A Reconsideration of the Concept of Sad-asat-tattva of Pariniṣpanna-svabhāva in the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra (中辺分別論における円成実性のsat_asat_tattvaの再考) (original) (raw)
2014, 龍谷大学大学院文学研究科紀要36
The aim of this paper is to re-analyse the compound expression "sad-asat-tattva" which is the property of the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva in the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra (MAV). In previous researches, this compound word is understood as "the true property of the existence of non-existence" (Tatpuruṣa conpound term); until now, this concept is also seen as the nature of pariniṣpanna-svabhāva. However it was not explained as such in the commentary document prepared by Sthiramati. This scholar Sthiramati has interpreted the sad-asat-tattva (existence and non-existence and truth) as a dvandva compound term. I assumed that perhaps he based his theory on the two kinds of pariniṣpanna-svabhāva: they are 1) nirvikāra-pariniṣpanna (unchanged 無変異) and 2) aviparyāsa-pariniṣpanna (non-contrariety 無顛倒) of the pariniṣpanna svabhāva which were mentioned in Chapter 3 of this MAV. The evidence is, in the term of sad-asat-tattva, Sthiramati interpreted the word tattva is "viśuddhyālambana". This viśuddhyālambana - based on the results of the examination from many other texts of the Yogācāra school - will be understood in two ways, the object for cleaning (Tatpuruṣa) and the object that cleans (Karmadhāraya). Therefore, it would be a good guess that Sthiramati has intentions when using the term viśudhyālambana for interpreting the word tattva; that term ālambana (object) indicates the two natures of the pariniṣpanna - which refers to the suchness (nirvikāra-pariniṣpanna) and dharma-teaching (aviparyāsa-pariniṣpanna). Also on this same consideration, it is possible to point out the difference betwen Sthiramati and Vasubandhu. While the aviparyāsa of pariniṣpanna occupied an important position in Sthiramati's work, it was not mentioned anywhere in various logical statement of Vasubandhu, who happened to be his predecessor. In addition, given the cautious attitude of Sthiramati, perhaps he possibly interpreted pariniṣpanna-svabhāva amidst its criticism from scholars of the Mādhyamika Bhāviveka. Therefore, I can possibly present that this is an important point to notate when one considers comparing the relation between these two monks.
Related papers
1988
This paper consists of a Japanese translation of Patanjali's Mahabhasya ad P 1. 3. 1 bhuvadayo dhatavah and the Prodipa, a commentary on it by Kaiyata, together with a brief exposition of my own.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.