作者係德國海德堡大學亞歐跨文化研究中心佛教研究方向博士候選人 本文之部分內容曾以 “The Problem of He: Anvaya or Upanaya” 為題，以英 文於 2016 年 6 月維也納奧地利科學院亞洲文化及思想史研究所 “Buddhist Logic and its Applications in East Asia” 工作坊進行報告。後經筆者調整、改 寫為漢語版，復蒙二位匿名審稿人賜正，僅此衷心感謝
關鍵詞
合=He; Anvaya; Upanaya; 因明= the Science of Reasons; 窺基=Kuiji
Dignāga’s system of the science of reasons was introduced into Chinese Buddhism through Xuanzang’s translations of the Nyāyamukha and the Nyāyapraveśa. The study on this subject was later promoted by Kuiji, who was Xuanzang’s most important disciple and wrote a commentary on Xuanzang’s Chinese translation of the Nyāyapraveśa. Kuiji’s commentary was honored as the Great Commentary on the Science of Reasons by later generations. After a new development in China, this system, with Kuiji’s Great Commentaty as a representative work, was transmitted into Japan. In Xuanzang’s translations of the Nyāyamukha, the Nyāyapraveśa, and so forth, both anvaya and upanaya, which mean quite differently, were translated as he（合）, then in the relevant Chinese and Japanese commentaries by his successors, such as Kuiji, how to understand this he became a notable issue. It caused discussions not only about the exclusion of upanaya as well as the function through anvaya of the positive example in Dignāga’s system of the science of reasons, but also about the entire logical structure of inference. Thus, this paper is to examine the problem of he in the commentarial texts by Kuiji, Huizhao, and Zenju, with the purpose of elucidating how it was generated and magnified, and how it impacted the Chinese and Japanese traditions of the science of reasons.
