Title TattvasaCgraha vv.1212‐1263 by 威Āntarakcita and the … · 2017. 2. 24. · AStudyof...

Title

A Study of kalpanāpo�ha A Translation of theTattvasa�graha vv.1212‐1263 by �āntarak�ita and theTattvasa�grahapañjikā by Kamala�īla on the Definitionof Direｃt Perception

Author(s) FUNAYAMA, Toru

Citation ZINBUN (1993), 27: 33-128

Issue Date 1993-03

URL https://doi.org/10.14989/48707

Right © Copyright March 1993, Institute for Research in HumanitiesKyoto University.

Type Departmental Bulletin Paper

Textversion publisher

Kyoto University

AStudyofkalpaniiJ りodhaATranslationof

theTattvasarrtg アaha VV.1212-1263bySantarak 手ita

andtheTattvasa f!lgrahapa 元[jikii byKamalasI1aontheDefinitionofDirectPerception 申

ToruFunayama

TABLEOFCONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHYOFWORKSCONSULTED

1.PrimarySources. (34)

IT.SecondarySources. (39)

INTRODUCTION

1.GeneralRemarks. (44)

IT.OnSomeCharacteristicFeaturesofTSandTSP. (46)

A.TheInterpretationoftheSentenceofDefinition. (46)

B.OntheDefinitionofConception. (47)

C.TS(P)ontheDemonstrationsofka 争anapoqha. (48)

D.Santarak~ita andDharmakirti;KamalasilaandDevendrabuddhi. (49)

E.Kamalasila , Vinitadeva , andJinendrabuddhi. (49)

m.OntheTextsandtheMethodology. (50)SYNOPSISOFTHETRANSLATION (53)

ENGLISHTRANSLATIONOFTS1212-1263ANDITSTSP (57)

APPENDIXI:SECONDARYUSAGESOFPV/PVINANDPVP (117)

APPENDIXIT:ALISTOFCORRECTIONSTOSHASTRI'SEDITION (120)

INDEX (122)

事Aknowledg ments

FromOctober , 1991toAugust, 1992IhadtheopportunitytoresearchthistextunderthesupervisionofProf.Dr.ErnstSteinkellneroftheUniversityofVienna.Iwould, firstofall, liketoexpressmyspecialthanksandgratitudetohimfortheimprovementsofthe 仕anslation andalsototheKyotoUniversityFoundation«財)京大後援会) throughwhommyresearchinViennawasmadepossible.Thoughallthemistakesinthispaperremainmyownresponsibility, Imustalsorecordherethenamesofseveralotherpersonswhohelpedmefinishthiswork:IamobligedtoMr.TomFitzsimmons, Kyoto, forimproveｭmentsintheEnglishandtoDr.HelmutKrasser , Kyoto, and 恥fr. HorstLacic, Vienna, fortheirkindsuggestIOnsonmanypomts.

33

T.FUNAYAMA

BIBLIOGRAPHYOFWORKSCONSULTED

AK

I.PrimarySources.

Abhidharmakosa(karika).P.Pradhan(ed よ Abh idharmakosa bha手yamofVasubandh u, 2ded., Patna , 1975.

AKBh Abhidharmakosabha~ya byVasubandhu.SeeAK.

AKV AbhidharmakosavyakhyabyYasomitra. U.Wogihara(ed.), Sphu!aｭrthaAbhidharmakosavyakhya.TheWorkofYasomitra , Tokyo , 1932-1936.

Vibha 弱prabhav :rtti onAbhidharmadipa.P.S.Jaini(ed よ Abh idharma

dφ 'a withVibha~aprabhavrtti ， Patna , 1977.市Abhidharmamahavibha~a (Chinese).Apidamodapiposhalun(阿見達磨大

見婆沙論)，甘. byXuanzang(玄突入 Taish6 1545(Vol.27).Krishnamacharya'seditionofTS/TSP.Seep.51.

Sucaritamisra'sKasikaonMimamsaslokavarttika.SeeSV.

GaekwadmanuscriptsofTS/TSP.Seep.51.

TattvarthavarttikabyAkalanka.M.K.Jain(ed.), TattvarthavarttikofShriAkalank-devawithHindiTranslation , Benares , 1953.

Tatparya Tatparyanibandhanatippana(ananonymouscommentaryuponNBT). 帥

TUS Tattvopaplavasi~ha byJayarasi.InFranco1987.

TBV TattvabodhavidhayinibyAbhayadevasiiri. S.SanghaviandB.Dosi

(eds.), Sa'f!lmatitarka-prakarar.zam by Siddhasena Divakara withAbhayadevasuri's Commentary , Tattvabodhavidhayin :z, 2vols., reｭprintedinKyoto , 1984(originaleditionin5vols., 1924-1931).Tarkabha 号a byMok~akaragupta. H.R.R.Iyengar(ed.), Tarkabha~aandV迂dasthana ofMok~akaragupta andJitaripada , Mysore , 1952,pp.1-71.

TBh(Tib.)TheTibetanTranslationoftheTarkabha 号a byMok 弱karagupta. P

5762, Vol.138, 361a8-399a8.Tarkarahasya.InYaita1989a.

Tarkarahasyadipika by GUz:1aratna. L. Suali (ed.), $a cj,-darsana-samuccaya[AReviewoftheSixSystemsofHinduPhilos o.ρhy] with

Gu r.zaratn ωCommentary Tarkarahasyad φika byHaribhadra , Calｭcutta , 1986(originallypublishedin1905-14).Tattvasatp.grahabySantarak~ita. S.D.Shasti(ed.), Tattvas，伺~graha of

ADV

AMV

)おa山町

K

K

G

T

TBh

TR

TRD

TS

**1amgratefultoDr.ElliotM.Stem , Philadelphia , forallowingmetousethistextbeforeitspublicaｭtlOn.

34

TSP

TSop

DhPr

NC

NCV

NP

NPV

NB

NBT

NBT(V)

NBTT

NBPS

NBh

NBhii

ASTUDYOFKALPANAPODHA

Acarya Shantarak~ita with the Commentary ‘P aiij ika ' ofShriKamalashUa , 2vols., Varanasi , 1981[=S]. Cf.E.Krishnamacharya(ed.), Tattvasaizgraha ofSantarak~ita with the Commentary ofKamalafila , 2vols. , Baroda , 1926(reprintedinBaroda , 1984and1988)[=K].

TattvasangrahapafijikabyKamalasila.SeeTS.

TarkasopanabyVidyakarasanti. G.Tucci (ed.), MinorBuddhistTexts , Part1, Roma , 1956(reprintedinKyoto , 1978;inDelhi , 1986),pp.275-310.

DharmottarapradipabyDurvekamisra.SeeNB.

Nayacakraby Mallavadin. 乱1uni Jambuvijaya (ed よ Dvadasaram

Nayacakra'f!'lofAcaryaSrfMallavadiK~amasrama 1}a withtheComｭ

menta η1 1\らlayagamanusari 1}f ofSrfSirrthasuriGa1}i VadiK~ama

srama1}a. Part1(1-4Aras) , Bhavnagar , 1966.NyayagamanusariJ?iNayacakrabalav~ti bySirp.hasiiri.SeeNC.NyayapravesakasiitrabySankarasvamin. A.B.Dhruva (ed.), TheAらlayapraveSa. PartI:SanskritTextwithCommentaries , Baroda , 1930(reprintedinDelhi , 1987, as1\ら layaprave.勾 ofDiiznagawithCommenｭtariesofHaribhadraSuri& Parsavadeva).

Nyayapravesakav~ti byHaribhadra.SeeNP.

NyayabindubyDharmakirti.D.Malvania(ed よ Pandita DurvekaMisｭ

ra'sDharmottaraprad φa [BeingaSub-commentaryonDharmottara's

Aらlayabindu?fka， a Commentary on Dharmakfrti's 1\ らlayabindu]，

Patna , 1955.NyayabindutikabyDharmottara.SeeNB.

NyayabindutikabyVinitadeva(Tib ふL. deLaValleePoussin(ed よ

TibetanTranslationofthe1\ らlayabindu ofDharmakfrti(ATreatiseon

BuddhistLogic)withtheCommentaryofVinttadeva , 1913(reprintedinCalcutta , 1984).Nyayabindutikatippa ポ. Th.Stcherbatsky(ed よ Aらlayabindu?fka#ppa1} l.

TolkovanienasocinenieDarmottary 1\らlaya bindu?fka. Sanskritskij

tekstsprimecanijami , St.-Petersbourg , 1909.Nyayabindupiirvapak~esa rp.k~ipta [sic!] by Kamala 釘la (Tib.). See

Tosaki1984.

Nyayabha~ya byVatsyayana.SeeNS.

Nyayabhii~a 早a byBhasarvajfia.S.Yogindrananda(ed よ Srfmadacary a

Bhasarvaj 元a-pra 1}ftasya 1\ うlayasarasya sv o.ρaJ 元arrt vyakhyanarrt1\ らlaya

bhiisanam , Varanasi , 1968.

35

NM

N恥1GBh

NMukh

NV

NV1NV2

NVT

NVT1NVT2

NVV

NS

NSi

Pa

PafiS

Panini

PPafi

PBh

Prameya

T.FUNAYA 乱1A

Nyayamafijaribylayantabhatta. K.S.Varadacharya (ed.), 1\らlayamanjarzofJayantabha??awithTippa l}i- 1\ らlay ，ωaurabha bytheEdiｭ

tor , Vol.1, Mysore , 1969.NyayamafijarigranthibhangabyCakradhara.N.].Shah(ed よ Cakra

dhara's1\ らlayama免jartgranth i bhaカga， Ahmedabad , 1972.NyayamukhabyDignaga(Chinese).Yinmingzhenglimenlunben(因明正

理門論本)，甘. byXuanzang(玄突入 Taish6 1628(Vol.321a-6a).NyayavarttikabyUddyotakara.

NVeditedbyTaranathaNyaya-Tarkatirthaandothers.SeeNS.

NVeditedbyA.Thakur.A.Thakur(ed.), 1\らlayadarsana ofGautamawiththeBha~ya of1勺tsyayana， theV初tika ofUddyotakara , theTa φarya?zka ofVac ωpati &theParisuddhiofUdayana.[Volumef

chajうter f] , Varanasi , 1967.NyayavarttikatatparyatikabyVacaspatimisra.

NVTeditedbyTaranathaNyaya-Tarkatirthaandothers.SeeNS.

NVTeditedbyA.Thakur.SeeNV2・

NyayaviniscayavivaraJ)abyVadirajasiiri.M.K.lain(ed.), 1\らlaya VinisｭcayaVivara~a ofSrzVadirajaSurf.TheCommentaryonBねがねlan ・

kadevasNyayaViniscaya , Vol.I[Pratyak~a prastava] , Kashi , 1949.NyayasiitrabyGautama. TaranathaNyaya-Tarkatirtha , AmarendraｭmohanTarkatirthaandHemantakumarTarkatirtha(eds よ Nyayadar

sanamwithV託tsyayana 's Bh i4ya, Uddyotakara き V託rttika， VacasjうatiMisraきTaφarya?zka &Visvanatha きVrτti， 2vols. , Calcutta , 1936(reｭprintedinKyoto , 1982).NyayasiddhibylayapuriNaraya 早a Bhatta.SeePPafi.

Patan(Pattan)manuscriptsofTS/TSP.Seep.51.

*PaficaskandhakaprakaraJ)a by Vasubandhu (Chinese). Dashengｭ

wuyunlun(大乗五謹論) byVasubandhu ，甘. byXuanzang(玄突入 Taish6

1612(Vol.31, 848b-850c).A号tadhyayi byPaJ)ini. O.B凸h t1ingk ， Piil}ini's Grammatik , Leipzig ,1887(reprintedinHildesheim/NewYork , 1977).PrakaraJ)apaficikabySalikanatha.S.Sastri(ed.), PrakaranaPa カcikiiofSriSali 初natha MisrawithNyaya-siddhi , Banaras , 1961.Prasastapadabha~ya (=Padarthadharmasaqlgraha)byPrasastapada.V.

P. Dvivedin(edよ The PraSastapiida Bhiishya with Commentary

Aらlayakandali ofSridhara , 2ded., Delhi , 1984(1sted.inBanaras ,1895).

PrameyakamalamarttaJ)

PSI

PVP

PV

PVI

PVIT


PrameyakamalMartandbyShriPrabhaChandra(ACommentaryon

ShriManikNandi'sPareekshaMukhSutra) , Bombay , 1941.PramaJ:lavarttikabyDharmakirti.

Pramanavarttika , svarthanumana.SeePVSV.Prama J:lavarttika , pramaJ:lasiddhi. Y.Miyasaka(ed.), PramaJ:lavarttikaｭkarika(SanskritandTibetan) , Indokotenkenkyu( インド古典研究; ActaIndologica)2, 1971/72 , pp.1-206.

PVill Prama J:lavarttika , pratyak~a. SeeTosaki1979a, 1985.PVT(R) Prama 早ava 口tikatika byRavigupta(Tib.).P5722, Vol.134, phe , 1a1-

208a7.

PVT(S) PramaJ:lavarttikatikabySakyabuddhi(Tib ふP 5718, Vol.131, je , 1a1ｭfie, 348a8.Pramat:lavarttikapafijikabyDevendrabuddhi(Tib ふP 5717(b), Vol.130,che , thethirdchapterρratyak~a， 142a3-319a8.

PVV(M) Prama 早avarttikav~ti by 恥1anorathanandin. R. Sank~yayana (ed.),DharmakirtiきPrama1Javarttika withaCommentarybyManorathaｭ

nandin , AppendixtoJournaloftheBiharandOrissaResearchSocietyVol.24, Part3, 1938.

PVSV Prama J:lavarttika(sva)v~ti byDharmakirti.R.Gnoli(ed.), ThePrama1Jaｭvart 万kam ofDharmakirti. TheFirstCh a.ρter withtheAutocom・

mentary , Roma , 1960.PVSVT Prama t:lavarttika(sva)v~titika by Kart:lakagomin. R. Sa~k~tyayana

(ed.), Karr:zakagomin'sCommentaryonthePramiir:zavarttikavrttiofDharmakirti , Kyoto , 1982(reprintedfromtheeditionoriginallypubｭlishedin1943, asACiirya-DharmakirtelJPramanaviirttikam(Svarthaｭnumiina ρariccheda lJ . Svopaj 伽vrttya ， Kar1J-akagomiviracitaYii

tatrikayiicasahitam).

PVinI PramaJ:laviniscayabyDharmakirti , thefirstchapter(Tib ふT. Vetter(ed.), DharmakirtiきPramiinaviniscayaみ 1. Kapitel:Pratyak~am. Einｭleitung , TextdertibetischenUbersetzung , Sanskriザragmente， deutscheUbersetzun ι Wien， 1966.

PVinT PramaJ:laviniscayatikabyDharmottara(Tib.) , the 五rst chapter.P5727,Vol.136, dze , 1al-196a8.

PVinT(1)Pramat:laviniscayatikabyJiianasribhadra (Tib.) , thefirstchapter. P5728 , Vol.137, we , 210al-240a4.Pramat:lasamuccayabyDignaga(Tib よthe firstchapter , inHattori1968,pp. 173-237.

PSI(K):Tib.tr.byKanakavarmanandDadpa'isesrab.

37

PSV

PST

v

z

ω

S

A

S

P

B

B

M

MA

MAV乱1BhD

MV

MVBh

YBh

YS

VP

VPP

Vims

臥v

'QU'QU

T.FUNAYAMA

PSI(V):Tib. 住. byVasudharak~ita andSenrgyal.

Pramat:lasamuccayabyDignaga(Tib よthe fifthchapter. M.Hattori

(ed ふThe Prama 早asamuccayav~ti ofDignagawithlinendrabuddhi's

Commentary. ChapterFive:Anyapoha-parik~a. TibetanTextwithSanskritFragments , Ky，δto daigakubungakubukiy δ (京都大学文学部紀要)21, 1982, pp.101-224.VisalamalavatiPramat:lasamuccayatikabylinendrabuddhi(Tib よthefirstchapter.P5766, Vol.139, re , 1al-91b4.Prama t:lasamuccayav~ti byDignaga(Tib よthe firstchapter.SeePS1.

Balavataratarkabylitari(Tib.).SeeShirasaki1983.Blogsalgrubmtha'bydBuspablogsal , chapter10:Sautrantika.SeeMimaki1979.

laisalmermanuscriptsofTS/TSP.Seep.51.

Madhyamakala~kara bySantarak~ita (Tib ふSee Ichig61985a.

Madhyamakala rp.karav~tti bySantarak~ita (Tib ふSee Ichig61985a.Mahabha 号yadipika byBharq-hari.K.V.AbhyankarandV.P.Limaye(eds よSrimahopadhyayabhar q-harik~asrimahabha~yadi pika , AnnalsoftheBhandarkarOrientalResearchInstituteVol.43, 1962, pp.1-48.Madhyantavibhaga by Maitreya. R. Pandeya (ed.), MadhyiintaｭVibhiiga-Siistra. ContainingtheKiirikii-sofMaitreya , Bhi4yaofVasubandhu , andTtkiibySthiramati , Delhi , 1971.Madhyantavibhagabha~ya byVasubandhu.SeeMV.Yogabha~ya byVyasa.SeeYS.

YogasiitrabyPataf1jali. Viicaspatim 仇viracita ・ Tikiisa 1'{lvalita- V拘a

bhi4ya-sametiiniPiita 元i}ala- Yogasutrii 1'}i, AnandasramaSanskritSeries47, 1932.VakyapadiyabyBhart~hari. W.Rau(ed.), Bhart !,haris V汲:yapadtya.DieMulakiirikiisnachdemHandschriftenherausgegebenundmit

einempiida-Indexversehen , Wiesbaden , 1977.Helaraja'sCommentaryPrakift:laprakasaonVP.K.A.S.Iyer(ed よViikyapadtya ofBhart !,hari with the CommentaryofHeliiriija.Kii 1'}cj,a ill , Part よ Poona， 1963.Virp.satikabyVasubandhu.S.Levi(ed ふれj元aptimii tratiis iddh i. DeuxtraitesdeVasubandhu , Vi1'{lsatikii(laVingtaine)accomj う'agnee d'uneex ρlication enproseetTri1'{lsikii(laTrentaine)avecIecommentairede

Sthiramati , Paris , 1925.Sabarabha!?yabySabarasvamin.SeeFrauwallner1968.

Mimarp.saslokavarttikabyKumarila.K.S.Sas 凶作d.) ， TheMtmii1'{lsii

38


SlokaviirtikawiththeCommentaryKiisikiiofSucaritamisra , Part1,Trivandrum , 1926.

S Shastri'seditionofTS/TSP.Seep.51.

SK Sa.f!lkhyakar叫ea by ISvarak~ 手早a. RameshChandraTarka-Sankhyaｭ

VedantaMimansatirtha (ed.), Viicω;pati Misra'sSii rrz,khyatattvakau-mud:;:withSii rrz,khyakiirikiiofIsvarak!'~ r.za andtheIntroductiontotheSii rrz,khyatattvaviliisaofRaghuniitha , etc., etc., Calcutta , 1935.

HTU HetutattvopadesabyJitari.G.Tucci(ed.), MinorBuddhistTexts , Part1, Roma , 1956(reprintedinKyoto , 1978;inDelhi1986), pp.261-274.

HB HetubindubyDharmakirti.SeeSteinkellner1967a.

ll.SecondarySources.

Abhyankar , K.V.andShukla , ].M.1977:ADictionaryofSanskritGrammar , 2dreviseded., Baroda(reprintedinBaroda , 1986).

Franco , E.1984:OntheInterpretationofPrama I.1asamuccaya(v~ti) I, 3d, JournalofIndianPhilosophy12, pp.389-400.

一一一 1987 : Perception , KnowledgeandDisbeliefAStudyofJayarasi'sScepticism ,Stuttgart.

Frauwallner , E.1933:Dignagaundanderes , FestschriftfurMoriz Winternitz ,Leipzig , pp.237-242(reprintedinG.OberhammerandE.Steinkellner(eds.) , ErichFrauwallne にKleine Schriften , Wiesbaden , 1982, pp.484ｭ489).

一一一 1958 : DiePhilosophiedesBuddhismus , Berlin.一- 1968:MaterialienzuraltestenErkenntnislehrederKarmamfmiimsii , Wien.Fukuda , Y. 福田洋一 1987: Ichiranhankairontowananika(ー卵半塊論とは何か)， Nihon

Tibettogakkaikaih δ ( 日本西蔵学会々報) 33, pp.1-8.Funayama , T. 船山徹1990: Bubuntozentai- IndobukkY6chishikironniokeru

gaiy6tok6kinomondaiten(部分と全体一一インド仏教知識論における概要

と後期の問題点)， 1万hδ gakuhδ， Kyoto(東方学報京都) 62, pp.607-635.Hattori , M. 服部正明1959: “Shi町ik6y6" nochokusetuchikaku(pratyak~a) ron(r 真理

綱要』の直接知覚 (pratyak~a)論)， NZ ρpon bukky δtgakkai nenp δ ( 日本仏教

学会年報 ; JournaloftheNipponBuddhistResearchAssociation)25, pp.111-128.

一一 - 1968 : Digniiga , OnPerception , beingthePratyak~apariccheda ofDigniiga'sPramiir.zasamuccaya介om theSanskritFragmentsandtheTibetan

Vけ'S ions， Cambridge , Massachusetts.一一- 1968/69:TwoTypesofNon-qualificativePerception , WienerZeitschriftfur

39

T.FUNAYAMA

dieKundeSitd-undOstasiens12-13 ,FestschriftfurErichFrauwallner ,pp.161-169.

一一一 1974 : ChukidaijδbukkY6 noninshikiron(中期大乗仏教の認識論)， inKδza

bukky< δshis δ (講座仏教思想)， Vol.2, Tokyo , pp.103-143.Hayes , R.P.1983:Jinendrabuddhi ,JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety103ｭ

4, pp.709-717.Ichig6 , M. ー郷正道1985a: Madhyamakalaf!lkaraofSantarak~ita τvith HisOwn

CommentaryorVrttiandwiththeSubcommentaryorPaiijikaof

Kamalafila , Kyoto.一一一 1985b : Chukansh δigonron nokenkyu-Santarak#tanoshis δ (中観荘厳論の研究

ーシャーンタラクシタの思想)， Kyoto.

Jambuvijaya , Muni1966:Jambuvijaya'snotesonNC(V).SeeNC.Jha , G.1937:(tr.)TheTattvasa カgraha ofShantarak#tawiththeCommentaryof

Kamalashlla , 2 vols. , reprintedinDelhi , 1986(originaleditioninBaroda , 1937).

Kajiyama , Y. 梶山雄一 1966 : AnIntroductiontoBuddhistPhilosophy- AnAnnoｭtatedTranslationoftheTarkabha~a ofMok~akaragupta ， Ky< δto daigaｭ

kubungakubukiy δ (京都大学文学部紀要) 10, pp.1-173(reprintedinK.Mimakietal.(eds.) , Y.Kajiyama , StudiesinBuddhistPhilosophy(SelectedPapers) , Kyoto , 1989, pp.189-360).

Katsura , Sh. 桂紹隆1982: InmY6sh6rimonronkenkyu[5](因明正理門論研究 [ 5 D,Hiroshimadaigakubungakubukかδ (広島大学文学部紀要) 42, pp.82-99.

Krasser , H.1992:OntheRelationshipbetweenDharmottara , Santarak号ita andKamalasila , TibetanStudies , Proceedingsofthe5thSeminaroftheInternationalAssociationofTibetanStudies , Narita 198~ え Narita，1992, pp.151-158.

Kunst , A.1939:ProblemederBuddhistischenLogikinderDarstellungdesTatｭtvasa カ~graha ， Krak6w.

Matsumoto , Sh. 松本史朗1978: “Nyuchuron"no'utpalanohiyu'nitsuite(r 入中論』のlutpala の比聡」について ) ， Indogakubukky δigaku kenkyu(印度学仏教学研

究 ; JournalofIndianandBuddhistStudies)26-2 , pp.164-165.一一 1986: K6kichukanshis6nokaimeinimukete- IchigδMasamichi shi

“Chii kanshδgonr on nokenkyii"wochushinni(後期中観思想、の解明にむけ

て一一郷正道氏『中観荘厳論の研究』を中心に)， 'Tl δ~o gakujutsukenkyu(東洋

学術研究) 25-2, pp.177-203.Mimaki , K. 御牧克己1979: LechapitreduBlogsalgrubmtha'surlesSautrantika.

Presentationetedition , Zinbun(MemoirsoftheResearchInstituteforHumanisticStudies , KyotoUniversity)15, pp.175-210.

40


一一 1980 : LechapitreduBlogsalgrubmtha'surlesSautrantika.Unessaide

traduction , Zinbun(MemoirsoftheResearchInstituteforHumanisticStudies , KyotoUniversity)16, pp.143-172.

Naudou , ].1980:BuddhistsofKasmlr , Delhi(translatedintoEnglishbyBreretonandPieron;originalFrencheditionfromPressesUniversitairesde

France , 1968).Nishikawa , T. 西川高史1984a: Dharmakirtiniokeruge 町yo noteigi- l\ら'ayabindu，

genryosho , dai4genitsuite(Dharmakirti における現量の定義 - l\ ら'iiya bindu 現量章，第4f易について )， sδtδ'sh u kenkyuinkenkyi1seikenkyuk ぴδ (曹

洞宗研究員研究生研究紀要) 16, pp.(25)-(46)(=pp.351-330).一- 1984b: Pramii'}aviniscayaniokerugenryonoteigi- Dharmottara-Tikawo

chushintoshite(Pramii'}aviniscaya における現量の定義一 Dharmo・

ttara-Tika を中心として)， Komazawadaigakubukky δ;gakubu ronshu(駒

沢大学仏教学部論集) 15, pp.(73) 一(85) (=pp.346-334).Oki ，K. 沖和史1973: Dharmakirtino'citradvaita'riron(ダルマキールティの (citnidvaita)

理論)， Indogakubukky δigaku kenkyu(印度学仏教学研究 ; Journalof

IndianandBuddhistStudies)21-2 , pp.(88)-(94)(=pp.975-969).Pind , O.1991:Dignagaonsabdasamiinyaandsabdavise~a ， inE.Steinkellner(ed.) ,

StudiesintheBuddhistEl うおtemological Tradition , ProceedingsoftheSecondInternationalDharmaklrtiConj 台renee. Vienna , June11-16 ,1989 , Wien , pp.269-280.

Ruegg , D.S.1981:TheLiteratureoftheMadhyamakaSchoolofPhilosophyinIndia , Wiesbaden.

Schmithausen , L.1965:Mandanamisra'sVibhramavivekahmiteinerStudiezurEntwicklungderindischenIrrtumslehre , Wien.

Shirasaki , K. 白崎顕成1983: TheBalavataratarka , Kδbe }oshidaigakukiy ，δ， Bunｭgakubuhen(神戸女子大学紀要文学部篇) 15, pp.63-134.

Speijer , ].S.1886:SanskritSyntax , Leiden(reprintedinDelhi , 1973;1980).Stcherbatsky , Th.1930:BuddhistLogic , Vol. 2, BibliothecaBuddhica26-2,

Leningrad(reprintedinNewYork , 1962;Tokyo , 1977).一一一 1932 : BuddhistLogic , Vol.1, BibliothecaBuddhica26-1 , Leningrad(reprinted

inNewYork , 1962;Tokyo , 1977).Steinkellner , E.1967a:Dharmaklrti'sHetubinduh , TeilITibetischerTextund

rekonstruierterSanskrit-Text , Wien.一一一 1967b : Dharmaklrti'sHetubindu l}, TeilIIUbersetzungundAnmerkungen ,

Wien.

一一- 1972:NewSanskrit-fragmentsofPrama t:laviniscaya !:l, FirstChapter , WienerZeitschriftfurdieKundeSudasiens16, 1972, pp.199-206.

41

T.FUNAYA 乱1A

一一一 198 1 : PhilologicalRemarksonSakyamati'sPrama早avarttikatika， inK.Bruhn

and A. Wezler (eds.), StudienzumJainismus und Buddhismus ,GedenkschriftfurLudwigAlsdorf , Wiesbaden , 1981, pp.283-295.

一一一 1988 : MethodologicalRemarksontheConstitutionofSanskritTextsfromthe

BuddhistPrama~-Tradition ， WienerZeitschriftfurdieKundeSudｭ

asiens32, pp.103-129.Tanizawa , ].谷沢淳三 1987 : Bhart~hari niokeruprav~tinimitta (Bhar4hari における

prav~ttinimitta) ， Indogaku bukky δigaku kenkyu (印度学仏教学研究;

JournalofIndianandBuddhistStudies)35-2 , pp.(41)-(43)(=pp.980-978).

Tosaki , H. 戸崎宏正1979a: Bukkyδninshikiron nokenkyu , jδkan (仏教認識論の研究上巻)， Tokyo.

一一 1979b : Bukkyoniokeruge 町yo (chikaku)ronnokeifu(仏教における現量(知覚)

論の系譜)， Rおδ (理想) 1979-2(No.549), pp.99-111.一一一 1984 : Kamala 釘la sakuNyayabind ψurvapak~esarrtk~ 争ta-Ge 町yo shδno

texttowayaku(Kamala 釘la 作 Aらlayabindupurva.ρdwsamh 伊ta-現量

章のテキストと和訳)， Indokotenkenkyu( インド古典研究; ActaIndologica)

6, pp.477-494.一一一 1985 : Bukky ，δninshikiron nokenkyu , gekan(仏教認識論の研究下巻)， Tokyo.Tucci , G.1930:The1\らlayamukha ofDiimaga , beingtheOldestBuddhistηxt on

LogicAfterChineseandTibetanMaterials , MaterialienzurKundedesBuddhismus15, Heidelberg.

Ui , H. 宇井伯毒1929: Inmyoshorimonronkaisetsu(因明正理門論解説)， Indotetsugakukenkyu , dai5(印度哲学研究(第五»， Tokyo , pp.505-694.

Vasu , S.C.1891:TheA~tadhyaYl ofPa 1Jini , 2vols. , Allahabad(reprintedinDelhi1962, 1977, and1980).

Vetter , T.1966:SeePVin1.Wakahara , Y. 若原雄昭1988: Mantranokokatozenchisha- Pramanavarttika・

svav~tti kenkyu(1)(vv.292-311)(マントラの効果と全知者 - Pramat:l a

varttikasvavrtti 研究 ( 1 ) (vv.292-311» , Bukkyoshigakukenkyu(仏教史学研究) 31-1 , pp.1-30.

Yaita , H. 矢板秀臣1982: Dharmottaranoichikosatsu- Dharmakirtinogenryoteiginikanshite(ダルモーッタラの一考察ーダルマキールティの現量定義に関して)，

Sank δbunka kenkyiishonenp δ (三康文化研究所年報) 15, pp.1-14.一一一 1984 : DharmottaranoPramaI.laviniscayatikanoichishiryδ- Sanskritdanpen

toshiyaku(ダルモーッタラの PramaI.l aviniscayatika の一資料ーサンスクリ

ット断片と試訳)， Mikky δ;gaku kenkyu(密教学研究) 16, pp.17-37.一一 - 1989a : Tarkarahasya Kenkyu (1) (Tarkarahasya 研究(1 ) ， Naritasan

42


bukky δkenkY Usho kぴδ (成田山仏教研究所紀要) 12, pp.75-98.一一一 1989b: Bukky6ninshikironnoichik6y6shoniokerugenry6teigiron ー

Tarkarahasyashiyaku(仏教認識論のー綱要書における現量定義論ー Tarka

rahasya 試訳)， Indoshis δshi kenkyu( インド思想史研究) 6, pp.95-104.Yamaguchi , Z. 山口瑞鳳1991: 官ngish6' nofukken- JakugoniyoruSh6ben ,

H6sh6nosetsunametsuronhihan(r縁起生」の復権一寂護による清弁・法称

の利那減論批判)， Naritasanbukky δkenky Usho kiy δ (成田山仏教研究所紀要)

14, pp.1-57.Yoshimoto , Sh. 吉本信行1982 : Abhidharmashis ，δ (アピダルマ思想)， Kyoto.

43

T.FUNAYA 恥fA

INTRODUCTION

I.GeneralRemarks.

ThepresentworkisanannotatedEnglishtranslationoftheTattvasar!zgraha

(TS)vv.1212-1263by Santarak~ita (ca.725-788)andits commentary , theTattvasar!zgrahapa 元jikii (TSP) , byhisimmediatediscipleKamala 訂la (ca.740ｭ795).Thismaterialamountstoapproximatelythefirstone-thirdofthechapter

Pratyak~alak~a ♂aparlk~ii “The ExaminationoftheDefinitionofDirectPercepｭ

tion."Asthistitleclearlyshows , thewholechapterisfocusedontheBuddhistdefinitionofdirectperceptionandrelatedproblems , ! ofwhichtheportiontransｭlatedbelowdealswiththethesisthatdirectperceptionisnecessarilyfreefrom

conceptionand , asasubordinatetopic , withthedefinitionofconception.Inordertoclarifytheauthors'historicalandphilosophicalpositionintheBuddhisttradition

inIndia , Iwouldliketopresentbeforehandanoutlineofthehistoricaldevelopｭmentofthetheoryofdirectperceptionandthenrefertosomecharacteristicsofthe

text.

Asiswellknown , theBuddhistlogico モpistemological tradition- i.e., theBuddhistpramii'f}a tradition- towhichourauthorsbelongwasfoundedby

Dignaga(ca.480-540)andthensystematizedbyDharmakirti(ca.600-660)witha

fewbutsignificantalterations.Thisschoolupholdstwokindsofrightknowledge

(pramii1'}a)only:directperception(ρ ratyak~a ) andinference(anumiina)ofwhich

theformerisfurtherconcernedwithconceptionasoneofthemostfundamental

epistemologicalproblems. InBuddhismdirectperceptionasrightknowledge

meantadirectcognitionwhichcouldnotcontainanyerror , whereasconceptionwasoftenconsideredtobetherootofallevilsandmentaltroublesintheordinary

lifeofhumanbeings.2

Dignagaformulateddirectperceptionasacognitionwhichisfreefromcon ・

ception(kalpaniipocjha)inPSand , furthermore , definedconceptionastheconnecｭtionwithaname , agenus , etc.(niimajiityiidiyojanii).AfterhimDharmakirtifol-

1 ForanoutlineofthechapterseeHattori1959.Roughlyspeaking , thechaptercontainsthetwomaindiscussionsonthedefinitionofdirectperception:theanalysisofthemeaningof“ free fromconception"(kalpaniipo4ha)andof “non-erroneous" (abhranta).Thepresentstudyisconcernedwiththefirstonly;thelatterneedsfurtherresearch.ForthepreviousstudiesofthelattertopicseeYaita1982;Nishikawa1984a;and1984b(mainlyconcerningthediscussionsbyDharmottara).

2 AccordingtoDharmakirti , for instance , conception (vika 争a) isanequivalentofnescience(avidya;PVSV50, 20-51 , 1), whereasholybeingssuchasayogin(PVill281)andSamantabhadratowhomhisreligiousdevotionisdirectedinthenamaskaraSlokaofPV , arethosebeingswhohaveannihilatedthenetworkofconceptualconstruction(vidhutakalpanajala-).

44


lowedthisdefinitionofdirectperception ，五rst inPVwithoutchangeandthenin

PVinandNBwiththefollowingmodification: “Direct perceptionisfreefromconceptionandnon-erroneouS'(ρratyak~am ka争ana}うodhamabhrantam).Consistｭentwiththischangeheproposedhisowndefinitionofconception: “Conception isacognitionassociatedwithanexpression"(abhilapinfpratttilJ.ka かana) inverse;“Conception isacognitionwhichiscapableoftheconnectionwithanexpression"(abhilapasarrzsargayogyapratibhasaρratftilJ. kalpana) , moreexactly , butwiththesameconnotationinprose.Thisappearedatthetimetobearadical ,newdefinitionofconception.

SantaraksitalivedinthemostactiveperiodoftheBuddhistlogico ・epistemolo ・

gicaltraditionafterDharmakirti. Namely , thesystemofthelatterwasfullyacceptedandabsorbedwithinthetradition , ontheonehand , and , ontheother ,afterthefulldoctrinalestablishmentofeachorthodoxschool , BuddhistshadtheneedtorefutethoseoftheirideaswhichwereopposedtoDharmakirti's.Besides ,withintheBuddhistparty , too ,diversionsofinterpretationstimulatedcontroversiesonseveralpoints.3

Forinstance , mostcommentatorsanddoxographerswhosetextsareavailablenowseemtohavefollowedDharmakirti'sdefinitionconcerningdirectperception

aswellashisdefinitionofconception. However , SantaraksitaandKamalasilaappeartoindicatethatbeforethemsomeBuddhistsmaintainedbothDignaga's

de 五nition ofconceptionandDharmakirti'sdefinition.4 Thisfact , i.e., thatthereweresomeBuddhistswhoinprinciplefollowedDharmakirti'stheoryofdirect

perceptionbutfollowedDignagaastothedefinitionofconception , isnoteworthyinanothertextofthelaterperiod , viz., HTU , adoxographicalpiecebyJitari.5

ThusTScouldbesaidtobeendowedwithauniquecharacterinthesensethatthe

author , Santarak~ita ， triestointegratethedefinitionsofDignagaandDharmakirtionconceptionthroughtheexaminationofallthepossibleinterpretationsofDigｭ

naga'sdefinitionandthenfinallyreacheshisownconclusion , asmentionedbelow.StudiesintheBuddhisttheoryofdirectperceptionhavemadeprogresssince

the1960's.Aboveall ,veryimportantcontributionswereachievedbythefollowingexcellentworks:Prof.T.Vetter'stextandGermantranslationofPVinI(Vetter

3 Forinstance , Vinitadeva'sideasondirectperceptionarecriticizedbyDharmottara(d.studiesreferredtoinn.1).Kamalasilarevealsdi 宜erences fromDharmottara'sviewonseveralimportantpointsthoughtheybelongedtonearlythesameperiod.ForthechronologyofSantarak 号ita ， Kamalasila , andDharmottaraseeKrasser1992.

4 Seenn.81, 82, and84.

5 HTU272 , 23-25:taccapra り'ak~arrz namajatyadika~ ρanarah itarrznin 万kalpakam abhrantarrzcayadibhavatitada ρramanam uりlate. Seealsonn.81and92.

45

T.FUNAYAMA

1966), Prof.Kajiyama'sannotatedEnglishtranslationofTBh(Kajiyama1966),Prof.M.Hattori'sannotatedEnglishtranslationofPS(V)I(Hattori1968), andProf. H.Tosaki'sJapanesetranslationofPVill(Tosaki1979a , 1985). IntheseworksthemostimportantmilestonesinthehistoryoftheBuddhistlogico ・episte

mologicaltraditioninIndia , viz., theoriginalcontributionofDigmlga , thesucｭceedingcontributionofDharmakirti , andthewritingofadoxographyinthelastperiod , havebeenphilologicallyclarifiedanddigested. Besides , Dr.E.Franco(1984)pointedouttheimportanceofthechapterItakeupnowandsettledthe

frameworkofSantarak~ita's interpretationofDignaga. Ihopethatthepresent

studywhichisimmeasurablyindebtedtotheseworkswillmakeanadditional

contributiontomodernphilologicalstudiesofthistradition , especiallywithregardtotheproblemofthedefinitionofdirectperception , oneofitsmostimportantandfundamentaltopics.

II.OnSomeCharacteristicFeaturesofTSandTSP.

ThechapterPratyak~alak~a 'Japarlksii ， likeotherchaptersofTS , takesanencyclopediclookattheproblemofdirectperceptionandsolvesitfromthe

Buddhiststandpointinthelateeighthcentury.Thismeansthatwecan , indeed ,collectextensivedescriptionsofthetopic , buttheauthor'sownphilosophicalposiｭtionsarenotsoevident , becausehisfinalanswersareinmostcasesnotdifferentfromDharmakirti'sideas. Inspiteofthisgeneraltendency , wecan むace theircharacteristicfeaturesinseveralpointsthemostimportantofwhichis, theaimofSantarak 号i 旬、discussion; i.e., hisendeavortointegratethetwodifferentdefinitionsofconceptionofDignagaandDharmakirti.Therebyhetriestoexplaineachsubｭ

ordinatetopic , wherethefollowingfurthercharacteristicscanberecognized:

A.TheInterpretationoftheSentenceofDefinition:pratgak 守a '!l kalpanaｭ

poc!hamabhrantam.6

Roughlyspeaking ,thereweretwomainstreamsinthetraditionofinterpretingthesyntaxofthesentenceofthedefinitionofDharmakirti:Onestreaminterprets

thesentenceas“T hat (cognition)whichisfreefromconceptionandnon-erroneousisdirectperception"andtheother ,reversingthesubjectandtheobject , interpretsitas“Direct perceptionisfreefromconceptionandnon-erroneous."TheformerwasheldbySakyabuddhi , Vinitadeva , andKamala 釘la; thelatterbyDharmottaraandhisfollowers.Santaraksitahimselfissilentonthisissue.Thatistosay , itislikely

6 Seenn.38and39.

46


thatKamala 釘la belongedtotheolders仕切m ofthetradition7alongwithVinitaｭ

deva , etc.However , itisnotcertainwhetherKamala 釘la wasintentionallyopposedtoDharmottara.

B.OntheDefinitionofConception.

Asstatedabove , thereweretwokindsofdefinitionofconceptionintheBuddhistlogico ・epistemological tradition:niimajiityiidiyojaniika 争anii byDignaga

(PSI)andabhiliipinzpratltilJ-ka 争anii byDharmakirti(PVinI, NBI).Betweenthese , Dignaga'sdefinition , especiallyhisusageofiidi(i.e., niimajiityiidi-) , leftroomforvariousphilosophicalanalyses:Thoughtheexpressioncouldmean

“name, genus , etc.," 8 thisusageofiidi(“etc.") issomewhats仕ange becauseitsnormalusageallowsforeither“name,etc."or “genus,etc."9asthecorrectfa ロn ，andnot“name, genus , etc."asinDignaga'susage.Besides , thefactthatthelatterhalfofthecompound , yojanii , isafemininenounallowsfortwopossibilitiesinconnecｭtionwiththeotherfemininenoun , kalpanii , whichthecompoundmodifies;i.e.,thecompoundcouldbeanalyzedeitherasatatpurωα or abahuvrzhi. Dharmakirti

spokeabouthisowndefinitiononlyandkeptsilentabouttherelationbetween

Dignaga'sdefinitionandthatofhisown.Itisnotdi 伍cult toconjecturethatthesecircumstancesdirectedSantarak~ita ， whobelongedtothescholaticenvironment

afterDharmakirti ,towardareconsiderationofbothdefinitions.Theconclusionhefinallyreachedwasthatbothwerestatedwiththesameconnotation.

BeforehecametothisconclusionheinvestigatedDignaga'sdefinitionas

minutelyaspossible.Accordingtohim ,thecompoundniimajiityiidiyojanii , “name-genus , etc. , connection ," couldbeinterpretedinthefollowingways:

1.Connectionwithanameandagenus , etc.a.Conceptionisthatcognitionbymeansofwhichaconnectionwith

aname , whichistobeacceptedbyBuddhists , andagenus , etc. , whichis

7 Cf.PSVonPSI3c:sespaga カla rtogpamedpadeni[PSV(K):om.PSV(V)]mrlOnsummo

(Hattori1968:176-177).(“T hat (cognition)inwhichthereisnoconceptionisdirectperception 乃Cf. alsoPSVonPSI3d:ga カla rtogpadedagmedpademカon summo(Hattori1968:178-179;identicaltoyatrai~ii ねlpana niistitatpratyak~am; seealson.200).Cf.NVT1 130,21-22; NVT2 241, 3:seya'J!lkalpaniiyatrajfuinenastyarthatal}svar 秒'ato viitatkalpaniipocJha'J!lpratyak~am [NVT2:tatisaddedbeforeρratyak~am NVT1].

8 ThisisnodoubtthemostnaturalunderstandingofthephraseifphilosophicalinterpretationssuchasSantaraksita'sarenottakenintoconsideration.

9 TSP451, 21-23.Thepassageis 甘anslated onp.73.

47

T.FUNAYAMA

toberejectedasanideaofotherschools , isrealized.lO

b.Conceptionisthatcognitionwhichconnectsaname ,whichistobeacceptedbyBuddhists , andagenus , etc. ,whichistoberejectedasanideaofotherschools , withtherelevantobject.ll

2.Connectionwithanamethroughagenus , etc.Conceptionisthatcognitionwhichconnec ぉ a namewiththerelevant

objectthroughthemediumofagenus , etc. , bothofwhichareexpressedfromtheBuddhiststandpointonlyP

Inthisway , hepresentstwo- moreparticularlythree- interpretationsofthecompound. Althoughhestatesthemas alternatives , theprogressofthediscussionsuggeststhatinterpretationlbispreferabletola ,andthatinterpretation2isthebestamongthem.Moreover , Kamala釘la sometimesusestheword“name"- whichwasoriginallyusedbyDignagaregardingarbitrarywordsonly- asan

equivalentto “word" (ｧabda)inthecourseofhisdiscussions.13 ThisattitudeisexpoundedfirstbySantarak~ita intheexpressionsabdayojanii(TS1232a)inthe

senseofniimayojanii.Thus , aftergivingalternativeinterpretationsofthecomｭpoundniimajiityiidiyojaniiandfinallyfavoringform2above , Santarak~ita declaresthatDignaga'sintention- viz., thatconceptionisacognitionwhichconnectsanamewithanobject- isnootherthanDharmaklrti'sdefinition. Further , theauthoralsooffersinterpretationsofDignaga'sideasonconceptionasfoundinPSV

andNMukhinaccordancewiththisviewpoint.

c.TS(P)ontheDemonstrationsofkalpanapoc!ha.

AftertheexaminationofthedefinitionofconceptionSantarak 号ita proceedsto

theproblemofhow“ free fromconception"isdemonstrated.HiswayofdiscussingtheproblemandsourcesarefoundinPVandPVin. Further , thecontentsofthisdiscussionweretakenoverbyanotherofhisworks , i.e., MA ,14 includingfive

10 Thecompoundhasbeendemonstratedtobeabahuvrzhi.Forthedetailsseepp.74-75.

11 Thecompoundmustbeata砂urWja. Forthedetailsseepp.75-76;andn.116.

12 Seepp.76-77.

13 Seenn.61, 84, 126, 164, 169, 170, and280.

14 MA24-30.Further , TSismentionedbynameinMAV (330, 13:Dekhonabsduspa;onMA96).ThismeansthatTSwaswrittenbeforeM AwhichexpoundsSantarak~ita's originalstandpointasacriticalsyncretismoftheSau 仕fmtika ， Yogiicara , andMadhyamakaphilosophies.

48


identicalverses.15

D.Sintarak~ita andDharmakIrti;KamalasilaandDevendrabuddhi.

ItisnotsurprisingincommentaryasmassiveasTSPthatthesourceofmany

expressionscanbefoundinprecedingtexts. Needlessto say , statementsofDignagaandofDharmaklrti , whoformedthetwowingsofauthorityinthis 甘adition , areoftencitedand , evenmoreoften , implicitlyusedinTSP.Besides , aspointedoutbyFrauwallner ,16 Kamala釘la inonecontextutilizedastatementofSakyabuddhi , thereason being , I suppose , thatitwasaprevailingideainKamalasIla'sage. DuringthecourseofthistranslationanotherofKamalasIla's

sourcesrevealeditself:asecondaryusageofDevendr 油uddhi' scommentaryonPV

ill249.InTS1263Santarak~ita usesthisverse , withaslightmodification , andincommentinguponitKamala 釘la ， intum , utilizesDevendrabuddhi'scommentary ,alsowithaslightmodificationP

E.Kamalasila , Vinitadeva , andJinendrabuddhi.

AlthoughthedefinitechronologyofKamalasIla ,18 Vin Itadeva , andJinendraｭbuddhi19isnotcertain , thefollowingpointssuggesttheirsimilarities:

1.Theyhavethesameidiosyncrasyintheirpreferenceforthetermsvarupaover

lak~a 1}a intheenumerationofthequadrupletofwrongnotions(v 伊ratipatti) -

15 TS1250(=MA25), TS1251(=MA26),TS1253(=MA28),TS1254(=MA29),andTS1255(=MA30).Cf.TS1252abd(=MA27abd).Seenn.216, 242, and254.

16 Frauwallner1933:238-239.However , thecontextisnotrelevantto 出e presentwork.

17 Seenn.292-300;andAppendix1.ThistextualrelationwillbemoreinterestingwhenwetakeintoconsiderationthatDevendrabuddhiistheimmediatediscipleofDharmaki:rtiasisKamala 釘la ofSantaraksita.

18 ItisaninterestingproblemwhetherKamalasi:la'scommentaryreflectsmoredevelopedideasthanthatexpressedinTS , generatedinresponsetotheworksofSantarak~ita. Krasser(1992)pointsoutthatKamala 釘la wasinfluencedbyDharmottaraoncertainissues.Besides , Kamalasi:lareferstoUmbeka ,whowasnotknowntoSantarak 手ita (Schmithausen1965:216n.150).IcouldnotfindexamplesofKamalasi:la'sdeviationfrom , ordevelopmentof ,thecontentsofTSin 出is work.Onthecontrary , thedifferencebetweenKamala 釘la andDharmottarapointedoutaboveconcerningthesyntaxofthesenｭtenceofthedefinitionofdirectperception(pp.46-47)isanexamplewhichinevitablysuggeststhepossibilityeitherthattheformerdidnotknowtheideaofthelatteratallorthattheformerwasintentionallyopposedtothelatterforsomereason.

19 Thereisnoevidenceforfixingthedateof]inendrabuddhi.Asapreviousstudyon 出at issueseeHayes1983.

49

T.FUNAYAMA

viz., svarupa , phala , gocara , andsamkhyii- regardingdirectperception.20

2.Theyunanimouslyrefertothesameillustration“Fetch themilchwithoutthecalf!"forexplainingthattheword“cognition" (jfziina)isomittedintheaboveｭmentionedsentenceofdefinitionofdirectperception.21

3.Aspointedoutabove , KamalasilaaswellasSantaraksitawasawareofthefactthatthecompoundniimajii り'iidiyojanii inPSissomewhats甘ange intermsofthe

usageofiidi. Thesamewasalsoexpressedbylinendrabuddhiinyetanotherway.22

皿. OntheTextsandtheMethodology.

ThetranslationofTSandTSPismadefromthefollowingtexts:

1.TS1212-1263:

(Skt.) M 61b2-64a2

K 1213-1264

S 1212-1263

(Tib.)23P 5764, Vol.138, 'e, 55a4-57a7D 4266 , TshadrnaVol.18, ze, 45al-46b6

2.TSPonTS1212-1263:

(Skt.) M 150b2-154a4

K 366, 14-398 , 27S 448, 20-463 , 16

(Tib.)24P 5765, Vol.139, ye , 24b8-34a2D 4267, TshadrnaVol.19, 'e, 1b1-9a2

Forthepurposeofofferingthetranslationasliterallyandthoroughlyaspossｭ

ible , itisindispensablethateveryavailablereferencebecollectedfromothertextsandcomparedwitheachcontextofTSandTSP.Thisprocedureissubstantially

20 Seethetranslationonp.57;andn.35.

21 Seenn.39and40.

22 Seen.96.

23 Forthetranslators , GunakarasrlbhadraandZiba'od , seeNaudou1980:214n.38;221;and230.

24 Forthetranslators , DevendrabhadraandGrags'byorsesrab , seeNaudou1980:211-215;230;235-236;andRuegg1981:114.

50


followedinthenotesforthetranslationwherethetextualdifferencesamongthe

abovefiveversionsofthetextsarealsonoted.25 ThemainabbreviationsIemploy

areasfollows:

M Jaisalmermanuscripts26ofTS/TSP

K E.Krishnamacharya'seditionofTS/TSP

S S.D.Shastri'seditionofTS/TSP

Pa VariantreadingsinthePatan(Pattan)manuscriptsofTS/TSP

whicharefoundinthefootnotesofS.

Ga VariantreadingsintheGaekwadmanuscriptsofTS/TSPwhich

arefoundinthefootnotesofS.

Further , thefollowingmethodologicalremarksshouldbetakenintoaccountforthenotationsinthetranslationsandthenotes:

1.InthetranslationIuseSasthebasictext.However , forthewayofpresentingthetranslationIfollowthestyleofKforconveniencesake;i.e., thetranslationofTSisarrangedintheappropriatelocationwithinTSP.

2.Parentheses(...)intranslationsindicatethattheenclosedwordsarethecompleｭ

mentswhicharenecessaryonaccountofsyntacticaldifferencesbetweenSanskrit

(orTibetan)andEnglish;notranslator'sinterpretationisadded. Ontheother

hand , brackets[...]intranslationsindicatethattheenclosedwordsareaddedforabetterunderstandingofthecontentswiththetranslator'sinterpretation.

25 InprincipleItriedtocollectinthenotesasmanyrelevantpassagesaspossible , atleastinBudｭdhistSanskritliterature ,whichwouldbeofanyhelpforsimilarresearchinthefuture.However , IcouldnotfullyconsultPVinTAphilologicalresearchof 出at isnotthescopeofthisarticle.

26 IoweagreatdebtofgratitudetotheVenerableJainaMuniSriJambuvijayajifortheacquisition

oftheblackandwhitephotoprintsofthesemanuscriptswhichhasnotbeenpossiblebeforeforscholarsoutsideofIndia.

InthecaseofTS , onlybyreferencetoM wasitpossibleformetoclarifybetterreadingssincetheTibetanofTS , asitis, isnotsoreliablefortextualemendations.

BothTSandTSPinM arewritteninanamazinglybeautifulNagariscript.TSiswritteninaverystrictscriptandfont , eachfolioinsix(occasionally ，五ve) linesinarigid , well-orderedform.Thereareonlyafewmarginalnotations , comparedwithTSP.Theverse-numberisattachedattheendofeachverse , countingfromthebeginningofthechapter.Ontheotherhand , TSPiswritteninafreerstylethanTS.Eachfolioconsistsoffromsixtoeightlines.Thenotes , additions , andcorrectionsinthemarginrevealthatitwasreadverywell ,althoughsomeofthosemarginalremarksapparentlybelongtothemodernage.Itisnoteworthythatthemarginalnotationsaremostlygivenwithanindicationofthelineinwhichthewordinquestioniswritten.

51

T.FUNAYA 乱1A

3.BoldtypesignifiesthetranslationofTStodistinguishiteasilyfromTSP.This

isusedalsoforpresentingtheSanskrittextsofTSinthenotes.

4.IfollowSfortheverse-numbersofTS.ThefolionumberofM isalsoindicated

inthenotesforeasyaccess.ThelocationsofpassagesofTSPare , ontheotherhand ,justindicatedatthebeginningofanewtopicinthetranslation , andtheyareindicatedinthecaseofnotesonlywithreferencetothelocationinS.

5.EachSanskritverseofTSinthenotesisfollowedbythecorrespondingTibetan

translation; “Tib. (!)"indicatesthattheTibetandoesnotfullyreflectthereadingorthestructureoftheSanskrit.PassagesofTSPinthenotesare , whennecessary ,citedwithoutmentioningthenameofthetext(i.e., TSP);e.g., (450 , 14)indicatesthatthepassageisquotedfromS(p.450 , 1.14).

6.AspointedoutbyKunst ,27 theTibetanofTSisnotreliable.Itoftencontainscorruptionsandmoreoftenthannotrevealsthatthetranslationwasmadewithout

fullydigestingtheSanskritsyntax.However , inspiteofitstextualdefects , itmustbeconsultedforcriticismoftheSanskrittext. Fu 抗her ， Tib.pratfkas- i.e., thewordswhicharequotedfromTSandcommenteduponintheTibetanTSP- are

alsousefulfortextualcriticismbecausetheyoftenshowafarbetterreadingthan

theTibetanTS.

7.TheTibetanpassagesfromothertextscitedinthenotesforreferenceare

generallytakenfromP.DifferentreadingsinD areoccasionallyreferredtoin

bracketsbuttheirexactlocationsareomittedexceptinthecaseofTSwhichisthe

mostimportanttextinthiswork.

8.WhenoneoftheTibetanversionskeepsapreferablereadingandanotheris

problematicorco ロupt ， Iindicatethepointbyusingasemicolonandbracketsas ,e.g. ， “ka lpωa; 付og[D:rtogsP]pa."WhenbothPandDrevealgood , butdifferent ,readingsIfollowPasthebasictext.

9.A passageisoccasionallyunderlinedforemphasis.

27 Kunst1939:vm.

52


SYNOPSISOFTHETRANSLATION

(*IndicatesthatthetopicisfoundonlyinTSP.)

1.Introduction[1212].(translationp.57, 1.3)ll.Directperceptiondefined:That(cognition)whichisfreefromconception

(kalpan a.ρo cf，ha) andnon-erroneous(abhriinta)isdirectperception[1213ab].(58,7-60, 11)A*.Referencestootherdefinitions.(58, 7)B*.Onthesyntaxofthede 五nition. (59, 4)

1.Onthedefiniendumandthedefinition;onthewordorderinthesentence.

(59, 4)2.Theword“ cognition" isomitted.(60, 7)

皿. On “being freefromconception."(61, 2-116, 3)A.Onconception.(61, 2-94, 14)

1.Conceptiondefined:Acognitionassociatedwithanexpression(abhiliipini

pratiti 事 ) [1213bc].(61, 4)a*.Introductoryremarks.(62, 1-64, 1)

(1)ReferencetootherdefinitionsofconceptioncriticizedbySankaraｭ

svamin , etc[1213cd].(62, 1)(a)ThedefinitionbytheSarvastivadaschool.(62, 15)(b)ThedefinitionbytheYogacaraschool.(63, 2)

(2)Etymologicalexplanationofthewordabhiliipin.(63, 4)2.Demonstrationstoprovetheabovedefinitionofconception.(64, 3-69, 8)

a.Conceptionisknownthroughone'sdirectperception.(64, 3)(l)The 五rst demonstration[1214].(64, 5)- Corroborationofthefirstdemonstrationbymeansofinference

[1215].(65, 12)(2)Theseconddemonstration[1216].(67, 10)

b.Conceptionisalsodemonstratedbyaninference[1217].(68, 5)3.TheexaminationofDignaga'sdefinitionsofconception.(69, 10-94, 14)a.Introduction.(69, 10-71, 12)

(l)purva ρak~a: conceptionshouldbedefinednotonlyasassociatedwith

anexpressionbutascapablefortheconnectionwithagenus , etc.[1218ab].(69, 10)

(2)Generalresponse:Genus , etc., isnotmaintainedbyBuddhistsanditisnotperceived[1218cd].(70, 4)- Additionalremarksonthenon-perceptionofagenus , etc.[1219].(70,

53

T.FUNAYA 恥1A

13)

b.InterpretationsofthedefinitioninPSI3d: “name-genus, etc.connection"(niimajii 砂'iidiyojanii). (72, 2-88, 7)(1)Thefirstinterpretation.(72, 2-76, 9)

(a)“Name-genus, etc."(niimajiityiidi)beinginterpretedas “name" and“genus, etc. ," respectivelyexpressingDignaga'sownidea , whichistobeaccepted , andtheopinionofotherteachers , whichistoberejected[1220].(72, 7)

(b)Interpetationsof“connect ion" (yojanii).(73, 10-76, 9)1)Thewholecompoundinterpretedasabahuvrfhi:conceptionas

thatwhichhastheconnectionwithnameandgenus , etc.[1221].(74,4)

2)Thecompoundasataφur~a: conceptionasthatwhichconnectsa

nameandagenus , etc.[1222].(76, 4)(2)Thesecondinterpretation:Thedefinitionofconceptionasexpressing

Dignaga'sownideaonly(svamatasiddhaiva)[1223ab].(76, 11-86, 17)(a)TheinterpretationofPSVI(yad!cchii勾bdりu niimniiviSi~?o 'rtha

ucyate...)(76, 16-83, 2)1)Theexpression“a thingisexpressedbeingdistinguishedbyaname"inPSVshouldbesyntacticallyconnectedalsointhecasesof

genus- , quality- , action- , andsubstance-words[1223cd].(77, 9)2)Theinterpretationof“by agenus , etc九a thing ,beingdistinguished

byanamebymeansofagenus , etc., isexpressedasa “cow ," etc.[1224ab].(78, 3)

3)TheinterpretationofPSI3d:thatwhichconnectsanamethrough

themediumofagenus , etc.[1224cd]. (78, 13)- Excursus:thedefinitionisnottoonarrow(ωy めti ) regarding

arbitrarywords , either.(79, 3)a)Fromarealisticpointofview[1225a-c].(79, 7)一本 From thestandpointofthetheoryofawhole.(80,2)ー* Fromthestandpointofpari1:zatidarsana.(80, 11)

b)FromtheBuddhiststandpoint.(81, 7)- Dignagaseparatedarbitrarywordsfromgenus-wordsbecause

theyareseparatelyknowntopeople[1225d].(81, 22)- Dignagaexpressedbotharbitrarywordsandgenus-words

separatelyonlyincomformitywiththecommonalty[1226-27].

(82, 8)(b)TheinterpretationofPSVI(anyetuarth aSunyai 争sabdair eva

54


viｧ4to'rthaucyate)[1228].(83, 4)(c)Integrationofthedefinitions.(84, 4-88, 7)

1)Dharmakirti'sdefinition , abhilapinlprat 詑i I}. ， shouldbeacceptedalsobyotherteacherswhoholdconceptionbeingconnectionwith

agenus , etc.[1229-33].TheinterpretationofPSVI(ontheworducyate).(84, 4)

2)Dignaga'srealintention:thereconciliationofthefirstandthe

secondinterpretationsofPSI3d[1234-35].(87, 2)c.InterpretationsofDignaga'sdefinitioninNMukh.(88, 9-91, 8)(1)Thefirstinterpretation:thedefinitionasstatingbothDignaga'sown

ideaandotherteachers'opinion[1236].(88, 9)(2)Thesecondinterpretation:ThedefinitionasstatingDignaga'sownidea

only[1237].(90, 19)d.TheexaminationofthecriticismoftheBuddhistideaofconception

upheldbyUddyotakara , etc.[1238-41].(91, 10-94, 14)(1)Onthecriticismintermsoftheproblemofthepropertyandthe

property-possessorinDharmakirti'sdefinition.InterpretationofPSVI

(yatrai~a ka争ana nastitatpra り'ak~am). (91, 10)(2)OnUddyotakara's criticism that direct perceptionas defined by

Dignagacannotbeexpressedbytheword“direct perception."(91, 15;94,8)

B.Demonstrationsof“being freefromconception."(94, 16-116, 3)1.Corroborationsintermsofdirectperception.(94, 16-107, 11)a.Generalidea:directperception'sbeingfreefromconceptionisknown

fromself-perceptionbecauseevenapersonwhosemindispreoccupied

withinsomethingelse , suchaspastaffairs , perceivesblue , etc. , whichisrightbeforehiseyes[1242].(94, 16)(1)Directperceptionisexperiencedincoexistencewithconception , being

differenctfromeachother , sothatdirectperceptioncannotcontainconception.(95, 4-97, 6)(a)Conceptionofpastaffairs , etc. , arisesindependentlyfromdirect

perception[1243].(95, 4)(b)Impossibilityofassumingtwodifferentconceptionsinsimultaneity

[1244].(96, 3)(c)Asummary[1245].(97, 2)

(2)Theexaminationsofthecounter-argumentstothetheoryofsimulｭ

taneity.(97, 8-107, 11)(a)purvapak~ a:. cognitionswhichoccursuccessivelyarewronglycon-

55

T.FUNAYAMA

ceivedtobesimultaneousbecausetheyoccurquiterapidlyasinthe

caseofafire-brand[1246].(97, 8-99, 8)(b)Responses.(99, 10-107, 11)

1)Theobjectionisnotrelevanttothemaintopic , i.e., directpercepｭtion'sbeingfreefromconception , sothatitisnottherealimpediｭmenttothetopic[1247].(99, 10)

2)Thesimultaneousoccurrenceofsense-perceptionwithconception

isnotanerrorastheopponentclaims[1248].(100, 12)3)Counter-evidencestotheobjection[1249-52].(101, 14)

a)Theexampleofasoundsuchaslatainreferencetotheexample

ofseeingadancer , etc.(102, 4;104, 9)b)Inthecasewherethereisonlyconceptioninthemind.(102, 7;

105, 3)c)Allmentalactivitiesareofthesamenatureintermsoftheir

momentariness.(102, 9;105, 8)4)Theexample“ like afire-brand"commitsafallacycalled“being

devoidofaprobandum"[1253-55].(105, 14)2.Corroborationsintermsofinference.(107, 13-116, 3)

a.Asyllogismbyanon-perceptionofthecause[1256-59].(107, 13)(1)Theexaminationoftheobjection.Theword-particular(必 bdasvalak~a

。α) asthesignified(vacya)orthesignifier(vacaka)isonlyafalsely

imputedthing[1260-61ab].(110, 3)(2)Ontheotherhand , directperceptionwhichcognizestheparticularis

notconceptual[1261cd-62].(111, 9)b.Asyllogismbyaperceptionofthatwhichisincompatiblewithapervader

[1263].(113, 3)

56


TRANSLATIONOFTS1212-1263ANDITSTSP

(M150b2;S448 , 19;K 366 , 14;P24b8;D1b1)

Therearefourkindsofwrongnotions(v 伊ratipatti) whichotherschoolshold

withregardtorightknowledge(pramiil}a):(wrongnotions)concerningitsnature

(svarupa) , e妊ect (phala) , object (gocara) , andnumber(sa1?1khyii)28. Forthe

purposeofdemonstratingtheclear29 de五nition ofrightknowledgebymeansof

refutingthe(wrongnotions , themasterhasalreadystated ,) “ascertained bytwoｭfoldrightknowledgebothendowedwithacleardefinition."30Inordertocorｭ

roboratethis31(themasternow)states:

Directperception(pratgakl}a)andinference(anumana)whichare

assumed by other (teachers) in order to establish (categorical)

qualifications(upadhi)32arenotcorrect[asrightknowledge]forthey

(should)bedefinedasfollows.

IITS12121j33

28 ThesefourwrongnotionsarementionedalsoinNBPSbyKamalasllahimself.ForthetextandJap.tr.seeTosaki1984.Cf.alsonn.35-37;andDhPr35, 15-26.

29 spa~?a 1?1- prama 1}alak~a 1}am adarsayitum(448 , 20).Mytranslationofspa~?a 1?1- asanadjectiveisbasedonthefollowingpassage: ゆa~?a1?1- catall ρk~a 1}a 1?1- cetivise~a 1}asamiisa!} (15, 18)onTS3a(学 >a~?ala k~a 1} as a1?1- yuk ta- ) . Thewordspa~?a 1?1- is, ontheotherhand , translatedasanadverbintheTibetan25al:mtshan 元id gsalbarbstanpa'idonduo

30 TS3ab:spa {l!alak {la ,!asa qr.guktapramlidvitaganiscitam.Tib.P'e2a3-4;Dzelb3:mtshan元 idgsalda カldan payiIItshadmag元is kyisgtanladbabIf.ForanexpositiononthepassageseeTSP(15, 18-21).Further ,thecontentsofTS3abareconcernedwithChapters17(Pratyak 号alak 号a t:la-pa rIk 号a) ，18(Anumana-pO) , and19(Pramat:lantarabhava-pO).Ofthesethelastchapterisconcernedwiththeproblemofsa1?1-khyavipratipatti(d.TSP16, 21-22;530, 13).Chapter17, ontheotherhand , isconｭcernedwiththeproblemsofthede 五nition (lak~ana ， svarupa)andtheeffect(ρ hala; d.TS1343ff.);andanyindependentdiscussionontheobject(gocara)isnotevident.

31 etatsamarthanartham(448, 21).M originallyreadssamarthanambutiscorrectedintosamarthaｭnartham[sic!]inthemargin.

32 Theword “qualifications" inthiscontextmeansfalselyimputedcategoriessuchasthesixpada 吋has upheldbythe Vaise~ika school.KamalasIlastateselsewhere that “qualification" isasynonymofvise~a 1}a. TSP14, 20:gU1}adayascateupadhayascavise~a 1}anlti vise~a 1}asamiisa!} (onTS2abcitedbelow).Thesequalificationsarenotmaintainedtoberealbecausetheyareinoppositetothe

Buddhistideaofdependentorigination(p ratl>り'asamutpada; d.TS2a・c: gU1}adravyakriyajatisamavayaｭdyupadhibhi 与 I sunyam. “(Dependent origination)whichisdevoidofsuchqualificationsasquality ,substance , action , genusandinherence").

33 乱1: 61b2:patgak{lamanumanaqr.cagadupadhiprasiddhageIparairuktaqr.natatsid ・dhameva qr.lak{la ,!aka qr.hitataIf.Tib.P55a4-5;D45al-2:mnonsumnidan[P:danniD]rjes ノ

57

T.FUNAYAMA

(Here ,) inordertoestablish(categorical)qualifications(means)inordertoestabｭ!ishsuchquali 五cations asquality(gu 1}a) , substance(dravya) , action(kriyii) , genus(j iit i ), andinherence(samaviiya).34 Other(teachers)(means)the Vaise~ika(teachers) , etc. Asfollows(means)as(themaster)shallstate(inthefollowingdiscussions).

(恥 1 150b3;S449 , 8;K 366 , 21;P25a3;D1b4)Amongthese(fourwrongnotions)(tatra)thewrongnotionregardingthe

nature35ofdirectperceptionisthatdirectperceptionis, asrightknowledge , eitheraccompaniedbyconceptual(cognition)36ortheeyeandtheother(senseorgans)

whicharenotcognitionbynature.37Refutingthem(themaster)statesthedefi.niｭtionofthis(directperception):

\、 dpag laIIbyebragcandubsgrub[P:sgrubD]pa'iphyirIIpharolρos smrasdemi'grubIIdenimtshanizid'didagldanIf.

aCf.SBh22, 11:pratyak~a '!l tiivadanimittam.- ki'!lkiira 1}am-eva '!llak~a 1}aka '!l hitat.

34 Thewordingofgunadravyakriyiijiiti ・samaviiyiidyupiidhi-(448 ， 22)followsTS2ab(seen.32)

whichisfurthercommenteduponasfollows:gU1}ascadravyii1}icakr~ 少as cajiitiscasamaviiyascetidvand 切手. jiitisabdenaparama.μra '!l cadvividhamapisiim 伽ya '!l grhyatea. iidisabdenaan~ μ

dra r.つlavartinii '!l vise~ii 7}iim b ，戸 ca dharmivyatireki1}odharmii!}.kaiicidupava r1:zyante, yathii~a 7} 7}iimapi ρadii 付hiiniim ωtitva '!l sadupalambhakap 叩mii 7}avi~ayatvam Cityevamiidaya!}. , te~ii'!l graha7}am(14, 16-20).

aPBh311, 14:siimii n，μ'!l dvividham ， ρaram apara'!lca.bCf.PBh.321, 12-13:ante~u bhaviianty 劫sViisrayavise~akatviid vise~ii み.C Cf.PBh16, 1-2:~a 7} 7}iim apipadii 吋hiiniim astitviibhideyatvaj 的'atviini.

35 Theideathattheaccuratedefinitionofdirectperceptionaimsattheexclusionofitsmisunderｭ

standingsbyotherteachersisoftenexpressedincommentariesonDharmakirti'sworks.ForexamplesoftheseseeTosaki1984:486n.1.ItisinterestingtonoteherethatVinitadeva(NBT(V)39, 6),Jinendrabuddhi(PST20b7), andKamalasilaagreeintheirwordingpreferringsvarupa r.勺I)ratipatti tolak~a 7}avipratipatti againstothercommentatorssuchas Dharmottara(NBT 35,1; PVinT 7b8),Jfianasribhadra(PVinT(1)218a7), andManorathanandin(PVV(M)154, 10).

36 AccordingtoKamalasila'sownNBPS , thisideaseemstobeclaimedbytheNyayaschool.NBPS478, 24-25:Rigspacanrηams nimnonsumthamscadnespa'ibdag 元id yinpa'iphyir , rnamparrtogpada カbcas pakhona'ozeszerro(seealsoTosaki1984[=NBPS]:488-489n.10).Inadditiontothis ,KumarilaoftheMima~sa schoolalsomaintains*savikalpakapratyak~a asonekindofdirectpercepｭtion(d.SV , pratyak号a， v.120).

37 AccordingtoNBPS(479, 4-7) , theupholdersofthisideaare , forexample , theVaise 号ika schoolandtheSa~khya school.Thiskindofv伊ratipatti inothertextsispointedoutbyTosaki(1984).Theproblemofquali 五cative perceptionandnon-quali 五cative perceptioninPBhisanalyzedbyHattori(1968/69).Inadditiontothese , thereisanotherinterestingpassageconcerningourcontext:InPVinT(1), Jfianasribhadraintroduces- inreferenceωthe wrongnotionsonthedefinitionofdirectperception-thoseideasas(1)NS1.1.4(218a7-8) ,(2)Sa~khya ideawhichsuggestsIsvarak 持。a's de 五nition a，ノ

58


(Thatwhichis)freefromconceptionandnon-erroneousisdirect

perception.

IITS1213abIp8

Here , [theattributes]beingfreefromconceptionandbeingnon-erroneousincognitionbeingstatedafter (anudya) , (themaster)prescribes(vidh か'ate) [itsattribute]beingdirectperception ,39 forineverycase40thedefiniendum(l ak~ya ) is

\、 (3) theonewhichisparalleltoYBh b,and(4)SV , pratyak~a， v.112andv.120(218b2-4).JftanasribhaｭdrafurtherstatesthattheNS1.1.4isupheldbytheNyayaschoolanditiscommontotheideaoftheVaise 号ika school.Thisisdi 旺erent fromKamala 釘la's wayofunderstandinginNBPSmentionedabove.Moreover , afterintroducingthesedefinitions , Jftanasribhadraexpoundsthatalltheschoolsmentionedaboveholdthetheorythatdirectperceptionisconnectedwithconception(218b4:dedagthamscadkya カm';zon sumrtogpadanbcaspar'doddoII).

aPVinT(1)218b1:Grancangyiiugspathub ρa serskyaniyulsosorienci カmtho カba nimnon

summoiesserroIf.Cf.prativi~ayadhyavasayo drHaminSK5.bPVinT(1)218bl-2:dra カsro カChur lhunnaredba カpo Iカa danldanpaga カsems kyisphyirol

gyidカospo 宛e barbiag[P:giagD]pω / ゆoyi danbyebraggimtshanfiidkyidnospolasbyebragnespar'dzinpasemskyi'jugpaInalasmchoggi'jugpanimカon sumyinnoiessmra'oIf.Cf.YBh11, 1-3:indriyapra1}alikayacittasyabiihyavastuparagattadvi~aya samanyavise~atmano 'rthasyavise~iivadha

ra1}apradhana tゲtt i1}- pratyak~arrz prama1}am.

38 M 61b2-3: pratgak 伊'!l kalpanapo q,hamabhrantam abhilapiniIpratiti事kalpanak!ptihetutvadgatmikanatuII[1 213a・d]. Tib.P55a5-6;D45a2:mnonsum 付og pada 先bral ii カ IIma'khrulpa'0a rtogpaniIIbrjodpadanldansespastebIIthas伽d rgyusogsbdagfiidniIImayinc.Santarak~ita owespadaa-ctoPVinIv.4a-c:mカon sum 付og bralma'khrulbaf.•.付ogpamnonparbrjodcangyiIIses μ (iιpratyak~arrz ka 争anapodham abhrantamabhil a.ρinl Ipratlti事ねlpana).Cf.NBI4-5: tatra ρratyak~arrz ka 争anapo cJham abhrantam. abhiliipasarrzsargayogyapratibhasaρratlti事ね争ana. Seealson.43.

aTib.pratlka:m力on sumrtogbralma'khrulba(25a4).

bTib.pratlka:rtog[D: 付ogs P]pamnon ρar brjodcangyiI[P:Iグ D] sespa(25b1).CTib.pratlka:fiebarbtags ρa yil[P:ρ 'a 'i forρa yiID]rgyufiidfasogsbdag 元id min(25b2-3).

39 tatraj元anasya kalpnanaJ りo¢hatvam abhrantatvarrzcanudya ρratyak~atvarrz vidhlyate(449, 11;Tib.25a5).HereitisveryinterestingthatKamalasilaexplainstherelationbetweenthedefinitionand

thedefiniendumbyusingtheformulation“x anudyay vidhlyate' , thecontentsofxandybeingcompletelyopposedtoDharmottara'sideaasexposedinNBT40, 7-8:tatrapratyak~am [:ρ ra tyak~atvam]anUdyaka~ 仰ziipodhatvam abhrantatvarrzcavidh 初tι “In thiscase, ‘direct perception'beingrepeated[aftertheprevioussutra], itsbeingfreefromconcep

59

T.FUNAYA 乱1A

prescribed[asthepredicate] as , for example , (inthe sentence) “That whichtremblesisthefig(tree)."

Heredirectperceptionisthedefiniendumbecausethesubjectisnoneother

thanthedefinitionofthat(directperception);themaintopic(prakrta)isnotthe

definitionof“ fr ee fromconception"and“non-erroneous," (for)ifthatwerethecase ,theywouldbeprescribed.

Since[perception'sidentityas]acognition(jfziina)is(syntactically)meantby

implicationthroughthedenialofconception(kalpanii)- as , forexample , in(thesentence) “Fetch themilchwithoutthecalf!"themilchcow(ismeantbyimplicaｭtion)throughthedenialofthecalf- forthisreason(theword) “cognition" isnotemployed.41

\、 cognition whichdoesnotdeviate'[=PVIIlal.(Theattributes)beingnon-deviatingandbeingacognition , whicharethedefiniendum(*lak~ya) ， beingstatedafter , (theat 位ibute) beingrightknowledge ,whichisthedefinition(*lak~a 1}a) ， isprescribed."TheSkt.parallelofthisrunsasfollows:ρ ramii ♂am

avisa1?1viidijiiiinamitiavisa1?1viiditva1?1jiiiinatva1?1ca(mtshangil)anudyaprii1?1ii1}ya1?1(mtshan 免iめvidhlyate(identifiedinSteinkellner1981:290;thelatterparenthesesaremine).Here ,theformulationing.uestionisnoteworthy , buttheinterpretationofthedefinitionandthedefiniendu~ looksproblematic.SakyabuddhiusestheformulationalsoinhiscommentaryonPVill123ainPVT(S)22214:...付 ogs ρada カbral baiiidbstannasmカon sumiiidstonparbyedpayinte/.“ (T he attribute)beingfreefromconception(*kalpaniipotjhatva)beingstatedafter , (theattribute)beingdirectperception(*pratyak~atva)isprescribed."Inthecourseofdiscussionhealsostatesthat “direct perception"isthedefiniendum(PVT(S)222b3)inaccordancewithDevendrabuddhi'sidea(PVP195b8-196al).

Themeaningofanudya(“being statedafter")isnotequivalentintheabovepassages:Dharmotｭtarausesthewordtomean “to repeatawordwhichisalreadyemployedintheprevioussutra ," whereasSakyabuddhiandKamalasilaseemtotakethewordinthesenseof“ to bestatedaftertheprecedingfactoroftheconcernedsentence ," becausethereisnoprecedingusageofthewordsbeforetheirsenｭtences.Consequently , theinterpretationofthewholesentencepratyak~a 1?1 kalpaniipotjhamabhriintamshouldbedifferentiated:Dharmottaraunderstandsitas“ Direct perceptionisthatcognitionwhichisfreefromconceptionandnon-erroneous"(d.NBT40, 8-9:yattatbhavatiimasmiika1?1ciirthe~u siik~iitkiirij 元iina 1?1 prasiddha1?1tatkalpanii ，ρotjhiibhriintatvayukta 1?1 dra~?avyam) ， whereasSakyabuddhiandKamala 釘la takethesamesentenceas“T hat cognitionwhichisfreefromconceptionandnon-eηoneousisdirectperception."Kamalasila'sideaisfurtherunderstoodfromtheexamplehe0百ers; i.e., “Thatwhichtremblesisthefigtree"wherethelatterelement , figtree , isthedefiniendumwhichcorrespondstopratyak~a inthesentenceofthedefinition.ProbablyKamala 釘la's ideaontheinterpretationofthesentenceofthede 五nition partakesofanideaolderthanDharmottara'sbecauseVinitadevaalsointerｭ

pretspratyak~a asthepredicateandk

60


(M150b5;S449 , 16;K 367 , 2;25a8;2a3)

(Inordertoclarify)what(kindof)conception42isthenintendedhereasthat

whichacognitionisfreeoftobedirectperception , (themaster)states:

Conceptionisacognitionassociatedwithanexpression(abhilapinipratiti 争 ).

グ TS 1213hc//43

\、 vatsapra ti~edhena godhenoriti , atojiiiinamitinoktam(449, 14-16).Cf.Tib.(25a7-8):rtogpabおgpω sespasugskyisthob ρa 'iphyirIdpernabe'umed1:うα 'i bi:onma'oncigces わla basbe'ubkagpasba

la カb i:on martogspaltabuyin ρas de'iphyirsespai:esbrjoddoII , wheretheunderlinedpassagemeanseither“‘ cognition ' is(implicitly)s泊ted" orjustacorruption.

Thisstatementhasthefollowingparallels:1.NBT(V)43 , 9-17: ses μ ni miwnsummoi:esbyabalamdolasses μma smos μr jiltarrカed cenaIrtogpanisespakhonada カ'breI bala'khrul ρa yanses ρ頃'i chosyinlうas [forρar (? )] mtho 先steI de

ltabωna rtogpadanbralbadanma'khrulpanises μkho nalabya'oIId，ρer nabe'umedpa'idrus

ma妨げd desogcigc回byas naIrtargodmakhriddemi'0 カ gi badrusma妨げd de'0 カ bω / 'diltar

de 元id be'uda カ'brel parmthonb況de bi:indu/'dirya カrtog pada カ'khrul panisespakhonada カ

'brelparmthongigi:andannimayin pωses p叫んho nam力on sumdu'doddoIf. “(Question:)[Accordingtoyou]directperceptioniscognition.However , ‘cognition' notbeingstatedinthefunｭdamentaltext , whyis(suchameaning)acquired?(Answer:)Itisunderstoodthatconceptioniscon 司nectedonlywithcognitionand(being)non-erroneousisalsoapropertyofcognition.Therefore , (thewords) ‘free fromconception'and ‘non-erroneous' arestatedwithrelationtocognitiononly.Forexample , (whenonehearsthesentence) ‘Fetch themilchwithoutthecalf!'onedoesnotfetchamarebutfetchesthemilchcow.Hencethis(i.e., milch)itselfisunderstoodasconnectedwiththecalf.Likewise , inthiscasetoo , ‘conception' and‘erroneous' areunderstoodtobeconnectedwithcognition ,andnotwithanythingelse.Therefore , directperceptionismaintainedtobenoneotherthancognition."TheoriginalSanskritpassageisfoundinMalvania'snoteinNB(263 , 7-10)andTatparya32, 3-8:sutrean ψiittarrz jiiiinarrzlabhyate 初ta iticed(.) 竺盟竺- おlpanayii jiiiinasyaivasarrzbandho台回， bhriintiscajitiinadharma!}. tasmiit ねlpaniirahitam abhriintamcajitiinamevo りほteo tαdyathii ， avatsii[corr.:savatsii]dhenuriinlyatiimityuktena vaqaviinlyate , kirrztugodhenuh. e叩m ihii ρi ねlpanayiibhriintyiicajitiinasyai 叩sarrzbandho dr~~a itijitiinamevajうra tyak~am i~yata iti.TheSanskritandtheTibetanaredifferentregardingtheunderlinedwords.2.pST20b8-21a2:rtogpada 力bral banesparbst. αn ρa laskya 力I [D:IIP]deses ρla'i bdagiiiddoi:esrtogsμrb邦政/ gangiρhyirsespakhonalartogpadan'drespayodlaIde'i ρhyir debkagpasde

khonartogsso

61

T.FUNAYAMA

NowSailkarasvamin44andothersrefutedindetail(conception)asessentially

beingacauseofverbalexpression , etc.(k!ptihetutvadyatmika). Isthis(kindofconceptionalso)intended(inourdefinition)ornot? (Inreferencetothisthe

master)states:

Itis , however , not(meantas)essentiallybeingacauseofverbalexpressionandthelike.

IITS1213d1145

(Theword) “meant" (should)beadded.Bythis(statement)itisexplainedthattherefutationspropoundedbytheopponentsonthispointofdiscussiondonotpertain

because(ourdefinition)isnotconcernedwiththethesisofthose(whoarecriticized

bythem).

Verbalexpression(k!pti)46(means)verbaldesignation(vyapadesa).Itshouldbeunderstoodthatagenus , etc. , isacauseofthat(verbaldesignation)for , withoutqualifierssuchasagenus ,verbaldesignationdoesnothold47.Whatismeantbythewordsandthelikeshouldbe(suchnotions)asreflection(vitarka)andinvestiga-

¥TBh11, 15- 12, 1: tatrapratyak~arrt kalpaniipoqhamabhriintam. ρurviiparam anusarrtdhiiyasabdaｭsarrtkir1}iikiiriipratitirantarjalpiikiiriiviikalpanii.yathiivij 伽ρuru 手。sya so'yarrtgha?aitipratitilf.

biilamukatiryiigiidiniimantarjalpiikiiriipariimarSarupiivii ρratttilf (asadi宜erent kindofformulation

ofkalpaniiandpratiti;forthetranslationofthepassageseeKajiyama1966:40-41).

44 Sankarasvamin's(Tib.bDebyedbdagρ0) refutationmentionedhereisnotknownelsewhere(d.1SP 490, 25inanothercontext).ThoughthenameisfoundinPVV(M) 159, 17 (iiciirj 砂劫Sa カkarasviim~ ρrabhrtayalf) ， theidentityofthisSankarasvaminwiththeteacherinourtextisnot

certain.AccordingtoTosaki(1979:228n.56.), SankarasvamincitedinPVV(M)abovepropoundsademonstrationoftheestablishmentofthenon-conceptualityofdirectperception;viz., thisSankaraｭsvaminbelongstosomeBuddhistparty.Moreover , DevendrabuddhicallsthepersonSridpa'ibdag(po)(i.e., *Bhavasvamin(?», etc., andRaviguptamentionshimasHarisami(i.e., *Harisvamin) , etc.

45 Thetextispresentedinn.38.

46 Theexactmeaningofk?pti(d.Tib.btagspaD , brtagpaP;d.alsothas伽d and 元e barbtagspainn.38)isnotcertain.Itisparaphrasedbyvy a.ρad eSa inTSP(d.avyapadesya-inthedefinitionof

directperceptioninNS1.1.4).ThedifferencebetweenthedefinitionrefutedbySankarasvamin , etc. ,andthatwhichismaintainedbySantarak~ita mightlieinthefollowingpoint:Theformerdiscusses

conception(ka 争ana) beingacauseofverbalexpression(k!pti)intermsofcausalitybetweenverbal

expressionandconception , whereasthelatterdefinesitasanycognitionwhichiscapableoftheconnecｭtionwithwords , wherethecausalviewpointisnottakenintoaccount.

47 Thisisanexplanationoftheformulationofconceptionasacauseofverbalexpressionwhichis

criticizedbySankarasvamin , etc.Thatis, itispresumablyageneralreferencetosomeBuddhistideasincludingtheideasbytheSarvastivadaschoolandtheYogacaraschoolasdescribedbelow(nn.48-49).Ifthisisthecase , “genus, etc."inthiscontextwouldmeannotthesixcategoriesoftheVaise 号ika school ,etc. , butagenus , aquality , anaction , andasubstancewhichare- basedonDignaga'sdefinitionofconception- maintainedbysomeotherBuddhists , asmentionedlater(afterTS1218onwards).

62


tion(vicara) , asthecauses(respectively)ofgrossnessandminutenessofthemindwhichareconnectedwithwords ,48 and , likewise , theconceptionofthegraspingandtheprasped(aspectsofcognition)(grahyagrahakaka 争ana) ， etc.49

Expression(abhilapa)(means)awordasthesignifier(vacaka み必bda l} )， and

itisofuniversalform.50 That(cognition)inwhich(anexpression)existsasa

48 sabdasarrzsargaeittaudarikasuk~matahetu vitarkaviearau(449 , 22;d.Tib.25b5:sgrada カ'dres jうada カj semsrtsi ・iz ba[P:rtsi 市 ρaD] da 力説b pa'irgyurtog ρ'a da カdj うryod ρada カj). Thispassagerefers

tothedefinitionofconceptionbytheSarvastivadaschool.AsimilarreferenceisfoundinNBTT21,4-5:Vaibha~ika indriyavijfianarrz vitarkaviearacaitasikasarrzprayukta1'(l kalpanam ieehanti. “T he

Vaibha~ikas maintainsense-cognitionbeingconceptionwhichislinkedwithreflectionandinvestigationasmentalfunctions."ReferencesarealsofoundinAKII33ab- vitarkaearavaudaryasuk~mate- and

itscommentaryAKBh60, 25- eittaudariねta vitarkah.eittasuksmatavieara 与 “Refl ection isgrossｭnessofthemind.Investigationisminutenessofthemind."ElsewhereVasubandhuequatesvitarkawithsvabhavavi ・kalpa (AKBh22, 22).Further , Yasomitra(AKV64, 25-28)citesthefollowingpassageofthePa 元easkandhaka (i.e., the*Pafieaskandhaprakara1'}abyVasubandhu):vitar 知事初旬ma l;- . parye~akomanojalp aS, eetanaprajfiavise~a争， yaeittasyaudari 初ta. vieara!tkatamal;-.pratyavek~ako mano・jalpas , tathaivayaeittasyasuk~mata. “What isreflection?Itisamurmurofthemindwhichlooksafter(theobject);itisaspecialwillandintellectwhichisgrossnessofthemind.What(then)isinvestigation?

Itisamurmurofthemindwhichfullyexamines(thatobject)which , inthesameway(asinreflection) ,isminutenessofthemind."Cf.theChinesetranslationinPailS489b27-29.

Onepointdeservestobediscussedhere:Inthesetwotextsvitarkaandviearaaredefinedasgrossnessandminutenessofthemind- ortwofunctionsofthemind- andnotastheea ωe ofthosefunctionsasstatedinTSP.Infact , Vasubandhusuggeststhedistinctionof “grossnessandminutenessofthemind"from “the causes(d.nimittabhutainAKBh61, 2;andhetuinAKV138,23-24) ofgrossnessandminutenessofthemind."Cf.alsoADV81, 4-7:vitarkonamacittaudaryalak~a 1'}a みsarrzkalpadvitiyanama vi~ayanimittaprakara vikalpisarrzjfiapavanoddhatavrtti み， audarikapafieavijfianakayaｭ

pravrttihetu みviearas tueittasauk~myalak~a 1'}o manovijfianapravrttyanukula 与 (for ananalysisandlap.tr.ofthepassageseeYoshimoto1982:54-55and225-226).

49 ThisisareferencetothedefinitionofconceptionbytheYogacaraschool.SimilarargumentsarefoundinNBTT21,5-6: Yogaearamatenaeatathagataj 元anam advayarrzmuktvasarvaj 元anarrz grahyaｭgrahakatvenavika 争

63

T.FUNAYAMA

(cognitional)imageiscalledassuch(i.e., abhiliipin).51

(MISlal;S449 , 25;K 367 , 11;P2Sb6;D2b3)Howthen52iscognitionofsuchakind(viz., asassociatedwithexpression ,)

established?(Inordertoanswerthisthemaster)states:

That(cognition)whichiscapableofconnectingawordwithanobject ,evenifthewordintheformof “tree," etc. , isnotactuallyapplied ,appearsasifitwereconnectedwithanexpression.

IITS12141/53

\、 'dis donbヮod pa'i ρhyir brjodpanisgralabya'oII(d.Yaita1984:30-31).Cf.alsoNMGBh53, 8-9:abhilapyate'nenahyabhi 向μみsabdas ， tenasaJ?1sargalf sa J?1bandha ふtadyo g:y叫samanyakara 事pratibhasate'syamitiabhilap ωamsar 玄ayo ，幻laprati bhasa.

BeforeKamala 釘la ， Vinitadevaprovidestwokindsofexplanationsforthewordabhi 伝'jJa whichisusedinNB5:abhila ，μ is awordasthesignifier(vacakah 勾bdalf) bywhichanobjectisexpressed

(abhilapyate'nena)anditmeansageneralform(*saman ，戸f命的 of theworda;oralternatively , itmeansthegeneralfeatureofanobjectasthesigni 五ed (μ da吋hasamanμJ?1 vacyam)b.V机in 耐1i由I武tadeva concludesthetωopi 化c bystatingt出ha剖t

objectisdirectperceptionasrightknowledge 一These ideasofVini 由T託tadeva arecri 凶tiz 詑ed inthec∞omment也ar討ies onNBT-SeeNBTT23, 19-24 , 1;DhPr52, 18-19;andTatparya29, 6-15.

aNBT(V)41, 2ふぬηiodμr b戸dpasna ηod μste smrabarbyed μsgra'i noboyinnoII;and Tatparya 29 , 14: abhila わlate 'neneti. 勾bdasamanyam. In this case the word abhilii μsa J?1sa 唱のogya- “capable oftheconnectionwithanexpression"inNB5meansthegeneralfeatureofanobject(*arthasamanya)(NBT(V)41, 5-6)

bNBT(V)41, 11-12:denibrjodparbyaba[corr.:ba'i]yinρω ヮ・odρ a steIbs伽d parbyabadongyi ゆ'yi ganyinμ'0 ノy ; andTatparya26, 15:abhilapyataityabhil a.μ与padarth asamanyaJ?1vacya 侃 In thiscasethewordabhila μsamsa 棺ayogya- meansthegeneralfeatureofaword 円。dasamanya).

C NBT(V)42, 3-5:...sgradandongyi 砂川'i rnampamayinjうa 'i sespaganyinpadenimnonsumgyitshadmayinno.Cf.alsoNBT(V)39, 12-13(translatedinn.39).

51 savidyateyasyalfpratibhiisatalfsatathokta(449 , 24).Cf.Tib.25 b6 : snaカ ba ga力 la 'di yod pa deladeskadcesbya'oII;NBT48,2-3: abhiliiμsamsarμ:yayo.幻Fο'bhidhり，akarabhaso yasyaJ?1prat'itausatathokta.

52 punar(449 , 25);ya カ [D: ganP](25b6).

53 M 61b3:sabdarthagha!anagoggavrk タa itgadiriipata 争 I gavacamapragoge'pisabhilaｭpevajagateII[1214].Tib.0)P55a6;D44a2-3:sgradon'drerru カba IIsi ゐ [D: siP]zesbyasogstshulgyisniIIganzigsgradanma'dreskyanIIdenibrjodpafziddu'gyurII(seealsonn.54and55).Tib.padad, denibrjodpafziddu 'gy ur, wouldsuggestSkt.*sa+ abhih王Jりin 'i +eva(or*sa+abhilapatvena)jayate.Thisseparationofsa(deni)isapparentlywrong , but 元id duisworthnoticing:thereisnoindicationofSkt.iva.ItmightbepossibletoconjecturethattheoriginalSkt.was*sabhiｭuρ aiva (i.e., sabhi釘ρa +eva)and , inthatcase , thewholesentencewouldmeanasfollows: “That(cognition)whichiscapableofconnectingawordwithanobject , [viz., conception , ]appearstobereallyconnectedwithexpression , [viz., tobereallyconnectedwithword , ]eveniftheword [itself] ノ

64

A STUDYOFKALPANAPODHA

The(syntactical)connection(of“ in theformof‘tree,' etc."shouldbeunderstoodas)“T hat which(iscapableofconnectingawordwithanobject) , evenifthewordintheformof ‘tree ,' etc. , isnotactuallyapplied , (appearsasifitwereconnectedwithanexpression)."54 Alternatively , the(syntactical)connection(canbeunderstood)withrelationtotheformerpa 口as “(T hat cognition)whichiscapableofconnectingawordwithanobjectintheform‘tree,' etc. , (appearsasifitwereconnectedwithanexpressionevenifthewordisnotactuallyapplied)."55(Themaster)showsby

this(verse)thatconception[asassociatedwithanexpression]isestablishedby

directperceptionitself(p ratyak~ata eva)56becauseconception[ofsuchanature]is

knowntoalllivingbeingsbytheirdirectexperience(anubhava-!)57.

(M151a1;S450 , 9;K 367 , 17;P26a1;D2b4)

Thatisto say , this58(conception)isestablishedasacauseofactivities(itikartavyata)59frominfancyonwards.Indicatingthis(point , themasterstates):

Onaccountofthecontinuingpresence(anvaga)ofresidueimpresｭ

sions(vasana)duetorepeatedacquaintancewith(theconnection

between)nameandobject(namarthabhavana)hispreviousexistence ,evenanewborn(child)isgoodatactivitiesbecauseheislinkedwith

\、 in theformof‘仕 ee ，' etc.,isnotactuallyapplied."However ,thisplausiblereadinghasaproblem;i.e.,inTS1216cbelow , wefindanotherexampleofTib.fiidforivainextantSk t., wheretheTibetantranslationiscertainlywrong(seenn.72and73).ThisrevealsthattheTibetanTSisnotalwaysreliableregardingthereadingofivaIeva.

54 Tib.pratika25b7:si カzes byasogs カo boyisIIgahzigbrjodda カmi ldanyahII(d.n.53).

55 Tib.ρ ratika 25b7-8:si カzes byasogs カo boyisIIsgradonsbyorbarru カba yisII(d.n.53).Ifollowthefirstinterpretationforthetranslationoftheverse.Accordingtothissecondexplanation , ontheotherhand , theversewouldmeanasfollows: “That (cognition)whichiscapableofconnectingawordwithanobjectintheformof‘tree,' etc. , appearsasifitwereconnectedwithanexpressionevenifthatwordisnotactuallyapplied."

56 pratyak~ata eva(450, 7);Tib.mカon sum 耐d kyis[D:kyiP](25b8).Directperceptionheremeansself-cognition(svasarrzvedana).Cf.PVill123:ρ ratyak~arrz kalpaniiJ りoqharrz ρratyak~enaiva sidhyatiIρratyiitmavedyal} sarve~iirrz vika争o niimωarrzsrayal} If."Itisunderstoodbydirectperceptionitselfthatdirectperceptionisfreefromconception.Allbeingsinternallycognizeconceptionasbeingbasedonaname."Cf.alsoPSI7ab;andNBI10.

57 anubhavasiddhatviitM [Tib. 伽ms su myo力 bωgrubpa'iphyirro25b8-26a1]:anusiddhatviitKS

(450, 8).Anotherpossiblereadingofthepassageisasfollows:...becauseconception[ofsuchanature]isestablishedbythedirectexperienceofalllivingbeings.

58 NotranslationofasauintheTibetan.

59 itikartat つlatii (450, 9);'diltarbyaba[p:onlybyabaD)(26a1).

65

T.FUNAYAMA

this(conception).

IITS12151160

Previousexistence(means)previousbirth.Thereonehadrepeatedacquaintance

with(theconnectionbetween)nameandobject , i.e., practicewith(theconnecｭtionbetween)word61andobject.Thereisacontinuingpresence , i.e., continuation ,ofthoseresidueimpressions , i.e., capacity , which62aresetdownbythis(repeatedacquaintance)onaccountofwhich(conception)existsinaninfanttoo.Thisiswhy

eventhe(newbornchild)isactuallyequippedwithcognitionconnectedwithan

expression.63 Becauseheislinkedwiththisconception , (thebaby)becomesgoodat , i.e., skilledin, activitieswhichareexemplifiedbysmiling , crying , suckingthebreast , beingpleased , etc.64 Therefore 65, bythese(activities)whichareeffects(ofconception ,) conceptionasstatedabove , (viz., asassociatedwithexpression ,) iscertainlyinferredevenin66aninfant.67 Thesameideaisexpressed[byBhart~hari]:

60 M 61b3-4: atitabhavanamarthabhavaniwasananvayat/sadyojato 'piyadyogad itiｭkartavyatapaf u争グ . Tib.P55a6-7;D45a3:'dasdussridpa[P:ρ ar D]mi カdon laIIgomspa'ibagehagsrjes'j ug ρhyirIIskyesmathagpaga 力'brel pasII'diltarbyaiessgrinjうor 'gyurII.A similardiscussionisfoundinNBTandPVinT(seenn.64and69).

61 Thisparaphraserevealsthatnaman(name)and 必bda (word)havethesameconnotationinthiscontext.

62 Notranslationofya(450, 11)intheTibetan.

63 tenabhi 向ρin 'i prat'itistω:yapi bhavatyeva(450, 12);desnamカon parbrjodpaeangyi[D:gyisP]sespadela[D:om.P]ya カ 'gyur ba 元id yinnoII(26a2-3).

64 Cf.NBT50, 1-51 , 1:balo'pihiyavaddrsyamanarrzstanarrzsaevayamitipurvadr~?atvena napratyavamrsatitavannoparataruditomukhamar，ρ'ayati stane. “ . • • for , even(inthecaseof)aninfant ,aslongashedoesnotidentifythebreastheisnowlookingatwiththeonewhichhehaspreviouslyseenintheform'Thisisidenticalwiththat!,' hedoesnotstopcryingtoputhimselftothebreast."Cf.alsoTSop278, 6-9:kuta 事punar halakasyakalpanasiddhetieet.tatkaryasyapravrttyadilak~a 1}asyapradarsanat.tathahihalako 涜~guryadiparihare stanadauprava 付ate. “(Question:) Butthenhowis

conceptionofaninfantestablished?(Answer:)Byindicatingthee百ect ofthat(infant'sconception)whichischaracterizedbyhisactivitiesandsoon.Thatistosay , aninfantputshimselfto(mother's)breastandsoon, keepingawayfromherfingerandsoon."

65 Notranslationofato(450, 14)intheTibetan.

66 bal ，ω:yapi (450 , 14);byispala[D:om.P]yan(26a4).

67 Asyllogismusinganeffectasitsreasoncouldbeformulatedhereasfollows:Hewhoisskilledinactivitieshasconceptionwhichisdefinedascogntionassociatedwithanexpressionas , forexample , adumbperson(muka)a;andaninfantisskilledinactivitiesasexemplifiedbysmiling , crying , suckingthebreast , being pleased , etc.Cf.Tcitparya 28, 12-14:atraprayoga 事. halodharm l, purva.ρaradr~?akarabhedagrahivi初lpajfianayukta itisadhyarrz, stanemukha ゆ仰ad itikaryahetz φ.

aCf.NBTT23, 2;TBh(innn.43and70);andSV , pratyak !;Ja, v.112cforhalamukadi.

66


Allactivitiesintheworldarebasedonwords.(Therefore)evenaninfant ,withhismentalresiduessetdowninhisprevious(birth) , understandsthese(activities).68

69Moreover, that(conception)comesaboutinthese(infants)inawaythatrevealsanobjectwhichischaracterizedasaword-sound(dhvani)intheformofvague

syllables(and)whichexistsonlywithin(themind)(antarmiitra 1.ゆarivartinam !)

asifitwereexternal , onaccountofthis(conceptiontheinfants)insomelaterperiodbecomeskilledintheunderstandingofconvention(samketa).70

(M151a3;S450 , 19;K 368 , 1;P26a6;D3a1)Bythe(followingversethemaster)expressesagaintheestablishmentofconｭ

ceptionbymeansofdirectperception:71

Andthat(conception)whichisquitevividlyunderstoodatthetime

68 CitedfromVPI129.Forthetextseen.70.

69 sapunalJsarrzmurcchitak~arakaradhvaniz 必i~?am antarmatraviparivartinam[corr.bytheTibeｭtanbelow: 仰tarmatravt MKS]arthambahirivadarsayanti:te~arrz samupajayateyayapascatsarrzketaｭgraha1}akuSaliibhavanti(450,17-18). Cf.Tib.P26a5-6;D2b7-3al:yigedanrnam μr maphyedpa'irnampacande[P:teID]yansgra'ikhyadparcannantsamduyo 加su gsalbaphyirolgyidonitaburtestonpagangis[D:giP]phyis[D:phyirP]brda'dzin μla mkhaspar'gyurbadeyandedagla 御

barskyebayinnoII(equivalentto*sapunalJsarrzmurcchitak~arakara dhvanivisi~?am... (?)).MytranslationfollowstheSanskritformulation.

Similarexpressionsa問found inPVinT49b4-5:sgra'isnanbayandelayodpayinnozena.delaskyebagiandugoms μ ゐs sgra'irnampamigsalbayoddammedk.μ力問先ste. ..(identicaltoDhPr

51, 17-8:sabdakaro'pitatrasりeva. ..iticet.astutatrajanmantarabhyasatmurcchita 事勾bdakara lJ · •;identifiedinYaita1984:33);TSop(inn.70);andTBh(inn.43).

70 Thefollowing(TSop278, 6-14)seemstobebasedonTSPuponTS1215:kuta!J-punarbalak 叫ya!:.f! _lp ~'!fi: sid 坐竺竺・a 加喧主盟主担 b ρrav!'t~ μdilak~a 1}asya ρradarsanat. tathahibalako '元~gu r.舛diμη hare stanadaujうravartate.C taduktarrz- itikartavyatalokesarvasabdavyapasrayaItarrz μrvahitasarrzskarobalo'pipratipadyateIIiti.dbalakepunalJsarrzm 如chitaksarakaradh vanivisi~?abuddhiviparivartin i: !:. f! _~き空恒一坐Myaya μScat samketagrahanak uSal?. 些互型空 e Cf.TBh 12, 3-6:nanubalamukadi:nam antarjalpakararrz ka 争ana) 宛anam astltikutoniscetavyamiti ce ιvikalpakaryad

i~?ani~?opadana μriharat. d!Harrzcedarrzk空盟笠balamukadau ， i:psitarthasvi:kara1}am ani:psitarthaｭtyajanarrznama(forthe 住anslation ofthepassageseeKajiyama1966:41).

ー Cf. kutalJ ρunar i:d!，Sl ρratl tiみ sidd色!J: aha(449, 25)oCf.ato'naya 竺盟bhutaya yathoktakalpanabalasyapyanum i:)ωta eω (450， 14).CForthetranslationseen.64.dCitedin450, 15-16.VPandTSPreadyaminsteadoftaminρada c.esapuna!J- sammurcchitaksarakaradhvanivisi. 手~~t antanndtr :f! Vl.μrivart inam a竺tha 担bahir

?翌 ~4~:iCl:. ~Cl:. !':. ~~_~l! ~空色沼型政l!iii: :}空ち yaya ρascat sanketagraha 1}ak 仰坦E色盟竺ti (450, 17-18;seealson69).

71 pratyak~ata 争 (450， 19);mnonsumgyis[D: 砂 P](26a7).

67

T.FUNAYAMA

whenoneconsidersorreflects , etc. ,asifitwerepenetratedbywords72cannotbedenied.

IITS12161j73

(M151a4;S450 , 20;K 368 , 4;P26a7;D3al)

Bythe(followingversethemaster)expressestheestablishmentof(concepｭ

tion)alsobymeansofaneffectasalogicalindication(kiiryali カgata わ which is

referredtoasverbalactivity(必 bdavyavahii ra):

Thefixedrelationbetweenwordandobjectthroughadetermination

bythat(conception)is(indeed)erroneously(imputed).(But)ifthis

(conception)werenonexistent , this(fixedrelation)(sa!)wouldnotbepossibleevenif(itwere)ofsuchakind(idrsyapiI), (viz. , erroneous ,)becauseother(external)thingsarenotfit[asobjectsofwords].

IITS12171j74

72ρiida c(seen.73)isbasedonVPI131:naso'stipratyay りloke yah 勾bdiinugamiid rteIanuvidｭdhamivajftiinarrzsa 門larrz 勾bdena bhiisateII(bhiisateisoccasionallyreplacedbyjiiyate , gamyat久 orvartateincitations).AsimilarexpressionisfoundinTSop278, 5-6:ta φratibhiisino 'rthiikiir ，ω:yecchiidhinasarrzketiinuvidhiiyiniisabdeniibhidhiiturrzsakyatviit.Cf(!).Jha1937(p.616): “ . •.cannotbesetasidebymerewords";i.e., sabdairmodifiespiidad.

ApartfromthecontextofTSP , thewordsabdiinuviddhagenerallytendstobereferredtoasacharacteristicofthesavikalpaka ρratyak :5a-theory mainlyoftheVaiyakara t:J,aschoolas , forexample , inTBV489, 2-3:atriihaVaiyiikara 1}a 争 - naviiksarrzsparsarahitiikiicitpra# μttir asti ,sabdiinuviddhii-垣s tas)叫pratibhiisaniit， Prameya39,1-2: ye'piSabdiidvaitaviidinonikhilapratyayiiniirrzsabdiinuvidｭdhatvenaivasavikalpakatvarrzmanyate...;andTR82, 14-15:...sarvamevasabdiinuviddhamitiBhii??a-Saiva-Vaiyiikara1}ii1}.

73 M 61b4:cintotprek タadikale cavispalJ!a1flgapravedgateIanuviddhevasasabdairapaｭhnotu1flnasakgateIf.Tib.(!)P55a7-8;D45a3-4:semskyisdpyod[D:spyodP]sogsadωsu μカグ denirnampargsalbar 付ogs IIsgrayis ワ白rtogs de 元id laIIbs 元on parnuspamayinnoIf.

AccordingtotheTibetan , theverseseemstomeanasfollows: “And atthetimeofexaminationbythemind , this(conception)isquitevividlyunderstoodandthisverypresenceofthewordscannotbedenied."ThisTibetanappearstobetranslatedfrom*anvayaor*an昭amainsteadofanuviddhaandtoneglecttheparticleivawhichissubstitutedbyeva(ftid).Moreover , thisconfusionofivawithevaoccursoftenintheTibetan.Forexample , thesameverseofBhartrhariistranslatedintoTibetaninPVinT(1)b, TBh(Tib.)C, TSP(Tib.)'e225a7-8 , andBAT80,24-27 ,amongwhichthefirsttwoconfuseivawitheva.

aCf.Tibpratika26a6:semskyis[D:kyiP]dpyodsogs.bPVinT(1)219a6:sgrayi[D:sgra'iP]rjesgr ηma gtogs μ'i IIses μ 'jig rtennayodminIIsespa

rj白su bsgrubspaftidIIthamscadsgradusesparbyaII;d.jうii da cd:*anuviddhamevajftiinarrzsarvarrzsabdenagamyat ι

CTBh(Tib.)P5762(ze)367 b1-2: 吋ogs te'jigrtennayodminIIsgrayi げes 'grolasgi:anganIIsespathamscadsgradanniII ηes suldanpakhonarsnanII(thepositionofpiidaaandpiidabisreversedinD);d.ρ ii da cd: 本 anuviddham eva.., bhiisate.

74 M 61b4-5:tasgascadhgavasagenabhranta 鈎bdarthago 事sthiti 争 I angagogadasat- ノ

68


Thisisbecause(themaster)previously75negated(theidea)thatthefixed

relationbetweenwordandobjectisrealandestablishedthatitiserroneously

(imputed). Thenifthisconceptionwerenonexistent , thenthisfixedrelationbetweenwordandobjectwouldnotbepossibleevenif(itwere)ofsuchakind ,viz., evenif(itwere)erroneous 76, becausethat[relationbetweenwordandobjectF7

isestablished(ta りfa vyavasthanat!y8bywayofits[i 息， conception's,F9 intention(abhipraya)andbecauseithas[already]beenexplainedthatotherexternalthings

suchastheparticular(svalak~a 1Ja )80arenotfitasobjectsofwords(vacya).

(M151a5;S451 , 9;K 368 , 11;P26b2;D 3a3)

Isn'titthecasethatother (teachers)8 1, too ,82assumethatconceptionis

\、 tve 'sga キsedrsg apianasambhavetIf.Tib.(!)P55a8;D45a4:deyahhespamedρa yibIIdeskya カ mカon parzenpalasII'khrulpa'isgrada 先don dugnasIIdeda カ'dra 'a カ[P:ya 冗 D] misriddoIf.TheTib.pratlkaintroducingtheverserunsdelasya カ (26a7).

asedrsyaρi KPaGa[d.sii...ldr か。ρi 450, 22]:sadrsya ρiMS.bpiidaaforSkt.piidac(?)

75 purvamMS(

Title TattvasaCgraha vv.1212‐1263 by 威Āntarakcita and the … · 2017. 2. 24. · AStudyof...

Documents

Transcript of Title TattvasaCgraha vv.1212‐1263 by 威Āntarakcita and the … · 2017. 2. 24. · AStudyof...