|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
二諦之區別與空之三要點：以《明句論》第二十四章為主 |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
釋見弘 (著)=Shih, Jien-hong (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
法鼓佛學學報=Dharma Drum Journal of Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.7 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2010.12.01 |
|---|
| ページ | 67 - 106 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 法鼓文理學院 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
https://www.dila.edu.tw/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 新北市, 臺灣 [New Taipei City, Taiwan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| ノート | 作者為法鼓佛教學院助理教授 |
|---|
| キーワード | 月稱=Candrakīrti; 二諦之區別=satyadvayavibhāga; ?ūnyatārtha; 明句論=Prasannapadā |
|---|
| 抄録 | 本論文旨在闡述月稱（ Candrakīrti ） 於其重要著作《明句論》（ Prasannapadā ） 第二十四章的注釋中， 對「二諦之區別」（satyadvayavibhāga）一詞的理解，與此和「空之三個要點」的關連性。丹治昭義教授以為月稱忽略了第七詩偈到第八詩偈的文意之連結，也就是忽略了「二諦之區別」與「空之三要點」的關連性。同時，他還將月稱對「二諦之區別」一詞之理解，說明為是在表達言語、教說（＝世俗諦）和不可說的實在（＝勝義諦）此二者間的乖離、斷絕乃至相互矛盾之關係性。因為勝義是不可說的，不能用言語來表達的，只要一旦進入言語表達或心思所能擬及的範圍，任何超俗的境界就不再是勝義諦而是世俗諦了。因此，二諦是斷絕之存在，這一點正是二諦必須被區別之處。然而，根據筆者對《明句論》與《入中論注》（Madhyamakāvatāra-bhā?ya）的調查，發現「二諦之區別」一字並非如丹治教授所理解般，只使用在表達世俗諦和勝義諦間之乖離、斷絕乃至相互矛盾之關係上。月稱使用「二諦之確立」（satyadvayavyavasthā）一詞作為「二諦之區別」的同義字，強調二諦之次第性，重視世俗諦的積極功能，強調唯有透過世俗諦才能正確理解空，也就是理解勝義諦。故「二諦之區別」一詞，與中觀學派真理觀的設定也就是確立有關，它多次出現在月稱與其他學派議論真理的場合。再者，月稱也未忽視「二諦之區別」與「空之三要點」的關連性。這從他提到：因為不知道「二諦之確立」（＝「二諦之區別」），故未能正確地了解「空」、「空義」和「空用」（＝「空之三要點」）一文，可以得到印證。
This paper mainly sets out the understanding of the term “differentiation of the Two Truths” and the connection between that term and the “three points of
Emptiness.” These discussion ideas were indicated in the commentary of the
twenty-forth chapter in Prasannapadā, one of the most significant book written by Candrakīrti. Professor Teruyoshi Tanji believes that in Prasannapadā, Candrakīrti overlooks the link between the context of the seventh verse and the eighth verse. This means that he overlooked the association between “differentiation of the Two Truths” and the “three points of Emptiness.” Professor Tanji also clarifies the meaning of the term “differentiation between the Two Truths,” which is mentioned by Candrakīrti. Tanji explains that the term is depicting the deviation, the cut off, and even the contradictory of the relationship between the truth that can be expressed and taught with language (the conventional truth) and the truth which is beyond words (the ultimate truth). Because the ultimate truth is unspeakable and indescribable with words, once it gets to the limit where it can be reached by language and thought, any spiritual realm would no longer be the ultimate truth but become the conventional truth. Therefore, the Two Truths have no connection with one another. This point distinguishes the Two Truths. However, according to my research on Prasannapadā and “The Complementary of Entering the Middle Way” (Madhyamakāvatāra-bhā?ya), I found out that the term “differentiation of the Two Truths” is not what professor Tanji thought it was. He believes that the term is only used to depict the deviation, the cut off and the contradictory of the relationship between the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. Candrakīrti had used the term “establishment of the Two Truths” (satyadvayavyavasthā) as a synonym of “differentiation of the Two Truths.” He emphasized that the Two Truths has an order and valued the positive function of the conventional truth. He also emphasized that only through the conventional truth can one properly understand Emptiness, which is understanding the ultimate truth. Therefore, the term “differentiation of the Two Truths” is linked with the establishment of the middle way school’s view on the concept of Truth. In the discussion The term is mentioned many times on the occasion when Candrakīrti holds discussions of the Truth with other schools. Furthermore, Candrakīrti did not neglect the correlation between “differentiation of the Two Truths” and the “three points of Emptiness.” This statement can be proved by the following points he mentioned in one of his articles: because people misinterpret the “establishment of the Two Truths”(“differentiation of the Two Truths”), they would not be able to correctly understand “Emptiness,” “the meaning of Emptiness” and “the function of Emptiness,” which is the “three points of Emptiness.” |
|---|
| 目次 | 一、前言 69
二、《中論》第二十四章構成概要與問題之所在 72
三、二諦之區別的意涵 75
四、二諦之區別與真理的設定 82
（一）與唯識學派之論辯 82
（二）與知識論學派之論辯 86
（三）與虛無論者之論辯 89
五、二諦之區別與空之三要點的關連 93
六、結語 96
|
|---|
| ISSN | 19968000 (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 1364 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2011.04.24 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2021.01.11 |
|---|
 |
Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac)での検索をお勧めします。ＩＥではこの検索システムを表示できません。
|
|
|
