|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
無自性性論証を行う際のバーヴィヴェーカとカマラシーラの立場について：無原因から生起しないことの論証を中心に=The Standpoint of Bhāviveka and Kamalaśīla in Proving Absence of Self-nature: Focusing on the Proof of Being not from no Cause |
|
|
|
| Author |
林玄海 (著)=Hayashi, Genkai (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
印度學佛教學研究 =Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies=Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū
|
|---|
| Volume | v.67 n.1 (總號=n.146) |
|---|
| Date | 2018.12.20 |
|---|
| Pages | 390 - 387 |
|---|
| Publisher | 日本印度学仏教学会 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.jaibs.jp/
|
|---|
| Location | 東京, 日本 [Tokyo, Japan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 日文=Japanese |
|---|
| Keyword | カマラシーラ; バーヴィヴェーカ; 無原因 |
|---|
| Abstract | Previous researches have pointed out that Kamalaśīla, a Mādhyamika, engages the criticism of the inference system of Bhāviveka, and defends Bhāviveka. Because of this, it can be said that when Kamalaśīla proves the absence of Self-nature, his standpoint is basically the same as that of Bhāviveka. However, is this true? I consider the point through the proof of being not from no cause.
Candrakīrti criticizes Bhāviveka’s explanation of ahetu as *kuhetu. Kamalaśīla does not defend Bhāviveka on this point, and Kamalaśīla himself does not explain ahetu as *kuhetu. Because of this, Kamalaśīla does not explain ahetu as *kuhetu as does Bhāviveka, and in regard to this point, Kamalaśīla does not always hold the same standpoint as does Bhāviveka. |
|---|
| Table of contents | はじめに 390
1. 先行研究の指摘 390
2. バーヴィヴェーカの「無原因」とそれに対するチャンドラキールティ の批判 389
3. 「無原因」におけるカマラシーラの態度 389
おわりに 388 |
|---|
| ISSN | 00194344 (P); 18840051 (E) |
|---|
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.67.1_390 |
|---|
| Hits | 217 |
|---|
| Created date | 2022.08.11 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2022.08.11 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
