|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something for Nothing: Cognitive Metaphors for Emptiness in the *Upadesa (Dàzhìdù Lùn)=以有為無 — 《大智度論》之空性認知隱喻 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Orsborn, Matthew=歐慧峰
|
|---|
| Source |
Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies=中華佛學學報
|
|---|
| Volume | v.31 |
|---|
| Date | 2018.07 |
|---|
| Pages | 171 - 222 |
|---|
| Publisher | Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies=中華佛學研究所 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.chibs.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 新北市, 臺灣 [New Taipei City, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese; 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | Author Affiliations: Assistant Professor, Department of Buddhist Studies, Fo Guang University |
|---|
| Keyword | Prajñāpāramitā=《般若經》; *Mahāprajñāpāramitā upadeśa=《大智度論》; emptiness=空性; cognitive metaphor=認知隱喻; metaphor=隱喻 |
|---|
| Abstract | While the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā upadeśa (大智度論 Dàzhìdù lùn), the extensive commentary of the
Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā sūtra and traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna, is encyclopedic in its scope, it is perhaps the
teachings on emptiness (śūnyatā) that have been most commonly seen as its philosophical focal point. The accurate presentation of this core doctrine is fraught with the perils of the audience falling to the two extremes of eternalism and annihilism, as has been the case since the formation of the Buddha’s own teachings on not self (anātman).
The author of the *Upadeśa, following the Sūtra itself, thus chooses the rhetorical strategy of exegesis through metaphor, arguing that: “Although all dharmas are empty, there are distinctions between emptiness which is difficult
to comprehend and emptiness which is easy to comprehend. We now use easily comprehended emptiness metaphors [to comprehend] difficultly comprehended emptiness.” The Sūtra and *Upadeśa give ten metaphors for emptiness: illusion, mirage, moon [reflected] in the water, empty space, echo, city of the gandharvas, dream, shadow, image in a mirror, and magical creation. In the *Upadeśa, each metaphor is explicated and tailored into its general interpretative strategy of applying Madhyamaka dialectic to interpret and defend the Prajñāpāramitā against all manner of Ābhidharmika (generic “Hīnayāna”) and non-Buddhist views of realism and nihilism.
A deeper examination of not only the metaphors so employed, but also how metaphors function in general, reveals that the matter is perhaps not quite so “easily” resolved. I will draw upon theories of “cognitive metaphor” from modern philosophy of language, in particular from Kittay’s acclaimed Cognitive Metaphor, Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By, Ricœur’s classic The Rule of Metaphor (La Métaphore Vive), and other writings. Kittay’s “perspectival” approach utilizes analysis of both the semantic fields and syntagmatic structures of the two sides of metaphor, i.e. the topic (or tenor) and vehicle, to reveal that “the critical feature of metaphor can be seen as a process in which the structure of one semantic field induces a structure on another content domain.” With respect to syntagmatic analysis, due attention will be given to the fact that our present text of the *Upadeśa is a Chinese translation of the original Sanskrit, two languages having radically different grammatical syntax.
The “cognitive” or “conceptual” approach is the most appropriate theory of metaphor for our study here, because this is exactly what the author of the *Upadeśa claims when explaining the use of easy vehicle metaphors to “comprehend” the difficult topic content of emptiness. A syntagmatic analysis of the *Upadeśa’s metaphors enables us to group the text’s ten metaphors in several ways, as it appears that several of the metaphors are possibly merely sub-categories of another metaphor, thus providing little new conceptual comprehension of the topic of emptiness. Furthermore, more thorough analysis reveals that all ten can be divided into quite distinctive categories, distinctions which may have serious implications for the *Upadeśa’s interpretation of emptiness of which the author himself was perhaps unaware. One distinction concerns the issue of external agency, as some metaphors have structures involving active intentional agency, whereas others lack this. A second distinction relates to the presence or absence of an underlying ultimate real beyond the empty in the metaphor in question. Both agency and real ultimates are key issues for the *Upadeśa’s Madhyamaka methodology and interpretative standpoint.
While such critical distinctions may possibly be discovered through a very thorough reading of the *Upadeśa itself, Kittay and others’ analytic and synthetic methods for the understanding of cognitive metaphors allow us to very quickly and clearly make such issues both appa |
|---|
| Table of contents | 1. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā upadeśa on Emptiness & the Middle 175
1.1 Introducing the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā upadeśa 175
1.2 The *Upadeśa’s Teachings on Emptiness (Śūnyatā) 175
1.3 Union of Mystic Prajñāpāramitā and Philosophic Madhyamaka 176
2. Ten “Easy” Metaphors for “Difficult” Emptiness 177
2.1 The *Upadeśa’s Employment of Metaphor 177
2.2 Context & Reasons for Metaphors for Emptiness 178
2.3 Previous Scholarship on Metaphor in the *Upadeśa 181
3. Cognitive Metaphors & Their Analysis 183
3.1 Understanding & Models of Metaphor 183
3.2 Cognitive Metaphor & Kittay’s “Perspectival Approach” 184
3.3 Applied Syntagmatic & Semantic Field Analysis 186
3.4 Linguistic and Philological Caveats 188
4. The Ten Cognitive Metaphors 189
4.1 Ten Metaphors in Twenty Forms 189
A. Illusion (māyā; 幻 huàn) 190
B. Mirage (marīci; 焰 yàn) 190
C. Moon [reflected] in the water (dakacandra; 水中月 shuǐzhōngyüè) 191
D. Empty space (ākāśa; 虛空 xükōng) 192
E. Echo (pratiśrutkā; 響 xiăng) 193
F. City of the Gandharvas (gandharva-nagara; 犍闥婆城 jiàntápóchéng) 194
G. Dream (svapna; 夢 mèng) 195
H. Shadow (pratibhāsa; 影 yǐng) 196
I. Image in a mirror (pratibimba; 鏡中像 jìngzhōngxiàng) 197
J. Magical creation (nirmāṇa; 化 huà) 198
5. Analysis of the Metaphors 198
5.1 Syntagmatic Analysis 198
5.2 Semantic Field Analysis 208
5.3 Discussion of the Analysis 210
6. How Can Metaphors Make Something for Nothing? 214
6.1 Rhetorical vs Rational Presentations of Emptiness 214
6.2 Birth & Death of Metaphors for Metaphors 215
6.3 Something for Nothing: Metaphors for Emptiness 218 |
|---|
| ISSN | 23132000 (P); 23132019 (E) |
|---|
| Hits | 390 |
|---|
| Created date | 2018.08.13 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2018.09.04 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
