论《集正量论》及分支证成道理

发布时间：2019-06-09 15:50

【摘要】：《集正量论》现保存于《丹珠尔》的不同版本中,按照内容及历史背景来看,我们可以基本推断出本书大概撰写于赞普墀松德赞时期或者后期。那么这本著作的作者是谁?这是让读者及研究者最为困惑的地方,因为此著作的末尾不仅没有作者的署名,也没有任何与作者相关的信息。现存的《丹珠尔》目录及有关藏文古籍中均承认了《集正量论》的作者为墀松德赞,且至今为止对这方面未出现过任何质疑的观点。据现存的文献来看,承认此观点的根本原因是“两大目录”,即《旦噶玛目录》及《旁塘玛目录》。这两本目录中均记载了赞普墀松德赞所撰写的书目,其中有“正量论”的书名。现有的《布顿佛教史》等很多史书以“两大目录”中所记载的赞普墀松德赞的“正量论”为依据,推断出《集正量论》的作者亦为墀松德赞,原因是书名相近。其中我们可以看到“正量论”和“集正量论”的书名并不一致。而且,“两大目录”中所提到的《正量论》共有七卷,但计数现存的《集正量论》的卷数时仅有两卷多,按照这些科学的论点我们可以推断出《正量论》和《集正量论》是相关却不同的两本著作。因此布顿仁波切等的观点未具可靠的立足点。据笔者目前的查阅及了解,对《集正量论》方面似乎还未有相关的专门研究。据笔者目前所了解,在国外研究者中石泰安似乎是首次提到了此著作书名的学者,后来由日本学者森恩孝夫继承了石泰安的观点并进行了肯定。但是我们必须注意的是他们的研究只局限于表层,未透彻到内容方面。他们挑出文章中所出现的“波斯”及“mar ma ni”一词进行并论。他们利用这些词来论证墀松德赞时期在藏区已有波斯传来的摩尼教,并且摩尼教在藏区占据了举足轻重的地位,因此认为作者为了驱逐外来宗教而撰写了此书。但是笔者阅读此书及其它古籍时发现,作者并不是为了驱逐外来的宗教,而是为了反对“顿渐之争”中的顿门派而撰写了此书。具体内容将在正文里进行阐述,因此在此略过。首次研究《集正量论》内容方面的学者应为多加旺扎多杰及曲吉更堆桑陪。两位学者先后各自发表了关于《集正量论》的两篇文章。其中,更值得关注的是两位学者均质疑了俄罗旦西热被称为藏族著因明典籍第一人的公认说法,提出了这一具有建设性的观点。两位学者认为藏族学者所著的第一本因明典籍为《集正量论》,且承认了其作者为墀松德赞。笔者根据《集正量论》所记载的内容同《集量论》及《释量论》所记载的内容相比较,得知《集正量论》的内容同因明典籍《集量论》等的内容相吻合。因此,在内容上《集正量论》可以被称为因明典籍。但是,笔者并不承认《集正量论》是藏族第一本因明典籍的观点。原因有《集正量论》是《正量论》的内容精简,其中可以推断出《集正量论》撰写的时间必定是《正量论》之后。因此,笔者对现有文献进行考证,得知《正量论》是藏族学者所著的第一本因明典籍。同时笔者承认《正量论》的作者为墀松德赞,但不承认《集正量论》的作者亦为墀松德赞,因为此论点至今未发现可靠的论据。对《集正量论》的研究现处于萌芽阶段,要进一步研究此典籍具有一定的难度,但是对此进行初步研究时我们可以发掘更多新的信息。因此,笔者根据现有的研究状况,对此进行进一步的考证。此论文中提到的很多观点均是笔者的观点,未具先例。虽具有一定的先导性,但是笔者的知识浅薄,需更多的学者进行再一次的考证及批评。本篇论文的名为《论集正量论及分支证成道理》。内容大致分为两部分。第一部分讨论了“《集正量论》概要”。第二部分讨论了“分支证成道理”。第一部分的主要论点有:分析了《集正量论》的著作名,提出了《正量论》和《集正量论》是相关但并不相同的两本著作的观点;解读《集正量论》的内容,提出了《集正量论》是《解深密经》第十卷中所提到的四种道理,即观待道理、作用道理、证成道理、法尔道理的注解;解读“两大目录”等历史古籍,提出了《正量论》的作者为墀松德赞,但不承认《集正量论》的作者为墀松德赞的观点,其中还详细的考证了墀松德赞的求学生涯及著作。第二部分的主要论点有:分析文献中所提到的“四种道理”,提出了“四种道理”首次出现于佛经的观点;研究佛教因明的前宏期与后宏期之间的时间界限,提出了《集正量论》应属于佛教因明前宏期的观点;简要分析文献中所提到的“证成道理”,并同觉若鲁坚参所著的《解深密经详解》进行比较及考证,提出了《集正量论》的主题“证成道理”同因明内容相吻合,因此承认《集正量论》为因明典籍。以上所述均为笔者本人的观点,其详细内容将在正文中进行详解,在此略过。
[Abstract]:By the content and the historical background, we can conclude that the book is about to be written in the period of Zeppe's Songjiang period or the later stage. Who is the author of this book? This is the most confusing place for readers and researchers, as the end of this work has not only the author's signature, nor any information related to the author. The existing and relevant Tibetan ancient books have recognized the author of the theory of "the amount of positive quantity", which has not been in any doubt in this respect until now. According to the existing literature, it is recognized that the root cause of this point of view is the "two directories", that is, the 'Sinian's directory> and the <. In both of these two directories, the title of the book, the title of the "positive quantity theory", was recorded in the title of the Zeppe's Songdezan. In the present, many of the history books, such as the history of the Botton Buddhism, are based on the "theory of positive quantity" of the Zhyp and the Songdzan, which are recorded in the "two directories", and the author of the theory of "set positive quantity" is also for the reason that the title of the book is similar. In which we can see that the title of the "theory of positive quantity" and the "the theory of set-forward quantity" is not consistent. Moreover, the . In the light of these scientific arguments, we can infer that the "positive quantity theory" and "the right amount theory" are relevant but different works. As a result, the point of view of Benton's Rinpoche is not a reliable foothold. According to the current review and understanding of the author, there seems to be no relevant special research on the aspect of and the content of the <-set-amount theory> the contents of the <-set-amount theory> and the content of the <-set-amount theory> and the content of the <-set-amount theory> and so on. Therefore, on the content, the "amount of right amount" can be referred to as the cause of the Ming and the book. However, the author does not admit that the theory of "set-forward quantity" is the first part of the Tibetan nationality of the Tibetan people. The reason is that the content of the is the content of the , in which it can be concluded that the time of the set-positive quantity theory> writing must be the . Therefore, the author makes a textual research on the existing literature to know that the "positive quantity theory" is the first one of the Tibetan scholars. At the same time, the author admits that the author of the "positive quantity theory" is the author of the "positive quantity theory", but the author does not recognize that the author of the "positive quantity theory" is also a truant, because the argument has not yet been found to be a reliable argument. This study is in the bud stage, and it is difficult for the study to be further studied, but more new information can be found in the preliminary study. Therefore, according to the existing research situation, the author further textual research. Many of the ideas mentioned in this paper are the author's point of view and have not set a precedent. Although it has certain forestabilities, the author's knowledge is shallow and requires more scholars to carry out the reexamination and criticism again. In this paper, the name of the paper is" the right amount of the set and the point of branch ". The content is roughly divided into two parts. The first part discusses the " Summary". The second part discusses the "to make a sense of the branch". The main points of the first part are as follows: the author analyzes the work name of the , and puts forward the views of the two books which are relevant but not the same, and the contents of the theory of "the right amount of the right amount" are analyzed. In this paper, we put forward the theory of the four reasons mentioned in the Chapter 10, namely, the view to be the truth, the principle of action, the truth of the proof, the annotation of the Farr's theory, the interpretation of the historical ancient books such as the "two directories", and the author of the "positive quantity theory" as the author of the "positive quantity theory". But don't admit that the author of the theory of "set-positive quantity" is the point of view that the author of the theory of "set-positive quantity" is the point of view, in which also the study of the school career and the work of the author. The main arguments of the second part are as follows: the "four kinds of reasons" mentioned in the literature is analyzed, and the first appearance of the "four kinds of reasons" in the view of the Buddhist scriptures is put forward; the time limit between the former macro-period and the post-macro period of Buddhism is studied. This paper briefly analyzes the "to make a sense of truth" mentioned in the literature, and makes a comparison and textual research with the is the cause of the Ming and the Qing Dynasty. All the above are the author's own views, and the detailed contents of the above will be detailed in the text, and will be skipped here.
【学位授予单位】：西藏大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B948
，

本文编号：2495675

suoshi