藏譯本《阿毘達磨俱舍論》暨稱友《明義疏》—以有為相為中心

Abstract

本文以藏譯本《阿毘達磨俱舍論》暨稱友《明義疏》有為相的範疇為譯注研究對象。生、住、異、滅四有為相為佛教中耳熟能詳的名相，但其本質以及其與有為法的關係卻鮮少人討論。在論書中經部師解釋經文「有三有為之有為相」重說「有為」的現象，認為有為相即是有為法本身，但僅以譬喻來喻說四相與有為法之間的關係，而未進一步探討。另外藏譯本《俱舍論》關於重說「有為」一詞則有出入。在藏譯文獻中保留了尚未被中譯的稱友《明義疏》，其以梵語語法註解，符合佛教義理外，也闡述了經部觀點。雖《俱舍論》有漢譯本，然不易理解。因此本文意圖從藏譯本角度出發，譯注藏譯本《俱舍論》與《明義疏》有為相的範疇，並考察在翻譯過程發現的若干相關問題。諸如藏譯本是否重說「有為」？梵、藏文第六格屬格的應用是否包含同位語？第六格屬格是否適用於經部師主張連結同一實體的事物？歸納譯注範圍「無常」一詞在各種語境的意義，以瞭解該詞所指意義為何？經部師主張「行相續」是緣生性，與論書所指四種緣起的關係為何？ 本文採取基礎文獻學與義理研究法，透過翻譯藏譯本《俱舍論》與稱友《明義疏》〈根品第二〉「有為相」的範圍，而得以瞭解文本內容中所表達的義理，以期達成文獻考察與義理研究之目的。 透過文獻對勘發現，歸於欽瓦達孜系統的藏譯木刻本較接近梵文本出現重說「有為」的現象，而重說「有為」的目的在於強調有為相與有為法二者同質。梵文屬格本未包含同位語，但經文「有三有為之有為相」經過藏譯後，可以藏文屬格同位語用法解讀為同位關係，則恰巧順應了經部師有為相即是有為法本身的觀點。因此解讀藏譯本時能參考梵文本則較容易掌握語言轉譯過程發生的現象。毘婆沙師定義「無常」一詞指向的是能壞滅有為法的力量，經部師則認為「無常」是有為法本身不斷變遷無有恆常的狀態。且透過比對發現玄奘在有為相範圍中將無常、滅、壞滅等義皆譯為「滅」，恐令讀者混淆。緣生性即緣起，毘婆沙師主張為分位緣起，經部師所指應為「連縛緣起」，也相似於其以相續為基礎主張的有為相。

This thesis focus on the annotated translation Tibetan Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā of Yaśomitra about saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa. The characteristics of conditioned phenomena(saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa), namely birth(jāti), duration(stithi), aging(jarā), and impermanence(anityatā) of conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta) are well-known phenomena in Buddhism. But their nature, and their relationship with conditioned phenomena are rarely discussed. In the treatise, Sautrāntika explain that "saṃskṛta" repetition of "triṇīmāni saṃskṛtasya saṃskṛta-lakṣaṇāni" and believed it means saṃskṛta is saṃskṛtalakṣaṇāni itself, but there are only two metaphors for the relationship between characteristics and conditioned phenomena, without further discussion. However, different Tibetan editions of Abhidharmakośabhāṣya have discrepancies in the "saṃskṛta" repetition. The Tibetan literature contains the commentary Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā of Yaśomitra. This commentary which is preceded by the term sphuṭārthā has not been translated into Chinese. It is annotated according to Sanskrit grammar, which is in line with Buddhist doctrine and also expounded from the perspective of the Sautrāntika. Although there is a Chinese translation of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya but it is not easy to understand. Therefore, I would like to clarify some problems found in the translation process. It is found that the Tibetan literature of Phying ba stag rtse Tangyur are closer to the Sanskrit text that the "saṃskṛta" repetition by textual criticism, and the "saṃskṛta" repetition is to emphasize both the saṃskṛta and saṃskṛtalakṣaṇāni is homogeneous. Sanskrit genitive does not have the usage of apposition, but Tibetan genitive does. After translation, the sūtra interpreted as an apposition in the Tibetan genitive. Vaibhāṣika considers that "anitya" is the force that destroys Dharma, and Sautrāntika considers it to be the ever-changing state of dharma itself. Moreover, the translation of anitya, vyaya and vināśa as "滅" by Xuanzang may confuse the reader. Vaibhāṣika considers pratītyasamutpada means avasthita, and Sautrāntika considers it means saṃbandhika.