このエントリーをはてなブックマークに追加
ID 46453
本文ファイル
別タイトル
A Study of the Svataḥprāmāṇyaparīkṣā of the Tattvasaṃgraha (1): Arguments about pramāṇa’s Innate Capacity
著者
石村 克
NDC
東洋思想
抄録(英)
The present study aims at providing a Japanese translation of the Svataḥprāmāṇyaparīkṣā of the Tattvasaṃgraha (TS) by Śāntarakṣita and its pañjikā (TSP) by Kamalaśīla. The Svataḥprāmāṇyaparīkṣā (TS2810–3122) deals with Kumārila’s theory of intrinsic validity (svataḥprāmāṇya), according to which the validity (prāmāṇya) of all cognitions is intrinsic (svatas) while their invalidity (aprāmāṇya) is extrinsic (paratas). This paper covers the section comprised of TS 2810–2845, where Śāntarakṣita is concerned with Kumārila’s view that the validity is an innate capacity (svābhāvikī śaktiḥ) such as that to make known the cognized (meyabodha). The following is a synopsis of the section in question.

1. Refutation of Kumārila’s view of the validity of a cognition as an innate cognitive capacity
1.1. Introduction (TS 2810–11)
1.2. Bṛhaṭṭīkā (TS 2812–15):
1.2.1. Argument 1: all pramāṇas intrinsically possess validity that is an innate capacity such as that to make known the cognized (svābhāvikī meyabodhādike śaktiḥ) (TS 2812)
1.2.2. Argument 2: the validity is established independently (anapekṣatva) of another pramāṇa (TS 2813–15)
1.3. Counterarguments against arguments 1 and 2 (TS 2816–45)
1.3.1. Counterarguments against argument 1 (TS 2816–2831)
1.3.1.1. Assumption 1: the ‘innate’ capacity is eternal (nitya) or causeless (ahetu) (TS 2816–25)
1.3.1.1.1. Examination from the viewpoint that a capacity is distinct from its possessor (avyatirekapakṣa) (TS 2816–23)
1.3.1.1.1.1. Argument for the above-mentioned viewpoint (TS 2816–17)
1.3.1.1.1.2. Conclusion: the capacity is not innate (TS 2818)
1.3.1.1.1.3. prasaṅga (a): If the capacity were innate, the undesired consequence would follow that a pramāṇa is eternal or causeless (TS 2819–20)
1.3.1.1.1.4. prasaṅga (b): If a pramāṇa were eternal or causeless, the undesired consequence would follow that a pramāṇa itself and its effect are not temporary (TS 2821)
1.3.1.1.1.5. [Objection] Invalidation of prasaṅga (b) from the viewpoint of the manifestation (abhivyakti) theory (TS 1822)
1.3.1.1.1.6. Rejection of the manifestation theory (reference to the Śrutiparīkṣā) (TS 1823)
1.3.1.1.2. Examination from other viewpoints: a capacity is distinct from its possessor (vyatirekapakṣa); a capacity is both distinct and non-distinct from its possessor (ubhayātmakapakṣa); a capacity is neither distinct nor non-distinct from its possessor (anubhayātmakapakṣa) (TS 2824–25)
1.3.1.1.2.1 prasaṅga (c): If the capacity were innate, the undesirable consequence would follow that a pramāṇa is eternal
1.3.1.2. Assumption 2: the ‘innate’ capacity is produced at the same when a pramāṇa is produced by its cause (TS 2826–31)
1.3.1.2.1 Pointing out a logical fallacy in the thesis of argument 1: siddhasādhyatā (TS 2826–28)
1.3.1.2.2 prasaṅga (d): If a capacity were not innate, the undesirable consequence would follow that a capacity and its possessor are distinct from each other (TS 2829)
1.3.1.2.3 prasaṅga (e): If a capacity were not innate, the undesirable consequence would follow that no entity can possess a capacity (TS 2830–31)
1.3.2. Counterarguments against argument 2 (TS 2832–41)
1.3.2.1. An argument for extrinsic validity (parataḥprāmāṇya) (TS 2832–37)
1.3.2.1.1 Śāntarakṣita’s claim: the cognitive capacity cannot be established independently of another pramāṇa (TS 2832–33)
1.3.2.1.2 Presenting a reason: a non-pramāṇa and a pramāṇa are similar to each other in that they have a vivid appearance (TS 2834)
1.3.2.1.3 Two means of establishing the cognitive capacity: the experience of practical efficacy (arthakriyājñ āna) and the recognition of a good quality of a cognitive cause (kāraṇaguṇajñāna) (TS 2835)
1.3.2.1.4 Exemplification: the capacity of a poisonous substance (viṣa), etc. (TS 2836–37)
1.3.2.2. Pointing out a logical fallacy in the thesis of argument 2: svavacanavirodha (TS 2838–39)
1.3.2.3. How the cognitive capacity is is different from how it is established (TS 2840–41)
1.3.3. Pointing out a logical fallacy in the reasons of arguments 1 and 2: anaikāntika (TS 2842–45)
内容記述
広島大学比較論理学プロジェクト研究センター研究成果報告書(2017年度)
本稿は、2015年度仏教伝道協会日本人留学生奨学金制度の支援を受けた研究の成果の一部である。
掲載誌名
比較論理学研究
15号
開始ページ
91
終了ページ
158
出版年月日
2018-03-25
出版者
広島大学比較論理学プロジェクト研究センター
ISSN
1880-6376
NCID
言語
日本語
NII資源タイプ
紀要論文
広大資料タイプ
学内刊行物(紀要等)
DCMIタイプ
text
フォーマット
application/pdf
著者版フラグ
publisher
部局名
文学研究科
他の一覧