|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
《雜阿含》「無我相經」勘正 -- 「文獻學」vs.「教義學」的解決方案=Philology Versus Dogmatics: A Comparative Study of the Anattalakkhana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya |
|
|
|
| Author |
蔡奇林 (著)=Tsai, Chi-lin (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
臺灣宗教研究=Taiwan Journal of Religious Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | v.6 n.2 |
|---|
| Date | 2007.06 |
|---|
| Pages | 121 - 147 |
|---|
| Publisher | 台灣宗教學會=Taiwan Association for Religious Studies |
|---|
| Location | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| Note | 作者屬於南華大學宗教學研究所 |
|---|
| Keyword | 初期佛教= early Buddhism; 無我相經= Anattalakkhana Sutta; 薩遮尼犍子經= Anattalakkhana Sutta; 無我= anatta; 文獻學= philology; 教義學= dogmatics |
|---|
| Abstract | 「無我相經」是佛成道以後，繼初次說法(轉法輪經)之後，對五比丘所作的開示。據記載，五比丘聽聞此經之後，便證得了聲聞弟子的最高成尌──阿羅漢果。因此，此經不管是在佛教的歷史上，或是佛法的修學上，都有著甚為殊勝的地位。但是這部重要經典，在巴利本與漢譯《雜阿含》二個傳本中，對於「無我」這個關鍵論題的論述，卻出現了「完全相反」的二個說法。究竟哪一個才是佛的原說？目前學界仍無定論。本文的目的尌是要解決這個問題，以還原「無我相經」的原貌與原意。本文首先說明這個文本差異的情形，接著介紹兩位日本學者(水野弘元與平川彰)對此問題的看法。二人同樣認為，「哪個才是佛陀原說？」的問題，目前無法驟然判斷，因而擱置文獻爭議，遂行教義層面的詮解。本文則認為，在進行教義解釋之前，應先進行更加審密的文獻處理。因此，第三節以下，採用「文獻學」方法，對於「無我相經」的種種相關文本，進行比較細緻的考察與分析。其中總共檢核了三個層次的13項文證，包括「無我相經」諸傳本、《瑜伽師地論》對「無我相經」的解釋文、以及與「無我相經」論述結構一致的「薩遮尼犍子經」諸傳本。通過層層的考辯分析，結果顯示，巴利本所傳才是佛的原說，而現行《雜阿含》「陰相應」的「無我相經」則是個「誤傳」。最後並嘗詴辨明這個誤傳產生的原因和年代。
The first discourse the Buddha gave following his enlightenment was the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, which was addressed to his first five monk disciples. It is said that when the Buddha preached his second sermon, the Anattalakkhana Sutta, to these same five monks they all attained arahantship, the highest goal of Buddhist practice. Thus the Anattalakkhana Sutta occupies a key position in both the history and doctrine of Buddhism. Yet the Pali and Chinese versions of the Anattalakkhana Sutta give completely opposite interpretations of the key term of this sutta: anatta. There is still no conclusion amongst scholars as to which one was the original teaching of the Buddha. This paper proposes to solve this problem by recovering the orignial form and meaning of the Anattalakkhana Sutta. This paper begins with an explanation of the differences between the versions, followed by a summary of the views put forth by the Japanese scholars Mizuno Kōgen and Hirakawa Akira. Believing that at present is not possible to conclusively determine the Buddha‟s original teaching on anatta, these two scholars have decided the best approach is to put aside the textual controversy and try to solve the problem from the standpoint of doctrinal exegesis. It is the premise of this paper, however, that a more thoroughgoing textual investigation should be carried out before resorting to doctrinal exegesis. Thus the third section of this paper makes a detailed philological investigation and analysis of the various versions of the Anattalakkhana Sutta. A total of 13 documents are examined on three levels, including 9 versions of the Anattalakkhana Sutta, the explanatory passages on the Anattalakkhana Sutta found in the Yogācāra-bhūmi-śāstra, as well as 3 versions of the Culasaccaka Sutta, since their narrative structure closely resembles that of the Anattalakkhana Sutta. The results of this multi-level analysis shows that the Pali version is in fact the original teaching of the Buddha, and that the Chinese version of the Anattalakkhana Sutta in the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta Nikaya is corrupt. The final section is an attempt to determine when and how this corruption came about. |
|---|
| Table of contents | 一、問題的提出
二、教義學取向的解決方案：水野弘元與平川彰的看法
（一）水野弘元的看法
（二）平川彰的看法
三、文獻學取向的解決方案：多語言多版本的考校與勘正
（一）第一層證據：「無我相經」諸傳本
1. 律藏中的資料
2. 經藏中的資料
3. 佛傳文學的資料
4. 第一層證據的檢討
（二）第二層證據：《瑜伽師地論》解釋「無我相經」的論文
（三）第三層證據：與「無我相經」論述結構類同的經文
1.「薩遮尼犍子經」諸傳本
2.「薩遮尼犍子經」文證分析
（四）「無我相經」諸文證結說
1. 關於「何者才是佛陀原說」的問題
2. 誤傳產生的原因與年代
（五）《雜阿含》「無我相經」勘正
四、結語：「文獻學」與「教義學」之間的拉扯與平衡 |
|---|
| ISSN | 20769458 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 1276 |
|---|
| Created date | 2009.09.30 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2022.08.11 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
