論證與釋義：江戶時期基辨與快道《觀所緣緣論》註疏的研究

本文以陳那《觀所緣緣論》的東亞詮釋史為軸，考察明末智旭(1599-1655)《觀所緣緣論直解》及江戶時期基辨(1718-1791)《觀所緣緣論釋》與快道(1751-1810)《観所縁縁論義疏》三家註疏，特別是比較三家對於《觀所緣緣論》前三頌破極微三說的比量分析，明其得失，也旁論江戶時期佛教漢籍的釋義學特色。陳那該論所考察的「所緣」指心識緣取的對象，為認識的所托或原因，至於該對象究竟獨立存在於意識之外或內在於意識，乃是該論所要解決的問題。其中前三頌旨在破外境實在論者的極微說，漢傳註疏均以三支比量來重建陳那的論證。然明末因唐疏已佚，諸家註疏多僅依《宗鏡錄》的資料來解釋，相對地，江戶佛教則「傳燈無盡、墳典深藏」，基辨因而批評明末諸疏「錯謬過半」，快道也直言明疏「僅廣其文而已，至若立破則曾不知其所對將，誰宗誰計」。本文詳析三家關於前三頌比量的分析，認為江戶學者總結唐疏詮釋精華，與明末諸家註疏相較，詳略昭然，其貢獻與價值不言可喻，然若謂明疏「錯謬過半」，「於解也昧」，則過於誇大。從《觀所緣緣論》的東亞受容史來看，十八、十九世紀的江戶註疏對明末諸家有所繼承，也有所批判，既傳承唐疏以降的法相宗學統，亦下啟明治以後的現代佛教研究。從中國近現代佛教學術的發展來看，一般多注意到楊文會和南條文雄交流所造成的影響，卻未能上溯到江戶時期佛教學術的內在線索，從而不見這曲折的前近代發展路徑，本文的研究希望有助於彌補這失落的環節。

關鍵字

陳那；智旭；基辨；快道；《觀所緣緣論》；因明

並列摘要

Inspired by Chinese Buddhist scholar-monks' interest in Dignāga's Investigation of the Percept (Ālamabanaparīkṣa) during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Japanese scholar-monks also composed several commentaries on this epistemological treatise during the Tokugawa era. Unfortunately, these Japanese commentaries are preserved only in manuscript form and have not received the attention of modern scholars. Aiming to complete the historical picture of the reception of Dignāga's Ālamabanaparīkṣa in early modern East Asian Buddhism, this paper focuses on Kiben's 基辨 (1718-1791) and Kaidō's 快道 (1751-1810) commentaries to examine their analysis of Dignāga's syllogism. According Kuiji 窺基 (632-682), Dignāga composed the first three verses of Ālamabanaparīkṣa in the form of syllogism to refute the various realist theories of atom (paramāṇu). Unfortunately, most of Kuiji's and his contemporary scholars' commentaries were lost in China and therefore not available to the Ming scholars. On the contrary, Xuanzang's Yogācāra heritage remained unbroken in Tokugawa Japan. Not surprisingly, both Kiben and Kaidō criticized the Ming Chinese commentaries for failing to properly understand the text and its logical arguments. This study concludes that a philosophical quest for the dialogue with realism was also shown in both Kiben's and Kaidō's works, which can be taken as a domestic clue to explain why modern European Buddhology and Indology had firmly taken root in the Meiji era without much resistance.