透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.196.105.235
  • 學位論文

龍樹《六十正理論》與月稱《六十正理論釋》的研究與譯注

A Study and Translation of Nāgārjuna’s Yuktiṣaṣṭikā and Candrakīrti’s Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti

指導教授 : 廖本聖

摘要


龍樹的著作有很多,其中有所謂理聚論,是龍樹解釋《般若經》緣起性空的甚深見思想著作。這個理聚論,有認為是五理聚論,也有認為是六理聚論。究竟指哪些著作?又如何做區分。西藏祖師、學者們有幾種不同的看法,其中宗喀巴大師依整部論著是說明境或是有境的觀點加以區分,說明境的有四部,說明有境的有兩部。《六十正理論》便是說明有境的兩部著作中之一。而且此論也是一部獨立的論著,不是衍生的論著。 《六十正理論》的梵文已佚失了,目前僅由學者們從其他的論著中,辨識且輯出《六十正理論》的一些梵文偈頌。宋朝的施護雖已有漢譯,但其譯文晦澀難懂,因此由施護的漢譯很難瞭解其中奧義。藏譯本不僅完整的保留,而且印度中觀學大家月稱為此論所做的注釋,在藏譯本也是完整的保留下來,梵文本也佚失,僅在去年才有學者發現到幾個貝葉殘卷,而這部注釋是研究《六十正理論》不可少的注釋。 龍樹寫出這六十個偈頌所組成的《六十正理論》,其間應是有一個脈絡次第的。所以本論文接著說明《六十正理論》的組織架構次第,以及為使讀者快速進入此論,配合著月稱的注釋,以及賈曹傑的注釋科判,對於每一偈頌做了導讀。又因在翻譯的過程中,不論龍樹《六十正理論》與月稱的《六十正理論釋》,其中有一些語詞,例如rang bzhin,一般都譯為自性,但有時它指的是性質,有時是本質,有時是無自性,更有時是指應破除的實有。dngos po(事物)也一樣,有時是指有為法,有時是一切法,有時是空性的意思。這些詞,因為有多重意義,需要加以釐清,才能更正確掌握這兩部論著的核心思想。此外,又因有學者認為龍樹的這一部《六十正理論》有唯心思想,而且這是迥異於緣起性空的思想,所以在研究篇的最後,從《六十正理論》說明唯心思想與緣起性空是不相違的,而且中觀宗的唯心也完全符合緣起自性空。

並列摘要


Both traditional and modern academic scholarship regard the Yuktiṣaṣṭikā as one of the independent works included in the Yuktikāya collection. The Yuktikāya (known in English scholarship as “Collections of Reasonings”) comprises the major works by Nāgārjuna devoted to explain and explicitate the profound meaning of the Prajñāpāramita. But how many works are there in the Yuktikāya? Five or six? And which works are to be considered genuine part of the collection? Opinions vary. TSong kha pa admits that there are six works in the collection, and divides them into two categories. The first category comprises four works which describe the object of perception, while the second comprises two works concerned with the perceiver of the object. The Yuktiṣaṣṭikā belongs to the latter category. In the Rigs pa’i rgya mtsho, TSong kha pa gave a description of the core theme of each work in the Yuktikāya, so I introduce these six works based on the Rigs pa’i rgya mtsho’s description, and in this way I hope to pinpoint the status of Yuktiṣaṣṭikā in the context of the Yuktikāya. The Sanskrit text of Yuktiṣaṣṭikā is no longer extant. A few sections of the Yuktiṣaṣṭikā have been identified as textual quotations or cases of textual re-use in other Indian commentaries and works. The Yuktiṣaṣṭikā was translated into Chinese by Shihu during the Song Dynasty. However, Shihu’s rendering is not highly valued, and some scholars misunderstand its meaning. The Tibetan translation of the root text was carried out by Pa tshab between the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The only Indian commentary available for this work, the Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti, authored by Candrakīrti, whose Sanskrit original was considered lost until a few folios surfaced in 2014, was translated by Ye shes sDe in the eighth century. No translation of Candrakīrti’s commentary has been included in the Chinese Tripiṭaka. This commentary constitutes the most important and useful reference work for the study of Nāgārjuna’s Yuktiṣaṣṭikā. In my study I provide a modern Chinese translation of the Yuktiṣaṣṭikā and the Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti. I try to pinpoint the structural order and content sequence or concatenation underlying Nāgārjuna’s composition of the Yuktiṣaṣṭikā, in order to provide a basic study guide of the stanzas on the basis of Candrakīrti’s Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti, as well as rGyal tshab’s (1364–1431, one of TSong kha pa’s disciple) sub-commentary on Yuktiṣaṣṭikā originally composed in Tibetan. Upon closer analysis, several technical terms, such as dngos po (thing) , or rang bzhin (inherent existence or non-inherent existence), etc., appear to have been employed to render different terms in the Indian original, or to have been employed with multiple senses. I focus a selection of these terms as a contribution to clarify the Yuktiṣaṣṭikā and Yuktiṣaṣṭikāvṛtti doctrinal idiom. Because the deployment of some of these terms seems to presuppose the thought of Cittamātra, some scholars have ascribed Cittamātra positions to the Yuktiṣaṣṭikā, which stands in complete opposition to the Mādhyamika tenet of the intrinsic emptiness of dependent arising. By way of conclusion, I critically engage with this ascription and propose that these two thoughts are not discrepant at all in that they are both in accordance with the Prasaṅgika point of view. That is, the thought of Cittamātra is read in conformity with Madhyamaka

參考文獻


廖本聖、顙凌格西著(2003)。〈《現觀莊嚴論》綱要書──《八事七十義》之譯注研究〉。《中華佛學學報》16。頁347-399。
高明道(1993)。〈「頻申欠呿」略考〉。《中華佛學學報》第六期。頁129-185。
萬金川(1996)。〈《俱舍論世間品》所記有關「緣起」一詞的詞義對論──以漢譯兩本的譯文比對與檢討為中心〉。《佛學研究中心學報》1。頁1–30。
Lokesh Chandra. 1990. Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary (Compact Edition). Kyoto: Rinsen.
Bu ston rin chen grub. 2000. “CHos ’byung gsung rab rin po che’i gter mdzod.” gsung ’bum/ rin chen grub (zhol par khang). TBRC W1934. lHa sa: ZHol par khang. 24: 619 - 1042. (《布頓全書》ya函)

被引用紀錄


劉祐齊(2010)。私立大專院校經營績效評估: Panel Tobit 模型之應用〔碩士論文,中原大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6840%2fcycu201000530

延伸閱讀