陳那《觀所緣論》前二頌之詮釋與因明問題：從護法到漢傳的傳承與演變=On the Buddhist Logical Interpretations of the First Two Verses in Dignāga’s Ālambanaparīkṣā-vṛtti: From Dharmapāla to the East Asian Buddhist Commentators
陳那=Dignāga; 護法=Dharmapāla; 玄奘=Xuanzang; 所緣=ālambana; 因明=hetuvidyā; 漢傳佛教=East Asian Buddhism
摘要
本文聚焦於陳那Dignāga 480-540）《 觀所緣論 》（ Ālambanaparīkṣā-vṛtti前二頌之詮釋與因明問題 研究從護法Dharmapāla 530-561 到漢傳佛教 唐 、晚明、江戶）注疏的傳承與演變。以因明詮釋文本是護法、玄奘所傳的特色，本文以因明應用面向切入，探究從印度到中國（含日本）的因明思想發展史。首先詮釋護法注疏， 然後疏理漢傳佛教（唐、晚明、江戶）脈絡下的主要議題，對比護法注疏，特別是因明立、破方面，釐清某些問題是奘譯所導致的，某些則是護法、甚至陳那當時就已潛藏的問題，因而是漢傳佛教注疏試圖進一步發展或解決的問題，並分析上述諸問題某種程度上雖能澄清或解決，然而亦涉及因明本身可能的限制。 Focusing on the Buddhist logical interpretations of the first two verses in Dignāga’s Ālambanaparīkṣā-vṛtti, this paper is an in-depth study of Dharmapāla’s commentary on the Ālambanaparīkṣā and other commentaries in the East Asian Buddhist tradition, including the commentaries in the Tang Dynasty, the later Ming Dynasty and the Edo Period. Interpreting the text with the Buddhist logic is the characteristic of Dharmapāla and of Xuanzang-Kuiji’s legacy, and it is hoped that this paper will contribute to the Buddhist studies by investigating the intellectual history from India to East Asia in the aspect of the application of the Buddhist logic. First, this paper provides a clear exposition of Dharmapāla’s commentary regarding the first two verses. Second, this paper gives a proper interpretation of the commentaries regarding the first two verses in the East Asian Buddhist tradition and then examines or clarifies the central issues pertaining to the Buddhist logic. Third, comparing Dharmapāla’s commentary with those later commentaries, from the perspective of the Buddhist logic (establishing one’s own valid thesis or pointing out the opponent’s faults) in particular, this paper tries to make a thorough inquiry and to address the following questions: Which issues are the consequences of Xuanzang’s translation? Which issues are potential or hidden problems in Dharmapāla’s commentary or in Dignāga’s own texts? Are there any further developments or solutions in the later commentaries? Is there any solution to the problems related to Dignāga’s logic or is there any internal constraint or defect in his logic system? The tentative conclusion is that some problems are the consequences of Xuanzang’s translation, but some are potential or hidden problems in Dharmapāla’s or Dignāga’s texts; furthermore, there is continuity and change in the historical development, and there are still thorny issues pertaining to Dignāga’s logic.
