解藏護=Mokṣākaragupta; 《論理的語言》=Tarkabhāṣā; 有相派=Sākāravāda; 無相派=Nirākāravāda; 佛教四學派教義=the Buddhist four schools’ doctrine
摘要
印度後期佛教學者解藏護 (Mokṣākaragupta；ca.1050-1292 C.E.)，其著作《論理的語言》(Tarkabhāṣā) 是解釋佛教認識論與論理學的作品。在其學派立場方面，日本學者白崎顯成藉由《論理的語言》中四學派教義部分內容與吉撻里 (Jitāri；ca. 940-980 C.E.) 在《善逝宗義分別註》 (Sugatamatavibhaṅgabhāṣya) 中相對應部分內容的比對，而推論其與吉撻里的學派立場相反，應屬有相派 (Sākāravāda)。白崎作此論述的依據主要為解藏護與吉撻里兩者的引用對象，解藏護主要引用法稱 (Dharmakīrti；ca. 600-660 C.E.)、智作護 (Prajñākaragupta；ca. 750-810 C.E.) 等有相派學者；而吉撻里引用寂護 (Śāntarakṣita；ca. 725-788 C.E.)、寶藏寂 (Ratnākaraśā- nti) 等無相派 (Nirākāravāda) 學者。以上有相、無相派的代表學者歸類主要為梶山雄一等學者在早期的研究中所提出。然而，過往學術界對於有相、無相派的理解事實上受到日本學者船山徹的質疑。他在文章〈蓮華戒對瑜伽行派內兩個分派的分類〉(Kamalaśīla’s distinction between the two sub-schools of Yogācāra. A provisional survey) 中提出蓮華戒 (Kamalaśīla；ca. 740-795 C.E.) 在《攝真實論註》(Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā) 的最後一章中對瑜伽行派內兩個分派的描述，而認為於此蓮華戒對於有相、無相派的描述和早期研究中所理解的定義是不同的。因此，先前學術界對有相、無相派的理解，我們還有很多再探討的空間。 本研究以白崎的研究為基礎，加入船山於文章中對有相、無相派所提出的一些觀點，進而再回到文獻中重新探討解藏護可能的學派傾向。同時，本研究也依照船山在文章中的方式，對過往學界的有相、無相派相關研究做一個概略的回顧，並表達了一點粗略的意見。希望藉由這個研究提供更多印度佛教學者在有相、無相派立場上的文獻證據，進而讓我們更了解印度佛教後期的學派發展狀況。
Mokṣākaragupta (ca.1050-1292 C.E.) is a Buddhist scholar of the final stage of Indian Buddhism. His work Tarkabhāṣā is about Buddhist epistemology and logic. On his school position, Japanese scholar Kenjo Shirasaki has assumed that he is contrast to Jitāri (ca. 940-980 C.E.), and seems to be a Sākāravādin, according to the Buddhist four schools’ doctrine contents in Tarkabhāṣā compared with Jitāri’s counterparts in the Sugatamatavibhaṅgabhāṣya. However, Kenjo Shirasaki makes his points based on Mokṣākaragupta and Jitāri’s references: Mokṣākaragupta qoutes from Dharmakīrti (ca. 600-660 C.E.), Prajñākaragupta (ca. 750-810 C.E.) etc., who was regarded as Sākāravādin; and Jitāri quotes from Śāntarakṣita (ca. 725-788 C.E.), Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 10-11th C.E.) etc., regarded as Nirākāravādin. These scholars who represented the Sākāravāda and Nirākāravāda, are advoted by scholars like Yuchi Kajiyama, but has been doubted by Toru Funayama in his article Kamalaśīla’s distinction between the two sub-schools of Yogācāra. A provisional survey. In this work, Funayama points out some problems of the past studies, and reveals that Kamalaśīla’s distinction between two sub-schools of Yogācāra, the criteria of classification is different from known before. This indicates that we have to reconsider about the classification of the two sub-schools of the Yogācāra, and their represented Indian scholars. In this research, researcher based on the discussion of Kenjo Shirasaki, and adds the opinion of Toru Funayama about Sākāravāda and Nirākāravāda, to go back to the text itself to rediscover the school position of Mokṣākaragupta. And just follow the way Toru Funayama did, this reasearch also reviews the Sākāravāda and Nirākāravāda studies of the past, and offers some rough opinions. With this study hopes to provide more hard evidences of the two sub-schools of Yogācāra from text, and makes us have better understanding about Buddhist school development in the final stage of Indian Buddhism.
