|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
所知障：在梵文構詞異讀、概念邏輯關係及釋義學的反證之間=Obstruction of Knowledge (Jñeyāvaraṇa): Among Sanskrit Compounding, Logical Analysis of Concept and Hermeneutic Rebuttal |
|
|
|
| Author |
劉宇光 (著)=Lau, Lawrence Y. K. (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
臺大佛學研究=Taiwan Journal of Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.29 |
|---|
| Date | 2015.06 |
|---|
| Pages | 119 - 184 |
|---|
| Publisher | 國立臺灣大學佛學研究中心=The Center for Buddhist Studies, National Taiwan University |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~ntucbs/
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 劉宇光：復旦大學哲學學院副教授 |
|---|
| Keyword | 所知障=Jñeyāvaraṇa; 有相唯識學=Sākāra-vijñānavāda; 玄奘=Xuanzang; 依主釋=tatpuruṣa; 持業釋=karmadhāraya |
|---|
| Abstract | 本文以大乘佛教所知障（jñeyāvaraṇa）一詞為例，分別從梵文複合詞的構詞異讀、概念邏輯關係及釋義學三個不同角度，來
論證對所知障概念的依主釋與持業釋解讀雖然確實各有偏重，但無論從梵、漢或藏傳三系佛學，皆表明梵文複合詞的構詞異讀，
並非如現代部份學者所主張般，是邏輯上不能並存的矛盾關係。反之，本文借助三個釋義案例的反證和概念的邏輯分析，論證依
主與持業二釋只是透過不同的構詞格式，來呈現所知障不同面貌的語法技巧，彼此之間是以正、反兩種表述的進路同時並行的方
式，在邏輯地相連但又互補的關係上，並肩揭示所知障的概念內涵，而不是競爭或互斥的關係。全文由兩個主要部份組成。壹，
「所知障：梵文複合詞構詞異讀」，由四個環節組成：一，複合詞的構詞異讀；二，依主釋的所知障規定下的所知；三，持業釋
的所知障；及四，兩個佛學傳統的兩種所知障與所知。貳，「所知障：邏輯與釋義學的反證」由四個環節組成：一，回應近年學
界對異讀的議論；二，反證甲：東亞有相唯識學三層所知障的正反闡述；三，反證乙：藏傳宗義，包括「所知障、知識—實在論
及準持業釋」和「匿名所知障、未達完整知識及準依主釋」兩組分析；及四，對上述第二部份諸節的綜合討論。最後是全文結論。
Different morphological interpretation of a Sanskrit compound word would imply signifi cant difference in its semantic indication. The Mahayana concept of Obstruction of Knowledge (Jñeyāvaraṇa) can be explained differently, according to two compounding principles. The tatpuruṣa format of Jñeyāvaraṇa is read as “Obstruction OF Knowledge”, while the karmadhāraya reading is “Obstruction BY Knowledge”. Apparently, they have different emphasis. Some modern scholarship in Buddhist Studies is tried to argue that, the two readings are in logical contradiction, thus, they are incompatible. However, the purpose of this article is tired to suggest that the conclusion above is still debatable. This article will agree that, although the two readings have different emphasis, they are not merely logically, and hermeneutically, compatible, but also mutually supportive. The argumentation is based on firstly, the analysis of the direct and indirect logical implications of the concept; and secondly, three “counter cases”, from East Asian and Tibetan presentations of various intellectual traditions of Mahayana. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 前言 121
一、所知障：梵文複合詞的構詞異讀 121
（一）梵文複合詞的構詞異讀 122
（二）依主釋的所知障規定下的「所知」 125
（三）持業釋的所知障 132
（四）兩個佛學傳統的兩種所知障與所知 134
二、所知障：邏輯與釋義學的反證 140
（一）回應近年學界對異讀的議論 142
（二） 釋義反證甲：東亞有相唯識學三層所知障的正反闡述 145
（三）釋義反證乙：藏傳宗義 155
（四）綜合討論 168
全文結論 170
引用書目 172 |
|---|
| ISSN | 10271112 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 889 |
|---|
| Created date | 2015.08.11 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2020.04.24 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
