梵本《因明入正理論》－因三相的梵語原文和玄奘的漢譯

本文擬根據《因明入正理論》梵文原著，核對奘師漢譯的「因三相」，從而論證他的譯文的準確性和創造性。Ⅰ. 關於因三相的譯法梵語原文︰paksadharmatvam sapakae sattvam vipakse casattvam.玄奘譯文︰遍是宗法性，同品定有性，異品遍無性。原文第一相和第三相中沒有「遍」字，第二相中也沒有「定」字。這二字是奘師在譯文中增補進去的。Ⅱ. 將原文＂eva＂創造性地譯作「遍」和「定」梵語原文︰tatra krtakatvam prayatnanantaryakatvam va sapaksa evastivipakse nastyeva. ityanityadau hetuh.玄奘譯文︰此中所作性或勤勇無間所發性，遍是宗法，於同品定有，於異品遍無，是無常等因。這段原文也無「遍」和「定」的詞義，但有一個加強語氣的不變詞＂eva＂。奘師根據三相不同的邏輯功能分別譯作「遍」和「定」。Ⅲ.關於「同品」和「同法」梵語原文︰a) sapaksa ; b) sadharmya。玄奘譯文︰a) 同品；b) 同法。同品和同法同具一樣的能立作用，但二者的邏輯應用範圍有所不同。Ⅳ. 關於同喻體和異喻體的表述梵語原文︰yatkrtakam tadanityam drstam yatha ghatadir iti. yannityamtadakrtakam drstam yathakasam iti.玄奘譯文︰謂若所作，見彼無常，譬如瓶等。謂若是常，見非所作，如虛空等。原文在表述同喻體的合作法和表述異喻體的離作法上，都採用了直言全稱判斷句。奘師在《正理門論》使用直言全稱判斷句，在《因明入正理論》則採用假言蘊含判斷句。兩類句型都可以用來表述公理和原則。Ⅴ. 關於「若於是處，顯因同品，決定有性」的讀法梵語原文︰yatra hetoh sapaksa evastitvam khyapyate.玄奘譯文︰若於是處，顯因同品，決定有性。原文是一個主謂直言判斷句，不是兩個句子。原文只是強調因在同品中肯定存在，而不是在構築一個「因同品」術語，也不是「顯因及同品（宗同品）俱決定有」。

關鍵字

因明：Hetuvidya ；因三相：Trairupya ；遍是宗法性：Pskasadharmatvam ；同品定有性：Sapaks sattvam ；異品遍無性：Vipakse 'sattvam

並列摘要

There has been somewhat a hot discussion on the theory of Trairupya in the circle of Chinese Hetu-vidya pundits. Some scholars even cherish doubts regarding the accuracy of the Chinese version of Trairupya by Xuan Zhuang, the master Buddhist Tripitaka translator of worldrenownd. The present paper is intended to supply, from the Sanskrit original of the Nyaya-praves'a, some materials that would be of help in removing the aforesaid doubts. Sect. I. About the rendering into Chinese of the term Trairupya. Sanskrit : paksadharmatvam sapakse sattvam vipakse casattvam. Chinese : 遍是宗法性，同品定有性，異品遍無性。 The meaning of the Chinese word ＂遍(bian)＂(distribution)is not seen in the first rupa(paksadharmatva)and the third one(vipaksa-asattva); and the work ＂定 (ding)＂(certainty)is also not met with in the second one(sapakse sattva). These two Chineses words are additionally given by Xuan Zhuang in his chinese version. The complement of these Chinese words seems as being grounded on the meaning of ＂eva＂ that will be dealt with in Sect. II next. Sect. Ⅱ. Xuan Zhuang's creative rendering of ＂eva＂ into Chinese ＂遍(bian)＂and＂定(ding)＂. Sanskrit : tatra krtakatvam prayatnanantariyakatvam va sapaksa evasti vipkse nastyeva. ityanityadau hetuh. Chinese : 此中所作性或勸勇無間所發性，遍是宗法，於同品定有，於異品遍無。 The Sanskrit sentences do not contain such meaning as denoted by the Chinese words＂遍( bian ) ＂an＂定( ding ) ＂; but they each have a Sanskrit particle＂eva＂denoting emphasis. Xuan Zhuang renders this very particle＂eva＂into Chinese words＂遍( bian, meaning distribution ) ＂and＂定( ding, meaning certainty) ＂; and adds, in accordance with the different functional principles of Trairupya, the former to the first and third rupas, and the latter to the second one respectively in his Chinese version. More-over, the complementary Chinese term「遍是宗法」(paksadharmatva)appears in the Chinese version, but not in the Sanskrit original. Sect. Ⅲ. About＂sapaksa 同品＂ and ＂sadharmya 同法＂. Sanskrit : a. sapaksa ; b. sadharmya. Chinese : a.同品; b.同法. Both of the sapaksa and the sadharmya play almost the same role of sadhana in Hetuvidya; the sapaksa is dealt with n the hetu avayava while the sadharmya in the drstanta avayava. It is obvious that each of these two terms has its own functional scope : The sapaksa is related only to the paksadharma(predicate), while the sadharmya is distribted first over the paksadharmin ( subject ) and then the paksadharma. It shows from his that the logical scope where the sadharmya operates is wider than that where the sapaksa functions. The sadharmya has an independent role to play in Hetuvidya, and is not to be considered as superfluous as by some scholars. Sect. Ⅳ. How to demonstrate the intrinsic nature (svabhava) of a sadharmya and that of a vaidharmya. Sanskrit : yatkrtakam tadanityam drstam yatha ghatadiriti. yannityam tadakrtakam drstam yathakasam iti. Chinese : 謂若所作，見彼無常，譬如瓶等。謂若是常，見非所非，如虛空等。 In the Sanskrit text the method of anvaya by which to demostrate the intrinsic nature of a sa dharmya and that of vyatireka by which to display the intrinsic nature of a vaidharmya are both written in a suject-predicate compound sentence of affirmative mood; but Xuan Zhuang changes them into a conditional one of subjunctive mood in his Chinese version, which looks closer to the practice of logical language in style. Sect. Ⅴ. About the reading of ＂若於是處，顯因同品，決定有性。＂ Sanskrit : yatra hetoh sapaksa evastitvam khyapyate. Chinese : 若於是處，顯因同品，決定有性。 The Sanskrit sentence is very clearly a single one of affirmative mood, and not of two sentences. Xuan Zhuang makes it into two Chinese sentences of subjunctive mood, and this is perhaps the cause that misleads some scholars to take it as two sentences. It is in this Sanskrit sentence to merely lay stress upon a hetu that certainly remains in its sapaksa, and not to create a term for sapaksa, and also not to mean＂a demonstration of the definite existence of a hetu and its sapaksa＂. Hetuvidya of India like the traditional logic is a science of precise thinking. Xuan Zhuang while translating Sanskrit texts of Hetuvidya, succeeded in creating a set of Hetuvidya terms in Chinese, accurately corresponding to their Sanskrit originals. It goes without saying that one could hardly have done so if one were not a great master of the Hetuvidya science.