|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
真諦三藏「九識說」產生的思想背景之考察 -- 重新檢討勝又俊教之觀點=The Study of the Ideological Background from Theory of Nine Consciousnesses By Paramartha -- Review Katsumata-Shunkyo's point of view |
|
|
|
| Author |
釋如定 (著)=Shih, Ru-ding (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
正觀雜誌=Satyabhisamaya: A Buddhist Studies Quarterly
|
|---|
| Volume | n.58 |
|---|
| Date | 2011.09.25 |
|---|
| Pages | 5 - 41 |
|---|
| Publisher | 正觀雜誌社 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.tt034.org.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 南投縣, 臺灣 [Nantou hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 本文出自悲廣獎學金98年度得獎論文。作者為玄奘大學宗研所二年級。 |
|---|
| Keyword | 阿摩羅識=amala-vijJAna; 九識說=theory of nine consciousnesses; 《決定藏論》=VinirNita-piTaka-wastra; 真諦=Paramartha; 勝又俊教=Katsumata-Shunkyo |
|---|
| Abstract | 日本學者勝又俊教曾根據敦煌出土的《攝論》古章疏、中國古德著書所載，判定真諦三藏的「九識說」之立論根據是《決定藏論》，並指出《楞伽經》中的「八九種種識，如水中諸波」，只能視為廣義的思想背景，其對真諦立九識說並無直接的影響。此外，又認為《大乘莊嚴經論》雖沒有出現 amala-vijJAna 的字眼，但論中的「阿摩羅識」一語，卻是為了方便整個文脈的理解而附加進去的。
吾人以為：（1）、岩田良三曾說，真諦曾在其所譯的典籍中，將不同的語詞（諸如：lokottara-jJAna（出世間智）vizuddha（清淨）、Azraya-parivRtti（轉依）等）都譯為「阿摩羅識」。這可見九識說的成立，未必非要依某個典籍不可，只要與實相符應者，即可稱為第九阿摩羅識。（2）、從窺基《大乘法苑義林章》、《成唯識論述記》對《楞伽經》該經偈的批評，可發現其所針對者就是真諦一系的舊譯思想，因此說《楞伽經》只能作為廣義思想背景，而對真諦的九識說之產生沒有直接影響，可能與事實不符。（3）、筆者認同勝又氏所說，《大乘莊嚴經論》中的阿摩羅識一語，雖沒有對應的梵文原語，但卻是在不失文脈的理解下、加進去的。
Japanese scholar Katsumata-Shunkyo determined that the theory of “Theory of Nine Consciousness” by ParamArtha is based on VinirNita-piTaka-wastra according to the commentary of MahAyAna – saMgraha – Zastra unearthed from Dunhuang, and writings written by ancient’s. Katsumata-Shunkyo also poined out “eight and nine consciousnesses etc., are like ripples in water” said in LaNkAvatAra-sutra can only be regarded as a general ideological background. And it does not have a direct effect on ParamArtha legislating the theory of Nine Consciousnesses. Additionally, he also believes that although the words amala-vijJana didn’t appear in MahAyAna-sUtrALaMkAra-ZAstra but the phrase “Amala-vijJAna” said in the text was actually added in for the convenience of understanding the whole context.
My opinion: (1.) Ryozo-Iwata once said, ParamArtha has translated all different terms (such as: lokottara-jJAna, vizuddha, and Azraya-parivRtti etc.) as “Amala-vijJAna” in the texts he translated. Here you can see that the establishment of the theory of
Nine Conciousnesses, doesn’t have to comply with a certain text, and as long as it’s consistent with the shixiang, it can be called the ninth Amala-vijJAna . (2.) From the criticism of Ta-Ch'êng-fa-yüan-i-lin-chang and Cheng-wei-shi-lun-shuji to LaNkAvatAra-sUtra, it can be found that it’s addressing to the series of ParamArtha 's old school translation schools .Therefore saying that LaNkAvatAra-sUtra can only be used as a general ideological background, and not have direct effect to the theory of the Nine Consciousnesses from ParamArtha, may not be true. (3.) I agreed what Katsumata-Shunkyo said that the " Amala-vijJAna" in MahAyAna-sUtrALaMkAra-ZAstra is additionally added in the context ,although this term didn't have the match word in Sanskrit.
|
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、前言 7
二、問題的提出 8
三、「九識說」產生之思想背景 12
（1）、「九識說」產生的幾個面向 12
（2）、對勝又俊教所持觀點之檢討與評論 29
四、結論 33
【參考書目】 36 |
|---|
| ISSN | 16099575 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 894 |
|---|
| Created date | 2012.12.27 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.09.06 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
