laukikaṃ paramārtham : Prasannapadā 第24章第10偈導入箇所におけるテキストの問題=laukikaṃ paramārtham : Textual problems in the commentary on chapter 24, verse 10 in the Prasannapadā
It goes without saying that the theory of the two truths of paramārtha and saṃvṛti is one of the most important concepts in Madhyamaka Philosophy, and that this theory is explained in chapter 24, verses 8-10 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK). In 24.10ab, Nāgārjuna uses the word “verbal expression (vyavahāra)” with nearly the same meaning as “verbal convention (saṃvṛti)” and explains the relationship of the two truths as follows: “without relying on verbal expression (vyavahāra), ultimate object (paramārtha) is not taught”(MMK 24.10ab). Candrakīrti’s commentary on this part can be found in Louis de La Vallée Poussin (LVP)’s text of the Prasannapadā (PSP), which is one of the best known commentaries on the MMK, as follows: “without admitting worldly verbal expression (laukikaṃ vyavahāram), the characteristic of which is name and what is named and cognition and what is cognized and so on, ultimate object cannot be taught”(laukikaṃ vyavahāram anabhyupagamyābhidhānābhidheyajñānajñeyādilakṣaṇam aśakyate eva paramārtho deśayituṃ) [LVP ed. 494.8–9]. Although the text of the PSP was edited by LVP in 1903–1913, many scholars still use his text even today. However, there are some textual problems in LVP’s text and some scholars have begun revising his text by referring to newly-discovered manuscripts. Anne MacDonald, who revised the first chapter of the PSP, regarded six “better” manuscripts as important among about twenty available manuscripts. In this paper, I will discuss textual problems regarding the term “[laukikaṃ] vyavahāram” in the preceding quotation from the PSP. Although I checked the six “better” manuscripts and several other manuscripts as well as five versions of Tibetan translations, I found no evidence to support the reading of “[laukikaṃ] vyavahāram” as is seen in LVP’s text. The term “[laukikaṃ] paramārtham” is found in almost all Sanskrit manuscripts —except for the Oxford manuscript—, and the term “ ’jig rten pa’i don dam pa (*laukikaṃ paramārtham)” is also found in five Tibetan translations instead of what we would expect for the term “[laukikaṃ] vyavahāraṃ” Although a few studies have already dealt with this problem and pointed out that the term “laukikaṃ paramārtham” was found in Candrakīrti’s Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti and Catuḥśatakaṭīkā, there are still a few issues in the interpretation of this expression that need to be looked at again. Accordingly, I will examine these examples again and reconsider them in the context of the PSP.
