|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Controversy Unveiled: How Many Sūtra Passages Are Indicated as Requiring Interpretation in Candrakīrti's Madhyamakavatārabhāsya? =爭議之揭示 -- 月稱《入中論自釋》中有幾種不了義之經教？ |
|
|
|
| Author |
Magee, William (著)=馬紀 (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
中華佛學學報=Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal=Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.18 |
|---|
| Date | 2005.07.01 |
|---|
| Pages | 207 - 272 |
|---|
| Publisher | 中華佛學研究所=Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.chibs.edu.tw/publication_tw.php?id=12
|
|---|
| Location | 新北市, 臺灣 [New Taipei City, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese; 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | 作者為中華佛學研究所助理研究員 |
|---|
| Keyword | Tibetan Buddhism=西藏佛教; Ge-luk Sect=格魯派; Candrakīrti=月稱; Hermeneutic=詮釋學; Buddha Nature=佛性; Interpretable and definitive scriptures=不了義與了義經; 宗喀巴 |
|---|
| Abstract | This paper discusses a controversy within the Ge-luk sect of Tibetan Buddhism concerning a disagreement among prominent Ge-luk scholars over the precise number of Buddhist doctrines indicated as requiring interpretation in Candrakīrti's Autocommentary on the “Introduction to Nāgārjuna's ‘Treatise on the Middle Way.'” The controversial passage comes in the sixth chapter of Candrakīrti's famous work on Buddhist philosophy in the context of his refutation of the Mind-Only system. The passage states:
These passages [in the Descent Into La?kā Sūtra and so forth]
Show that other sūtras of such type require interpretation.
The controversy surrounds the fact that the founder of the Ge-luk sect, ºzong-ka-¸a Ío-sang-drak-¸a, asserts that Candrakīrti here refers to four types of sūtra passages:
(1)statements differentiating true establishment and non-true establishment with respect to the three natures;
(2)statements teaching a mind-basis-of-all;
(3)statements refuting external objects;
(4)statements explaining three final vehicles.
Later Ge-luk authors—most notably Kay-drup and Jam-c ang-shay-¸a—argue instead that Candrakīrti is referring to five sūtra passages requiring interpretation, these being the four asserted by ºzong-ka-¸a plus a fifth:
(5)statements in the Tathāgata Essence Sūtra of a permanent, stable essence in the continuums of all sentient beings having the [major and minor] marks of a Buddha.
Candrakīrti's remarks are somewhat ambiguous. Moreover, a surface reading yields doctrinal difficulties for ºzong-ka-¸a. Therefore, he employs a clever substitutional hermeneutic in treading the fine line between appreciation of Candrakīrti's opinions and outright non-adherence to his views. Kay-drup, on the other hand, rejects his master's conclusions as too limiting, while Jam-c ang-shay-¸a's hermeneutical maneuvers are an admirable attempt to reconcile the variant positions of his predecessors. Although these later Ge-luk-¸a's clearly feel ºzong-ka-¸a is mistaken, they never claim that he is wrong; they even take steps to smooth over their differences so that they do not appear to be disagreeing with the founder.
Within the course of investigating this disagreement, this paper shows how ºzong-ka-¸a employs creative interpretation in treading a fine line between appreciation of Candrakīrti's opinions on this point and outright non-adherence to his views. It also demonstrates how later exegetes—in part due to changing priorities within Tibet—are able to work with Sanskrit materials within ºzong-ka-¸a's doctrinal system, while at the same time circumventing ºzong-ka-¸a's strictures as needed. Also included is a discussion of the Ge-luk hermeneutical process, the author's translation of a small part of ºzong-ka-¸a's Illumination of the Thought, Extensive Explanation of (Candrakīrti's) “Introduction to (Nāgārjuna's) ‘Treatise on the Middle'” dealing with this question of interpretable sūtras, and the author's translation of annotation za of Nga-Ûang-¸el-den's Annotations for (Jam-c ang-shay-¸a's) “Great Exposition of Tenets,” Freeing the Knots of the Difficult Points, Precious Jewel of Clear Thought.
本論文之目的在於討論西藏佛教格魯派中幾位重要論師間之爭議，這些格魯派論師之爭議的問題在於：根據月稱(Candrakīrti)《入中論自釋》中之敘述，共有幾種經為不了義之教義。這段引起爭議之文句出現於月稱此陳述佛教思想之著作的第六章，月稱於此章中駁斥唯識之思想。此段落之內容為：
這幾段經文（出自楞伽等經中）顯示：其他如這類的經是需要加以詮釋的。
本文在於探討因格魯派之創始人宗喀巴(ºzong-ka-¸a)的主張而引來之爭議，宗喀巴認為月稱在上述段落中意指這類的經文有四種，即：
(1)經文就三性而分別真實成立與非真實成立者
(2)經文教授唯識之教義者
(3)經文駁斥外在之客體者
(4)經文解釋究竟三乘者
後來的格魯派論師們一一最引人注意的是克主(Kay-drup)和蔣央協巴(Jam-c ang-shay-¸a)—則主張月稱意指有五種不了義之經教，即宗喀巴所說之四種再加上下列所述之第五種：
(5)《如來藏經》經文所示，存在於一切眾生中，一種恆常安定之體，此體具備佛之相好。
月稱原本的語句有些含糊，而且，其字面之意義對於宗喀巴而言，也造成了教理解釋的困難。因此，宗喀巴使用了取代替換的注釋方法，行於讚賞和反對月稱的評論之間。但是，克主則不採用其上師宗喀巴之結論，因為其結論太過於狹隘。
後來，蔣央協巴試圖調和前人不同之意見。很明顯地，雖然這兩位格魯派後代論師都認為宗喀巴有錯，但卻從來不說宗喀巴是錯的；他們甚至更進一步消弭與宗喀巴之間的歧見，所以他們不顯現出與宗派創始人不同的看法。
在探討這個爭議的過程中，本文呈現出宗喀巴如何運用很有創造力的詮釋，行於讚賞和反對月稱的評論之間。本文亦顯示出後期注疏家可以同時連用梵文文獻和宗喀巴之義理體系，此外，並在必要之時避開宗喀巴的限制。再者，本文亦包含了三部分：格魯派注釋書發展過程之討論、作者所 |
|---|
| ISSN | 10177132 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 2320 |
|---|
| Created date | 2006.12.07 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.06.20 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
