| 193 | 0 | 7 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
清辨在《般若灯论》(■)、《中观心论》(■)和《大乘掌珍论》中对瑜伽行派"所缘真如"的观点进行了批判。其中,若干藏译《般若灯论》的相关表述和汉译《大乘掌珍论》对应度很高。针对有相唯识派关于无分别智亲证真如的论述,清辨认为它在教义经典和逻辑上都不合理,他建立了两个因明论式对此进行了反驳。他指出,瑜伽行派将真如当作认识对象(所缘)一方面违反了经典中对于无分别智没有认识活动、不具有认识对象的描述;另一方面,将真如视作认识对象会抹杀圣者之智慧与凡夫之认识在本质上的差别,也即解脱与流转无异。
Abstract：Bhāviveka criticizes the Yogācāra doctrine on "the thusness as a cognitive object( ālambana) "in his Prajāpradīpa,Madhyamakahrdaya and Da Cheng Zhang Zhen Lun. Some relevant Tibetan texts in Prajāpradīpa are corresponding to some Chinese texts in Da Cheng Zhang Zhen Lun. According to the theory of Sākāravijānavādin in Yogācāra school,the wisdom( Prajā) can cognize the thusness as its object without any conceptualization. Bhāviveka thinks this doctrine is not correct,because it is contrary to both the Sūtras and logic. He establishes two syllogisms to refute it. He says,on one hand,this doctrine betrays what Buddha said in the Sūtras that the wisdom operates without any activities and objects; on the other hand,if the thusness was considered as a cognitive object,then the wisdom would not be distinguished from the consciousness,that is to say,the Enlightened one and ordinary people would be the same.
[1][日]江岛惠教.Bhāvaviveka,/Bhāviveka/Bhavya[J].印度学%教学研究,1990(2):838—846.
[2](唐)窥基.成唯识论述记[CD]//大正藏.中华电子佛典协会(Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association,简称CBETA)电子佛典集成光碟(2014),T43,n1830,569c5.
[3]林国良.成唯识论直解[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2000:639.
[4][日]平川彰.印度佛教史[M].庄昆木译.台北:商周出版社,2002:355.
[5]梅光曦.五重唯识观注[M].台北:广文书局,1977:69.
[6]佚名.成唯识论[CD]//大正藏.中华电子佛典协会(Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association,简称CBETA)电子佛典集成光碟(2014),T31,n1585,页48b24、49c4.
[7]周贵华.唯识学中无分别智之亲证真如义——通过梵、藏文与玄奘译汉文进行的对比辨析[J].西南民族大学学报:人文社科版,2007(3):49.
[8][日]那须真裕美.Bhāvavivekaの二谛说について[J].印度学%教学研究,1999(2):901—903.
[9]清辨.大乘掌珍论[CD]//大正藏.中华电子佛典协会(Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association,简称CBETA)电子佛典集成光碟(2014)T30,n1578,页274c03—14;页276c—277a.
[10]Christian Lindtner.Bhavya’s Controversy with Yogāc-āra in the Appendix to Praj1āpradīpa,Chapter XXV[J].Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Commemorating the200th Anniversary of the Birth of Ale1984xander Csoma de K7r9s,vol.2,ed.Louis Ligeti,Budapest:Akadémiai Kiadó,p.94;p.95.
[11]Paul Hoornaert.An Annotated Translation of Madhyamakahr·dayakārikā/TarkajvālāV.8—26[G]//金沢大学文学部论集·行动科学·哲学编(20).2000.
(1)安井广济(1961)和Malcolm David Eckel(1985)翻译该段落时都没有指出与《大乘掌珍论》的对应。参见日本学者安井广济:《中観思想の研究》,京都:法藏馆,1961。Malcolm David Eckel:“Bhāvaviveka’s Critique of Yogācāra Philosophy in Chapter XXV of the Praj1āpradīpa”,Miscellanea Buddhica(Indiske Studier 5),pp.25—75,1985。
(1)梵:yadā tv ālambanam·j1ānam·naivopalabhate tadā|sthita m·vij1aptimātratve grāhyābhāve tadagrahāt||28||见Hartmut Buescher,Sthiamati’s trim·s'ikāvij1aptibhā·sya,Wien 2007,页136.玄奘译:若时于所缘,智都无所得,尔时住唯识,离二取相故。参见《唯识三十论颂》,《大正藏》T31,No1586,页61b14—15。
(2)《成唯识论》卷九:“即证真如智与真如平等平等,俱离能取、所取相故。能所取相俱是分别,有所得心戏论现故。”参见《大正藏》T31,n1585,页49c18。
(1)《成唯识论》卷九:“虽无相分而可说此带如相起,不离如故,如自证分缘见分时不变而缘,此亦应尔;变而缘者便非亲证,如后得智应有分别。”参见《大正藏》T31,n1585,页49c18。
(2)《佛地经论》卷三:“都无相见,应如虚空;或兔角等应不名智。”参见《大正藏》T26,n1530,页303b29。
(3)《成唯识论》卷九:“说无相取,不取相故。虽有见分而无分别,说非能取,非取全无。”参见《大正藏》T31,n1585,页49c18。
(4)《佛地经论》卷三:“如是分别但就世俗言说道理,非就胜义。若就胜义离言绝虑,既无相见,不可言心及心法等,离诸戏论不可思议。”参见《大正藏》T26,n1530,页p.303b29。
(1)划底线内容与《般若灯论》有相似处。另《中观心论》第五章清辨批评圆成实性的地方,就思想内容而言也有相近的几处(如第90、111等颂),但文献相似度不如《般若灯论》来得高。
(2)观誓(Avalokitavrata)对“此就是此(■)”一句的注释说,由于眼识没有计度分别和随念分别,所谓“此即此”就不存在诸法的自体和差别等的言说分别,但是还是存在自性分别,因为存在了认识对象,就不再是无分别的。现在你们瑜伽行派认识真如的如实智,由于没有遍计所执的执着,所谓“此即此”也不存在诸法的自体和差别等的言说分别,但因为仍有认识活动(=有所得),所以你们就有误把此智作为无分别的过失。参安井广济的日译《中#思想の研究》,第366页。观誓认为无分别智缘真如仍有自性分别,这非常符合《掌珍论》中的说法,但他似乎没有说明“此即此”具体的内涵。笔者依据《成唯识论》宗义“见有相无”的说法,把此句补充为此无分别智缘真如,即此能缘之智缘自身,智与真如二者体不相离。又,Malcolm David Eckel此句译为“even when there is no concept of[the object’s]identity(即便不存在[对象的]自性的概念分别)”,于义似不妥,今不取。参见“Bhāvaviveka’s Critique of Yogācāra Philosophy in Chapter XXV of the Praj1āpradīpa”,p.72。
(1)梵:savikalpā ca bodhi·hsyāc chāstu·hsālambanāpi vā/nirvikalpāpi dhīr na syāt svabhāvālambikāsatī//(16)//参见Paul Hoornaer:t“An Annotated Translation of Madhyamakah·rdayakārikā/TarkajvālāV.8—26”,《金大学文学部论集》《行动科学·哲学编》(20),2000版,第82—83页;又Christian Lindtner梵文校订本同,参见Madhyamakah·rdayam of Bhavya,(The Adyar Library Series123 ),edited by Chr.Lindtner,The Adyar Library and Research Centre,Chennai,1995,p.15。
(1)梵:sāmānyābhāvatas tatra kalpanāviniv·rttita·h/nirvikalpadhiyālambyo mok·sābhedo’pi vidyate//(44)//参见Paul Hoornaer:t“An Annotated Translation of Madhyamakah·rdayakārikā/TarkajvālāV.27—54”,《金大学文学部论集》〈行动科学·哲学编〉21,2001,页159;又Lindtner梵文本此颂校勘为:sāmānyābhāvatas tatra kalpanāviniv·rttita·h/nirvikalpadhiyālambyo muktyabhedo’pi vidyate//(44)//参见Christian Lindtner,Madhyamakah·rdayam of Bhavya,1995,p.17。
基本信息:
DOI：
中图分类号:B948
引用信息:
[1]茅宇凡.清辨(■)对瑜伽行派“所缘真如”说的批判[J].西藏研究,2017,No.162(02):40-47.
基金信息: