修行方法=修行法門=Practice; 佛教經典=Sutra; 淨明句論‧第十三品=the thirteenth chapter of Prasannapada; 中論=Mulamadhyamakakarika; 中論注釋=commentaries on Mulamadhyamakakarika; 月稱=CandrakIrti
摘要
本論文的主目的，在譯注與研究月稱《淨明句論‧第十三品》(Prasannapada)，並比較《中論》(Mulamadhyamakakarika) 諸家的注釋，希望藉此歷時性的比較研究，能讓我們較清楚地見到在歷經了四百年之久的《中論》注釋過程裡，有哪些結構是數代以來注釋家們所共同特有的，而哪些結構專屬於月稱個人所特有的. 這類簡別性的研究，有助吾人理解《中論》「文本」(text)與「詮釋」(interpretation)間的張力強度. 本研究是一項統整性的工作，也就是立基於國內. 外各方學者已有的研究業績上，來進行綜合性的研究. 主工作是，把《中論》注釋書裡唯一現存的梵文原典，也就是《淨明句論》第十三品校讀譯注成中文；並且，也將過去未曾漢譯而目前但存藏文譯本的《無畏論》(Akutobhaya)與《佛護釋》(Buddhapalita-vrtti)的第十三品一併譯出. 此外，關於清辨(Bhavaviveka)的《般若燈論》(Prajnapradipa)，以往國內的同類研究多半只是依據舛誤不堪的唐代譯本，此次則從藏文譯本把該書第十三品重新譯讀. 並完成了這些注釋書比較分析的作業. 從品題開始，包括該品的偈頌數目，及對某些頌文之義是代表正方或反方的立場，這些現存的梵. 藏. 漢有關《中論‧第十三品》的注釋書裡，它們不是在文獻上彼此存有一定程度的差異，就是在注釋家間相互著不同的認定. 因此，透過此類全面性的比較研究，一方面探討本品品名的出入問題，同時，並衡定羅什的漢譯本何以會在本品的偈頌數目上，比現存的梵. 藏各本多出了一首頌的問題. 此外，本品的若干偈頌，注釋家間對它們所代表正方或反方的立場，彼此間的認定並不一致. 在本研究裡，著手來討論注解家間，為何會在這類問題的認定上出現這種不一致的情況. 這些研究所獲致的最終成果，將展現於本論文的 <月稱注釋為主的義理分析篇>和 <結論篇>. The main object of this thesis is to proofread and interpret a study of the thirteenth chapter of Prasannapada, and compare different commentaries on the thirteenth chapter of Mulamadhyamakakarika. As commentaries on Mulamadhyamakakarika are composed through a period of four hundred years. By this diachronic study of comparison between various commentaries, to get a clear picture of the common interpretation shared by all commentators and the unique readings proposed by each individual commentator -- CandrakIrti. This kind of discriminant study will help us understand the degrees of tension between the text itself and its interpretations. It may also help to clarify some details in the historic development of commentaries on Mulamadhyamakakarika. The current study is a syncretistic research, that is, it is built upon the basis of the previous studies by domestic and foreign scholars. The main job is ，I have already translated into Chinese the thirteenth chapter of Prasannapada, the only commentary among all that still has its Sanskrit version. Translation of this commentary into Chinese has been attempted before； I have also translated into Chinese the thirteenth chapters of Akutobhaya and Buddhapalita-vrtti，both of which are preserved only in their Tibetan version. In addition ，I have re-translated the thirteenth chapter of Bhavaviveka's Prajnapradipa into Chinese from its Tibetan version because its previous Chinese translation of the T'ang dynasty，upon which most of the other domestic researches on this topic in the past were based is full of errors ,and also completed the analysis processes as well. Differences and discrepancies in the title，the number of verses, and the pros or cons of issues discussed in some verses are inevitably found in the currently extant commentaries on the thirteenth chapter of Mulamadhyamakakarika when their Sanskrit，Tibetan and Chinese versions are compared and reviewed line by line. They are the result of either the discrepancies inherited from the original texts on which the commentaries were based or different readings of the commentators. Through this study of a comprehensive comparison between different versions of commentaries on this chapter，I hope to find out the origin of discrepancies of its title and the reason why Kumarajiva's Chinese translation has one more verse than the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions. Furthermore. I would also like to discuss in this paper the reasons behind the disagreement between different commentators with regard to the pros and cons of issues presented in certain verses. The final results from these researches would disclose in subject thesis, focused on "philosophy analysis with CandrakIrti's clarification" and "conclusion".
