UTokyo Repository 東京大学

UTokyo Repository >
132 東洋文化研究所 >
東洋文化研究所紀要 >

このページ(論文)をリンクする場合は次のURLを使用してください: http://hdl.handle.net/2261/8127

タイトル: サキャパンディタの認識手段論 : 認識手段の定義をめぐって
その他のタイトル: Sa skya panditaʼs Theory of Pramāna : With reference to his interpretation of the definition of Pramāna
著者: 西沢, 史仁
著者(別言語): Nishizawa, Fumihito
発行日: 2007年12月19日
出版者: 東京大学東洋文化研究所
掲載誌情報: 東洋文化研究所紀要. 第152冊, 2007.12, pp. 284-319
抄録: The subject of this essay is to elucidate the view on the definition of pramāna/ tshad ma of Sa skya pandita kun dgaʼ rgyal mtshan (1182-1251, Sa pan). Among scholars of the two main lines of pramāna tradition Sa pan was based on―one, that of gSang phu school, and the other, that transmitted by Śākyaśrībhadra― mTshur ston gzhon nu seng ge (ca. 1150-1210), the Sa panʼs first teacher of pramāna of gSang phu line, played an essential role as well as Śākyaśrībhadra in the formation of Sa pan's pramāna thought. In the discussion of pramāna found in the chapter VIII. of RT p. 210ff., Sa pan started his statement by putting the definition of pramāna. The following conclusions have been drawn in this essay: 1. Sa pan put four pūrva-paksas, of which the first three were copied from ShGr. These three were originally put as pūrva-paksas in gTsang tik anonymously, and then identified by mTshur ston with the views of Devendrabuddhi, Prajñākaragupta and Dharmottara respectively. Sa pan criticized them by using rather his unique reasoning. 2. The third pūrva-paksas attributed to Dharmottara in both ShGr and RT is in fact the view of rNgog lo tsā ba, but not that of Dharmottara. Both mTshur ston and Sa pan criticized it, but the points of their criticism are completely different. Though mTshur ston criticized rNgogʼs―and originally Dharmottaraʼs―interpretation of mi slu ba/ avisamvādana as meaning "don thob byed kyi'i nus pa (*arthaprāpanaśakti)", Sa pan basically accepted this interpretation. 3. The last pūrva-paks4a, which is not found in ShGr, is the view of mTshur ston. It is true that Sa pan4 was under influence of mTshur ston on the points of textual structure such as sa bcad and presentation of pūrva-paksas. It does not mean, however, that he was a loyal follower of his former teacher. On the contrary, it is the mTshur ston who is Sa pan's final target of criticism. This criticism is further directed to gTsang nag pa and Phya pa, the teachers of mTshur ston. Here we can find Sa pan's struggle for establishing his own doctrine departing from the great tradition of gSang phu Monastery. 4. Sa pan regarded mi slu ba (avisamvādin, PV II. 1a) and ma shes don gsal (ajñātārthaprakāśa, PV II. 5c) as having an identical meaning with regard to understanding svalaksana ("rang mtshan rtogs par don la mthun", cf. RT p.213. 1) and substantially defined pramāna as "mi slu ba'i shes pa". The originality of his interpretation is that he established this definition on the basis of the following two theories, that is, (1) theory of denying the existence of bcad shes (i.e., bcad paʼi yul can, adhigatavisaya) and (2) theory of one-to-one correspondence of definiens (mtshan nyid) and definiendum (mtshon bya).
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2261/8127
ISSN: 05638089


ファイル 記述 サイズフォーマット
ioc152006.pdf697.7 kBAdobe PDF見る/開く



Valid XHTML 1.0! DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2010  Duraspace - ご意見をお寄せください