|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
「蘊」義辨析：部派佛教之比較研究=An Analysis of “Skandha”: A Comparative Research Among the Buddhist Sects |
|
|
|
| Author |
劉勁松 =Liu, Jin-song
|
|---|
| Source |
圓光佛學學報=Yuan Kuang Journal of Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.33 |
|---|
| Date | 2019.06 |
|---|
| Pages | 49 - 82 |
|---|
| Publisher | 圓光佛學研究所=Yuan Kuang Buddhist College |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.ykbi.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| Location | 桃園縣, 臺灣 [Taoyuean hsien, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 佛光大學佛教學系博士候選人 |
|---|
| Keyword | 蘊=skandha; 部派佛教=Buddhist sects; 比較研究=comparative research; 佛教術語=Buddhist term |
|---|
| Abstract | 關於「蘊」的語義，各佛教部派認識基本一致，但对其義理認識卻有所不同。對此，學界研究尚不充分。本文以分屬於南傳上座部、說一切有部、兼採有部與經量部的三部具有代表性的論書《清淨道論》、《阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論》與《阿毘達磨俱舍論》為依據，比較分析它們對「蘊」的認識。
三部論書對蘊的不同認識表現為：（1）對構成每一蘊的具體要素，南傳上座部與北傳阿毘達磨教法不同。（2）關於蘊的性質，《大毘婆沙論》認為「蘊」是「實有」；《俱舍論》認為「蘊」是「假有」；《清淨道論》未立假實。
對於蘊的構成要素認識不同的原因有三：（1）南傳上座部與北傳阿毘達磨教法的理論範疇不同。（2）二者的理論重心不同：前者的理論重心是「蘊」；後者的理論重心是「法」。（3）對有為法的認識與分類不同。
對於蘊的性質認識不同的原因在於：《大毘婆沙論》強調構成每一蘊的一一有為法的共相；而《俱舍論》則強調蘊是由不同具有自相有為法的積聚。
綜合三部論書的觀點，在兼顧佛教義理體系的前提下，可將蘊定義為：一切具有自相的有為法，依其共相或同分積聚而成的假有（施設）。
As for the meaning of “skandha”, different Buddhist sects have basically the same understanding, but they have different understandings to its theoretical annotation. In this regard, academic research is still insufficient. This paper compares and analyses their definitions of “skandha” based on three representative commentaries: Visuddhimagga, Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, which belong to the Southern Sthaviravāda, Sarvāstivāda, taking both Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivāda respectively.
The different understandings to “skandha” of the three commentaries are as follows: (1) There are different understandings of the specific elements constituting “skandha” between the Southern Sthaviravāda and the Northern Abhidharma teachings. (2) Regarding the nature of “skandha”, Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra holds that it is “substantial existence”; Abhidharmakośabhāṣya holds that it is “nominal existence”; Visuddhimagga has no answer.
There are three reasons for different understandings of the constituent elements of “skandha” : (1) The theoretical categories of the Southern Sthaviravāda are different from those of the Northern Abhidharma teachings. (2) The theoretical focus of the two sects is different: the former focuses on “skandha” while the latter focuses on “dharma”. (3) Their understandings and classifications of “conditioned phenomena” are different.
The reason for different understandings of the nature of “skandha” lies in the following: Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra emphasizes the common features of the “conditioned phenomena”, while Abhidharmakośabhāṣya emphasizes that “skandha” is an accumulation of different “conditioned phenomena”.
Summarizing the points of the three commentaries, taking into account the Buddhist theoretical system, “skhanda” can be defined as nominal existence which is aggregated by all different conditioned phenomena which have intrinsic attributes, according to their common attributes |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、前言 53
（一）研究現狀 53
（二）問題界定 56
二、文獻依據 57
三、「蘊」的構成要素 60
（一）三論的共同認識 60
（二）不同認識：構成蘊的有為法種類與名稱 64
四、「蘊」的性質 65
（一）《大毘婆沙論》觀點：蘊是實有 65
（二）《俱舍論》觀點：蘊是假有 67
（三）《清淨道論》觀點：不立假實 69
五、詮釋與抉擇 71
（一）對「蘊」構成要素認識不同的原因 71
1. 二部派的理論範疇不同 71
2. 研究理論重點不同 72
3. 對有為法的認識與分類不同 73
（二）對「蘊」的性質認識不同的原因 74
（三）觀點的抉擇 75
六、結論 76 |
|---|
| ISSN | 16086848 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 455 |
|---|
| Created date | 2019.07.12 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2019.07.24 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
