|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kartṛsthakriyāとkarmasthakriyāとしての非認識=The Non-cognition Explained as kartṛsthakriyā and karmasthakriyā |
|
|
|
著者 |
道元大成 (著)=Michimoto, Daisei (au.)
|
掲載誌 |
印度學佛教學研究 =Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies=Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū
|
巻号 | v.70 n.1 (總號=n.155) |
出版年月日 | 2021.12.20 |
ページ | 413 - 409 |
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 | 非認識論証因; kartṛsthakriyā; karmasthakriyā |
抄録 | In the Hetubinduṭīkā, after the refutation of Īśvarasena and Kumārila from the viewpoint of kartṛsthakriyā and karmasthakriyā, the counterargument is developed by an anonymous opponent to avoid that problem. This rebuttal is based on ordinary conception: 1. Perception of a place alone; 2. Cognition of knowledge of a place alone; 3. Understanding of the non-existence of a pot; 4. Understanding of activity regarding the non-existence (abhāvavyavahāra) of the pot. Furthermore, by interpreting 1. the perception of a place alone as karmasthakriyā and 2. the perception of knowledge of a place alone as kartṛsthakriyā, the opponent claims that there is no difference from the theory of non-cognition maintained by Dharmakīrti. Also, the negative statements by four opponents, that is Īśvarasena, Kumārila, Nyāya, and the other, are introduced at the beginning of the annotation of the non-cognition argument in HBṬ. The content of that other’s theory, which is not identified, is also consistent with the ordinary conception mentioned above. This opponent would be the counterargument intentionally assumed by Arcata; on the other hand, he makes it efficient by pointing that this counterargument meets the requirements of kartṛsthakriyā and karmasthakriyā. |
目次 | 1.問題の所在 413 2.対論者による再反論 413 3.HBṬ 冒頭部分における対論者問題 411 4.結論 410 |
ISSN | 00194344 (P); 18840051 (E) |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.70.1_413 |
ヒット数 | 106 |
作成日 | 2023.01.06 |
更新日期 | 2023.01.06 |
|
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。
|
|
|