窺基《說無垢稱經疏》的唯識學詮釋

本研究探討窺基《說無垢稱經疏》所建立、與歷代《維摩詰經》疏本觀點迥異的唯識學立場，以及在《維摩詰經》疏解史上的地位。窺基的「維摩詰經觀」以唯識思想為主，由於其所依據的《說無垢稱經》是玄奘所譯的版本，因而先以《維摩詰經》三家漢譯本的差異，審視窺基的立場是否與翻譯所依據的版本有關。　　藉由梵漢對比，發現現存梵文抄本、羅什本、玄奘本與支謙本並非同一底本，且在字句使用上僅有些微差異，不構成整體《維摩詰經》的思想改變。且玄奘本所使用的唯識術語，如「vijñapti/vijñāna」、「bīja/gotra」和「ālaya」，在其他漢譯本與現存梵文抄本中，並不具有唯識義。因而可知玄奘本《說無垢稱經》依然未脫離《維摩詰經》的中觀學。　　然而，窺基在《說無垢稱經疏》中，多處將玄奘所譯的經文以唯識學疏解。他將vijñāna認作「心識」，vijñapti是「了別」；「bīja種子」則是發正等覺心的「煩惱種子」；「gotra種性」被解為「行佛性」和「理佛性」，為「五種性」所用；又將ālaya視作阿賴耶識的三藏，加入「執藏」的意涵。可見窺基依於玄奘譯本，卻溢出了玄奘的翻譯，增添入唯識思想的疏解傾向。　　在判教中，窺基將《說無垢稱經》判為唯識宗三時教中的「第二第三時」，從說法空過渡到並說空有；八宗判釋以第七宗勝義皆空為主，卻也依第八宗應理圓實宗。可見窺基採用唯識宗的立場，判定《說無垢稱經》具有空觀和唯識兩種思想並存的經典。其中，窺基舉出清辨和護法代表中觀與唯識的論說，並以「空理義」和「應理義」區分兩者的說法。《經疏》一貫先舉出中觀為例，再說明中觀偏空，唯識方能展現空有的勝義諦。由此立論的結構，窺基的「維摩詰經觀」可分為「解脫觀」、「佛土觀」、「三性說」和「四重二諦」四項。　　窺基的《說無垢稱經疏》雖然是溢出了《說無垢稱經》的經義，卻不能將之歸類為無效的疏作。依照伽達默爾的詮釋學觀點：即使疏解者親自參與翻譯的過程，強調準確翻譯的重要性，其疏本仍然可能帶有強烈的前見。此說解釋了窺基《說無垢稱經疏》基於宗派意識的緣故，不僅保存玄奘《說無垢稱經》的翻譯特色，更進一步實際展現唯識宗義。因此，若將中國佛教的疏解本看作是必然獲得文本原意的詮釋之作，可能錯過了佛教思想史上宗派的歷史影響力。有鑒於此，窺基《說無垢稱經疏》並非只充實了經典的意義，亦是新的詮釋角度，也可做為《維摩詰經》疏解史的新觀點。

關鍵字

窺基；《說無垢稱經疏》；《維摩詰經》；唯識學；伽達默爾

並列摘要

This research is about to figure out the vijñapti-mātratā thoughts in Kuiji’s commentary of Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Sutra. There were three ancient Chinese translations of this Sutra: Zhi Qian(245AD.), Kumārajīva(455AD.) and Xuanzang(625AD.). Only Kuiji’s commentary was based on Xuan-Zhang’s translation and presented vijñapti-mātratā thoughts. This research tried to clarify Kuiji’s unique point of view by the Sanskrit-Chinese comparative analysis of Sanskrit manuscript and three ancient Chinese translations. Alought the research discover that they weren’t translated from the same original version, it doesn’t differ the core idea of Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Stra. Those vijñapti-mātratā words in Xuan-Zhang’s translation didn’t related to vijñapti-mātratā thought,too. For this reason, three ancient Chinese translations of Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Sutra are still in mādhyamaka thought. However, Kuiji commented Xuan-Zhang’s translation, such as “vijñāna”, ”vijñapti”,”bīja”, “gotra”, and “ālaya”, by vijñapti-mātratā thoughts. This commentay displays that Kuiji didn’t obey Xuan-Zhang’s translation completetly. In the three periods and characteristics of Buddha's teaching, Kuiji defined Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Sutra as the second to the third, which meant the middle of mādhyamaka and Vijñapti-mātratā. Kuiji cited Dharmapāla’s Vijñapti-mātratā points to disprove Bhāviveka’s Śūnyatā points. Then he pronounced that Dharmapāla’s viewpoints were the superior truth. Due to Gadamer’s Philosophical hermeneutics, Kuiji’s prejudice (German:Vorurteil) was obviously partial to vijñapti-mātratā. But His commentary not only keep Xuan-Zhang’s translation, also improve the meaning of vijñapti-mātratā school in Tang Dynasty. If readers take commentaries as the same thing of Sutra, they might misunderstand the power of those schools in Chinese Buddhism. Thus Kuiji’s commentary could be known as a new way to explain Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Sutra.