- 期刊
- OpenAccess
A Tree In The West: Competing Tathagatagarbha Theories in Tibet
西方之樹－西藏如來藏理論之爭
摘要
本文運用歷史文獻讓讀者了解有關印度與西藏之如來藏傳統的經典依據，包含它們與阿賴耶識理論的關係。另外，亦闡述、比較西藏的三個主要的如來藏傳承：一、師自堆波巴．喜饒堅贊的覺囊派；二、師自布敦的薩迦派；三、師自宗喀巴的格魯派。本文檢視了有關「界」與「三種佛身」的教義，並就這些教義的範圍闡明如來藏的理論。因為宗喀巴在他的《辨了不了義善說藏論》及其他討論空性思想的作品當中，大量地駁斥了覺囊派的立場──經常被稱為「他空見」，因此本文主要是在探討宗喀巴對於覺囊派他空見的討論與批評。本文比較了宗喀巴及其追隨者所提出的、關於他空見的十點具體的批評與覺囊派學者所著的他空見理論二者。而後者就是Jeffrey Hopkins 近來譯出的兩部覺囊派文獻：堆波巴．喜饒堅贊之《山法．了義海》與多羅那他的《他空心要》。這些比較顯示出宗喀巴的批判並沒有完全準確地反映覺囊派的見解。
並列摘要
In this paper, historical materials are employed to point the reader toward scriptural sources for the tathagatagarbha traditions of India and Tibet, including their relationship with theories of the mind-basis-of-all (kun gzhi rnam shes, alayavijnana). In addition, three primary tathagatagarbha traditions in Tibet are described and compared: those of the Jo-nang-bas following Dol-bo-ba Shay-rap-gyel-tsen (dol bo pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1292-1361), the Sa-gyas following Bu-don (bu ston, 1290- 1364), and the Ge-luk-don following Dzong-ka-ba(tsong kha pa, 1357-1419). Doctrines concerning the basic constituent (khams, dhatu) and three buddha bodies are examined insofar as these doctrines shed light on theories of tathagatagarbha. Since, Dzong-ka-ba extensively refuted the Jo-nang position-often called Other Emptiness (gzhan stong)-in his Treatise Differentiating Interpretable and Definitive Meanings: The Essence of Eloquence (drang ba dang nges pa'i don rnam par phye ba'i bstan bcos legs bshad snying po) and other works on the philosophical view of emptiness, this paper examines, Dzong-ka-ba's discussion and critique of the Jo-nang Other Emptiness. Ten specific criticisms of Other Emptiness made by, Dzong-ka-ba and his followers are compared with presentations of Other Emptiness by Jo-nang authors. Two Jo-nang texts recently translated by Professor Jeffrey Hopkins are employed in this comparison: Dol-bo-ba Shay -rap-gyel-tsen's Mountain Doctrine, Ocean of Definitive Meanings (ri chos nges don rgya mtsho) and Taranatha's Essence of Other Emptiness (gzhan stong snying po). These comparisons show that, Dzong-ka-ba critique does not always accurately reflect the Jo-nang philosophical view.