論 on Catuḥśataka 9.3c, Dharmapāla states that having a jñāpakahetu is also a reason for proving impermanence. This paper reveals that this unique theory is derived from Dharmapāla’s second interpretation of Catuḥśataka 9.2cd （na kadācit kvacit kaścid vidyate tena śāśvataḥ）. There he interprets vidyate as meaning “to be known” （the passive form of the second class verb √vid）, and not as meaning “to exist” （the active voice of the fourth class）. Following this interpretation, verse 9.2cd can be understood as showing vyatireka i.e., “whatever is permanent is not known,” whereby is derived the following anvaya: whatever is known, i.e., whatever has a jñāpakahetu, is impermanent. |
| 目次 | 1. はじめに 355 2. 了因 jñāpakahetu による常住性批判の例 354 3. CŚ 9.2への2つの解釈 353 〈第一解釈〉 353 〈第二解釈〉 352 4. CŚ 9.3 351 5. おわりに 350 〈参考文献〉 349 |
| ISSN | 00194344 (P); 18840051 (E) |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.71.1_355 |
| 點閱次數 | 116 |
| 建檔日期 | 2024.10.09 |
| 更新日期 | 2024.10.09 |
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。
