Publications-Periodical Articles
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 試論護法《觀所緣論釋》之不成因與「法稱」議題：站在呂澂的肩上
On the Fallacy of Unestablished Reason and the Issue of “Fa-Cheng” in Dharmapāla’s Commentary on the Ālambanaparīkṣā: Standing on the Shoulders of LÜ Cheng作者 胡志強 貢獻者 哲學系 關鍵詞 護法; 所緣; 因明; 陳那; 呂澂
Dharmapāla; ālambana; hetuvidyā; Dignāga; LÜ Cheng日期 2024-12 上傳時間 24-Feb-2025 15:55:35 (UTC+8) 摘要 本文主要處理護法《觀所緣論釋》中的二個相關議題：（1）如何理解護法所指出的不成因之過失；（2）如何解讀文中出現「法稱」二字的難解段落，該焦點段落與其後出現之不成因密切相關。筆者借助呂澂之增字句讀、因明論式之重構分析，闡述《觀所緣論釋》開頭之文本脈絡、完整解讀焦點段落、就前後文提出因明分析，亦即提出一個可能的詮釋版本或工作用假說。本文指出，（1）護法所言的不成因是針對論敵一（主張極微是所緣）、論敵二（主張總聚是所緣）都提出之「彼相應斯理故」（與所緣相道理相應故），不同於護法所言的不定因，乃針對論敵一之「彼因性故」、論敵二之「相識生故」（或者，識有彼相故）；（2）所謂「法稱」並非指法稱論師，「法」意謂「宗法」。本文也檢視了其他可能解讀版本，分析其可能問題與缺失。相較而言，本文所提出的版本目前似乎還是相對合理可行，儘管並非毫無疑義待解。無論如何，本文未盡之處乃筆者之能力有限所致，如有任何貢獻，應當歸之於呂澂。呂澂之佛學成就，值得學界更多尊敬與重視。
This paper addresses two interrelated issues in Dharmapāla’s Commentary on the Ālambanaparīkṣā: (1) how to understand the fallacy of unestablished reason (asiddha-hetu) pointed out by Dharmapāla; (2) how to interpret the difficult key paragraph in which the term “fa-cheng” is mentioned, and which is closely related to the former issue. On the basis of Lü Cheng’s punctuation with the addition of words and reconstruction of Buddhist syllogisms, this paper elaborates on the preliminary context, interprets the whole key paragraph, and presents the Buddhist logical argument, adding up to a tentative version of interpretation or a working hypothesis. According to the working hypothesis, (1) the fallacy of unestablished reason pointed out by Dharmapāla is in response to the reason “because of being consistent with the characteristic of the cognitive object (ālambana)” put forward by both the first adversary, whose thesis is that atoms are cognitive objects, and the second adversary, whose thesis is that agglomerates of atoms are cognitive objects. However, the fallacy of inconclusive reason (anaikāntika-hetu) pointed out by Dharmapāla is in response to either the first adversary’s reason “because of being the cause of the [cognitions]” or the second adversary’s reason “because a cognition arises with its appearance;” (2) the term “fa-cheng” does not refer to Dharmakīrti, but “fa” (dharma) means pakṣadharma, i.e., a property of the subject. This paper also examines alternative readings and points out their problems or defects. In comparison with the alternatives, the working hypothesis has explanatory advantages, although it might not have resolved all the doubts. In any case, any unsolved problem or errors are due to the author alone; if there is any positive contribution, it should be attributed to Lü Cheng, whose achievements deserve more respect and attention.關聯 法鼓佛學學報, No.35, pp.27-63 資料類型 article dc.contributor 哲學系 - dc.creator (作者) 胡志強 - dc.date (日期) 2024-12 - dc.date.accessioned 24-Feb-2025 15:55:35 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 24-Feb-2025 15:55:35 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 24-Feb-2025 15:55:35 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/155795 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本文主要處理護法《觀所緣論釋》中的二個相關議題：（1）如何理解護法所指出的不成因之過失；（2）如何解讀文中出現「法稱」二字的難解段落，該焦點段落與其後出現之不成因密切相關。筆者借助呂澂之增字句讀、因明論式之重構分析，闡述《觀所緣論釋》開頭之文本脈絡、完整解讀焦點段落、就前後文提出因明分析，亦即提出一個可能的詮釋版本或工作用假說。本文指出，（1）護法所言的不成因是針對論敵一（主張極微是所緣）、論敵二（主張總聚是所緣）都提出之「彼相應斯理故」（與所緣相道理相應故），不同於護法所言的不定因，乃針對論敵一之「彼因性故」、論敵二之「相識生故」（或者，識有彼相故）；（2）所謂「法稱」並非指法稱論師，「法」意謂「宗法」。本文也檢視了其他可能解讀版本，分析其可能問題與缺失。相較而言，本文所提出的版本目前似乎還是相對合理可行，儘管並非毫無疑義待解。無論如何，本文未盡之處乃筆者之能力有限所致，如有任何貢獻，應當歸之於呂澂。呂澂之佛學成就，值得學界更多尊敬與重視。 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) This paper addresses two interrelated issues in Dharmapāla’s Commentary on the Ālambanaparīkṣā: (1) how to understand the fallacy of unestablished reason (asiddha-hetu) pointed out by Dharmapāla; (2) how to interpret the difficult key paragraph in which the term “fa-cheng” is mentioned, and which is closely related to the former issue. On the basis of Lü Cheng’s punctuation with the addition of words and reconstruction of Buddhist syllogisms, this paper elaborates on the preliminary context, interprets the whole key paragraph, and presents the Buddhist logical argument, adding up to a tentative version of interpretation or a working hypothesis. According to the working hypothesis, (1) the fallacy of unestablished reason pointed out by Dharmapāla is in response to the reason “because of being consistent with the characteristic of the cognitive object (ālambana)” put forward by both the first adversary, whose thesis is that atoms are cognitive objects, and the second adversary, whose thesis is that agglomerates of atoms are cognitive objects. However, the fallacy of inconclusive reason (anaikāntika-hetu) pointed out by Dharmapāla is in response to either the first adversary’s reason “because of being the cause of the [cognitions]” or the second adversary’s reason “because a cognition arises with its appearance;” (2) the term “fa-cheng” does not refer to Dharmakīrti, but “fa” (dharma) means pakṣadharma, i.e., a property of the subject. This paper also examines alternative readings and points out their problems or defects. In comparison with the alternatives, the working hypothesis has explanatory advantages, although it might not have resolved all the doubts. In any case, any unsolved problem or errors are due to the author alone; if there is any positive contribution, it should be attributed to Lü Cheng, whose achievements deserve more respect and attention. - dc.format.extent 107 bytes - dc.format.mimetype text/html - dc.relation (關聯) 法鼓佛學學報, No.35, pp.27-63 - dc.subject (關鍵詞) 護法; 所緣; 因明; 陳那; 呂澂 - dc.subject (關鍵詞) Dharmapāla; ālambana; hetuvidyā; Dignāga; LÜ Cheng - dc.title (題名) 試論護法《觀所緣論釋》之不成因與「法稱」議題：站在呂澂的肩上 - dc.title (題名) On the Fallacy of Unestablished Reason and the Issue of “Fa-Cheng” in Dharmapāla’s Commentary on the Ālambanaparīkṣā: Standing on the Shoulders of LÜ Cheng - dc.type (資料類型) article -
