A Controversy Unveiled: How Many Sūtra Passages Are Indicated as Requiring Interpretation in Candrakīrti's Madhyamakavatārabhāsya? =爭議之揭示 -- 月稱《入中論自釋》中有幾種不了義之經教？
Tibetan Buddhism=西藏佛教; Ge-luk Sect=格魯派; Candrakīrti=月稱; Hermeneutic=詮釋學; Buddha Nature=佛性; Interpretable and definitive scriptures=不了義與了義經; 宗喀巴
摘要
This paper discusses a controversy within the Ge-luk sect of Tibetan Buddhism concerning a disagreement among prominent Ge-luk scholars over the precise number of Buddhist doctrines indicated as requiring interpretation in Candrakīrti's Autocommentary on the “Introduction to Nāgārjuna's ‘Treatise on the Middle Way.'” The controversial passage comes in the sixth chapter of Candrakīrti's famous work on Buddhist philosophy in the context of his refutation of the Mind-Only system. The passage states: These passages [in the Descent Into La?kā Sūtra and so forth] Show that other sūtras of such type require interpretation. The controversy surrounds the fact that the founder of the Ge-luk sect, ºzong-ka-¸a Ío-sang-drak-¸a, asserts that Candrakīrti here refers to four types of sūtra passages: (1)statements differentiating true establishment and non-true establishment with respect to the three natures; (2)statements teaching a mind-basis-of-all; (3)statements refuting external objects; (4)statements explaining three final vehicles. Later Ge-luk authors—most notably Kay-drup and Jam-c ang-shay-¸a—argue instead that Candrakīrti is referring to five sūtra passages requiring interpretation, these being the four asserted by ºzong-ka-¸a plus a fifth: (5)statements in the Tathāgata Essence Sūtra of a permanent, stable essence in the continuums of all sentient beings having the [major and minor] marks of a Buddha. Candrakīrti's remarks are somewhat ambiguous. Moreover, a surface reading yields doctrinal difficulties for ºzong-ka-¸a. Therefore, he employs a clever substitutional hermeneutic in treading the fine line between appreciation of Candrakīrti's opinions and outright non-adherence to his views. Kay-drup, on the other hand, rejects his master's conclusions as too limiting, while Jam-c ang-shay-¸a's hermeneutical maneuvers are an admirable attempt to reconcile the variant positions of his predecessors. Although these later Ge-luk-¸a's clearly feel ºzong-ka-¸a is mistaken, they never claim that he is wrong; they even take steps to smooth over their differences so that they do not appear to be disagreeing with the founder. Within the course of investigating this disagreement, this paper shows how ºzong-ka-¸a employs creative interpretation in treading a fine line between appreciation of Candrakīrti's opinions on this point and outright non-adherence to his views. It also demonstrates how later exegetes—in part due to changing priorities within Tibet—are able to work with Sanskrit materials within ºzong-ka-¸a's doctrinal system, while at the same time circumventing ºzong-ka-¸a's strictures as needed. Also included is a discussion of the Ge-luk hermeneutical process, the author's translation of a small part of ºzong-ka-¸a's Illumination of the Thought, Extensive Explanation of (Candrakīrti's) “Introduction to (Nāgārjuna's) ‘Treatise on the Middle'” dealing with this question of interpretable sūtras, and the author's translation of annotation za of Nga-Ûang-¸el-den's Annotations for (Jam-c ang-shay-¸a's) “Great Exposition of Tenets,” Freeing the Knots of the Difficult Points, Precious Jewel of Clear Thought.
