|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
玄奘對《觀所緣論》第三頌的改譯及其對論證式之重構 = Xuanzang's Adaptation Translation of the Ālambanaparīkṣā Verse Three and Reconstruction of the Argument |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
茅宇凡 (著)=Mao, Yu-Fan (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
哲學與文化=Monthly Review of Philosophy and Culture
|
|---|
| 巻号 | v.50 n.6 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2023.06 |
|---|
| ページ | 47 - 65 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 哲學與文化月刊雜誌社 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://www.umrpc.fju.edu.tw
|
|---|
| 出版地 | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 中文=Chinese |
|---|
| ノート | 茅宇凡，上海大學哲學系副教授。 |
|---|
| キーワード | 所緣=Object-Support (Ālambana) ; 陳那=Dignāga; 極微=Atom (Paramāṇu) ; 和集相=Aggregate Form |
|---|
| 抄録 | 誠如山口益所指出，根據《觀所緣論》的藏譯本以及調伏天和護法的注釋，第三頌應當被理解為論敵為原子論的辯護；而玄奘的翻譯並非忠實的直譯而是改譯。玄奘的翻譯增加了對第三種原子論的解釋，並將原來論敵的自我辯護改寫為陳那對原子論的駁論證。儘管玄奘的改譯或許是出於對第三頌的誤讀，但他的理解很可能來自陳那本人或其後學，因為在《集量論》和勝主覺的《集量論注疏》中可以找到與玄奘所增添內容類似的對原子論的描述和辯駁。另外，第三頌論敵原來的論證過於簡單，無法被視為一個滿足因三相的論證，這或許是玄奘將它理解為陳那駁論證的原因。玄奘的改譯在邏輯上重構了「所立法」（即非所緣）與「因」（即極微相眼等識上無彼相）之間不相離的遍充關係；但是，這個重構的因三相也默許了因第一相（聚集相即是極微相，它不在識上顯現），這其實是論敵所不能接受的，也是雙方爭議之所在。
As pointed out by Yamagucchi, according to the Tibetan translation of the Ālambanaparīkṣā, Vinītadeva's and Dharmapāla's commentaries, the third verse is a report of the opponent's position of atomism. Xuanzang's translation of the Verse Three is not a faithful translation but an adaptation because he adds some explanations to elaborate the opponent's position and reconstructs the argument as Dignāga's own refutation of the atomism. Although Xuanzang's translation might be a misreading of the original meaning of the Verse Three, his additions and understandings probably come from Dignāga and his disciples because there are some similar descriptions of the opponent's atomism can be found in the Pramāṇasamuccaya-vṛtti and Jinendrabuddhi's Pramāṇasamuccaya-ṭīkā. Moreover, the original argument of the opponent is too simple to compose a syllogism. This might the reason that Xuanzang rewrites it as Dignāga's own refutation. Xuanzang reestablishes the logical relationship between the sādhya (i.e., not being an object-support) and the hetu (i.e., the forms of atoms do not appear in cognition). The reconstructed syllogism also assumes the minor premise that the aggregate forms are the same as the forms of atoms that do not appear in cognition; however, this premise would not be accepted by the opponents. |
|---|
| 目次 | 壹、引言 47
貳、玄奘譯和調伏天疏等對《觀所緣論》第三頌的不同解讀 48
參、玄奘對第三頌的理解或來源與陳那《集量論》 54
肆、玄奘對第三頌論證式之重構及其得失 59
伍、結語 61
參考文獻 62 |
|---|
| ISSN | 10158383 (P); 10158383 (E) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 55 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2023.06.28 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2023.06.28 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
