|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
パーリ註釈文献における「子肉の喩」に関する一考察=The Parable of the Son’s Flesh (Puttamaṁsa) in the Pāli Commentaries |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
名和隆乾 (著)=Nawa, Ryuken (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
印度學佛教學研究 =Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies=Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū
|
|---|
| 巻号 | v.68 n.2 (總號=n.150) |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2020.03.20 |
|---|
| ページ | 1058 - 1053 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 日本印度学仏教学会 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://www.jaibs.jp/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 東京, 日本 [Tokyo, Japan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 日文=Japanese |
|---|
| キーワード | パーリ文献; Puttamaṁsa; 子肉の喩; 四食 |
|---|
| 抄録 | In the parable of the son’s flesh, found only in the Saṃyuttanikāya (SN) 12.67 (PTS ed. vol. 2, 97–100) of the Pāli Canon, a husband and wife, in circumstances of extremity, kill their son and eat his flesh to survive. In this paper, I indicate the existence of an alternative version of this parable, in which the son was not killed but died, in the commentaries Papañcasūdanī (vol. 1, 211–213) and the Sāratthappakāsinī (vol. 2, 104–105). The reason why the son’s cause of death differs between the Saṃyuttanikāya and the two commentaries can be understood in two ways: (1) the commentaries simply relate an actual event (bhūta- attha-) of the parable. They narrate using the aorist, whereas, the SN uses seyyathāpi and the optative. (2) There was a taboo against killing children in the Theravāda tradition. The relevance of the second observation becomes clear in the course of this paper. |
|---|
| 目次 | はじめに 1058
1. 1058
2. 1057
2.1. 1057
2.2. 1057
2.3. 1056
3. 1056
3.1. 1056
3.2. 1055
小結 1055 |
|---|
| ISSN | 00194344 (P); 18840051 (E) |
|---|
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.68.2_1058 |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 56 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2022.09.29 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2022.09.29 |
|---|
 |
Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac)での検索をお勧めします。ＩＥではこの検索システムを表示できません。
|
|
|
