|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
如何將清辨的遮詮理論應用在其著作中？ 以《大乘掌珍論》為例=Reading Bhāviveka’s Work with His Theory of Apoha – With The Treatise on the Jewel in the Hand as an Example |
|
|
|
| Author |
林芳民 (著)=Lin, Fang-min (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
2021 第八屆漢傳佛教與聖嚴思想國際學術研討會
|
|---|
| Date | 2021.06.30 |
|---|
| Publisher | 財團法人聖嚴教育基金會 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://www.shengyen.org.tw/index.aspx?lang=cht
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北, 臺灣 [Taipei, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 會議論文=Proceeding Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Keyword | 清辨=Bhāviveka; 遮詮=Apoha; 《大乘掌珍論》=the Treatise on the Jewel in the Hand |
|---|
| Abstract | 在Hoornaert 於1999 至2003 年發表了《中觀心論》（Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā）及其註釋《思擇焰》（Tarkajvālā）第1 至114 頌的翻譯後，便有學者注意到其中蘊含著清辨（Bhāviveka）獨特的遮詮（apoha）理論。不過整體而言，學界對於清辨的研究還是以其獨特的二諦理論及「簡別立宗」的因明論式為研究主流，並傾向認為清辨將因明的應用範圍限定在「隨順勝義諦」中。
唯一將遮詮理論帶進清辨主流研究的是Tamura（2011），主張遮詮理論的應用範圍應該限定在世俗諦中。然而筆者以為，遮詮理論作為清辨所認為的「正確的語意理解方式」，應該是用來理解清辨所認為的「正確地表達勝義諦」的因明論式，因此遮詮理論的應用範圍應該限定在隨順勝義諦。而這也表現出隨順勝義諦中使用的語言的兩個特點：1.行為（亦即言說和書寫等）上和一般的語言並無不同；2.但是卻不涉及戲論分別，亦即概念化。
最後筆者將運用清辨的遮詮理論，實際解讀清辨《大乘掌珍論》中的因明論式。亦即：在遮詮的語意理論之下，清辨在因明論式中所使用的語言的意義該如何被理解。為清辨的三大特徵：二諦理論、因明論式以及遮詮理論提供互相連結的基礎，以期未來能建構出完整的清辨思想。
After Hoornaert published his translation of Bhāviveka’s Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā and its commentary Tarkajvālā from 1999 to 2003, scholars start to noticing that Bhāviveka also has his own theory of apoha. Nevertheless, the mainstream of Bhāviveka studies is still focused on his theory of two truths and his usage of valid arguments (hetuvidyā). It is widely accepted that Bhāviveka subdivided the ultimate truth into primary and secondary ultimate truths, and that he uses valid arguments in the scope of the secondary ultimate truth.
Tamura (2011) is the first to bring Bhāviveka’s theory of apoha to the mainstream study, arguing that Bhāviveka uses the theory of apoha in the scope of the conventional truth. I will argue, however, since the theory of apoha is about understanding the meaning of words correctly, it should be nature to pair it with Bhāviveka’s usage of valid arguments, which he argues is the correct way to express the ultimate truth. This also reveals two characteristics of the language used in the scope of the secondary ultimate truth: 1. that on the surface it is just the same as the ordinary language people used every day, 2. but it is without conceptualization.
With all that established, I will put my theory into practice: reading the arguments Bhāviveka used in his The Treatise on the Jewel in the Hand with his theory of apoha. That is, how the meaning of words used in the arguments should be understood with his theory of apoha. With this paper, I hope to provide a ground for piecing together three important theories of Bhāviveka: that of two truths, valid argument and apoha.
|
|---|
| Hits | 908 |
|---|
| Created date | 2022.06.14 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
