Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: The Contrast of Late Ming Weishi Commentaries and Edo Weishi Commentaries on Xuanzang’s Guan suoyuanyuan lun
Authors: 楊志常
Contributors: 宗教博三
Keywords: Weishi;Conscious-only;Late Ming Buddhism;Edo Buddhism;Guan suoyuanyuan lun
Date: 2017-12
Issue Date: 2018-08-28 10:39:03 (UTC+8)
Abstract: In the late Ming there was a renaissance of Weishi (consciousnessonly) in which at least thirty-five Weishi commentaries were produced in China without access to the key Weishi commentaries authored by Kuiji, Huizhao, and Zhizhoh. On the other hand, the Weishi lineage of Faxiang Zong in Japan together with those key Weishi commentaries have never been interrupted since Tang dynasty. Due to the lost Weishi lineage and texts, those late Ming made Weishi commentaries have been in doubt and challenged. Especially some Weishi experts in Japan in the Edo period criticized some late Ming authors for producing valueless and incorrect Weishi commentaries. This article attempts to investigate if such challenges and criticisms are fair enough and if the differences between the late Ming commentaries and the Edo commentaries in terms of the access to the key Tang Weishi commentaries shape how these two groups understood and interpreted the same Weishi text. Thus, this study selects Xuanzang's Guan suoyuanyuan lun which is Xuanzang's translation of Dignaga's Alambana-pariksa as a base text and compares two late Ming commentaries that were written by Mingyu and Zhixu with two Edo commentaries that were authored by Kiben and Kaidou. The analysis is conducted in two levels: the high-level analysis and the deeper dive analysis. In the high-level analysis, several interesting areas are identified including: 1) the Edo commentators had much longer commentator's introduction. 2) Kiben, Kaidou and Mingyu spent most effort in commenting on the second verse & the second prose. 3) The quotation accounts for approximately 40% of the Edo commentaries. On the contrary, in the late Ming group Mingyu quoted about 10% and Zhixu quoted less than 1%. In the deeper-dive analysis of the sources and the frequencies of quotations, of the longer Edo commentator's introduction, of the controversial about the second moon as "drstanta" (example), of what making the appearance of the collection, and of what making the sense faculties, it is found that the access to the key Tang Weishi commentaries does significantly impact the commentators' capacity to identify controversial issues, to distinguish different realists' views, and to address the Weishi internal arguments. However, there are some occasions that commentators seemed choosing not to use all the sources that available to them. Several possibilities were discussed. In addition, the commentators' different agendas, sense of subjectivity, and personal expertise also play important roles in determining whether and/or how they comments on what.
在晚明的唯識復興期間,中國出現了至少三十五本唯識註釋本,這些唯識著作都是在唐朝窺基、慧沼和智周等重要唯識註疏佚失中完成的。然而,自唐以來,日本法相宗的法脈和唯識的重要經典註疏,卻未有類似的中斷和佚失。因此,晚明的唯識著作不免遭受質疑與挑戰。其中,來自日本江戶註釋家的批評,尤其嚴苛,毫不留情地指責晚明的唯識註釋錯誤百出,沒有參考價值。本文試圖考察江戶唯識註釋家如此的批評是否公允,以及晚明與江戶註釋家之間有沒有唐朝唯識註疏輔助的差異,如何型塑他們對於同一個唯識文本的了解和詮釋。本研究選擇玄奘譯的《觀所緣緣論》當作基準文本,比較晚明唯識註釋家智旭、明昱與江戶唯識註釋家基辨、快道的註釋。分析先以綜觀高度的分析來尋找差異點,如江戶註釋家有比較長的導言和比較大比例的引述等差異。再深入地分析差異點,如引述的來源和頻率、為什麼有比較長的導言等議題。分析發現: 有沒有唐朝唯識註疏的輔助,的確對於註釋家尋找爭議點、區別不同的實在論、和處理唯識派內部爭論的能力有很大的影響。此外,分析也發現,註釋家的主體性、不同的議程和個人專長,對於註釋家決定要註釋什麼以及如何註釋上,扮演著舉足輕重的角色。
Relation: 臺大佛學研究, No.34, pp.29-86
Data Type: article
DOI 連結:
Appears in Collections:[宗教研究所] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
29-86.pdf809KbAdobe PDF213View/Open

All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing