著者

興津 香織 Kaori Okitsu

出版者

国際仏教学大学院大学

雑誌

仙石山論集 = Sengokuyama Journal of Buddhist Studies (ISSN:13494341)

巻号頁・発行日

no.4, pp.1-154, 2008-11-30

---

Ever since its transmission to Japan, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 倶舎論 has been keenly studied by scholar-monks of all Buddhist schools. This has given birth to a long and vast tradition of outstanding commentaries. As the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya refers to or implies knowledge concerning concepts peculiar to non-Buddhist philosophical schools of Ancient India, amongst which Sāṃkhya stands prominent, it is quite natural that the Japanese exegetes would also occasionally touch upon such ideas. Before the middle of the Edo period, however, no independent work dedicated to the presentation of the Sāṃkhya philosophy alone appears to have been produced. It seems that the first systematic treatment of this school is found in the Kusha ron kōki kōshū 倶舎論光記講輯 written by Dōkū 道空 (1686-1751). The text actually represents a 14-scroll 十四巻 sub-commentary to a Puguang's 普光 Jushe lun ji 倶舎論記. It covers only the first part of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya dealing with the Chapter on Elements 界品, Chapter on Faculties 根品, Chapter on the Universe 世間品, and the Chapter on Karma 業品. Dōkū mentions Sāṃkhya in Scroll III (ad the Chapter on Faculties), in Scroll VII (ibid.), and in Scroll XIII (ad the Chapter on Karma). In Scrolls VII and XIII, Dōkū's treatment of the subject does not go beyond a typically exegetical approach: he briefly touches upon some Sāṃkhya concepts, and he does it mainly by relying on the explanations offered by such Chinese commentaries as the Jushe lun song shu 倶舎論頌疏 by Yuanhui 圓暉 and the Jushe lun song shu chao 倶舎論頌疏抄 by Huihui 慧暉. The discussion of Sāṃkhya in Scroll III stands, however, in sharp contrast to mere exegetical references. Here one can clearly see that Dōkū attempts a presentation of the whole philosophical system rather than of a few disparate notions. Actually, Dōkū extracted this part from his commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and published it as an independent work entitled Notes Concerning the Twenty-five Principles of Sāṃkhya (數論二十五諦記 Suron nijūgo tai ki). Starting with the middle of the Edo period, i.e. 18th century, Japan actually witnesses the birth and development of an exegetical tradition on Paramārtha's 眞諦 translation of the *Suvarṇasaptati 金七十論, tradition which was to continue for nearly 200 years. Prior to this epoch no similar attempts are known to have existed. This may appear to us as a rather sudden and unexpected phenomenon, but seen in the context of its age, the movement had its causes. This period of peace, stability and growing prosperity allowed many brilliant scholar-monks to concentrate their efforts on deepening their understanding of all aspects of Buddhism, which also led to the necessity of conducting researching into non-Buddhist works. Nonetheless, the idea of studying and writing about heretical philosophical systems, historically hostile to Buddhism, must have aroused more or less resistance from the more traditional minds. What was the driving force and scholarly need of this new movement which presumably was strong enough to brush aside all opposition? In the present paper, I discuss the exposition of Sāṃkhya as found in Scroll III of the Kusha ron kōki kōshū and the Suron nijūgo tai ki by Dōkū, which may well represent the inception of this new movement. I hope that my examination of Dōkū's criticism of Xuanzang's 玄奘 understanding of Sāṃkhya will shed light upon the origins of the scholarly necessity which lay behind the new exegetical movement.

著者

興津 香織 Kaori Okitsu

出版者

国際仏教学大学院大学

雑誌

仙石山論集 = Sengokuyama Journal of Buddhist Studies (ISSN:13494341)

巻号頁・発行日

no.2, pp.31-59, 2005-09-30

---

It is not unusual to see Buddhist texts mentioning and criticising other philosophical schools. Amongst these, Sāṁkhya and Vaiśeṣika have received particular attention. The fact that the *Suvarṇasaptatiśāstra (hereafter, Ss), translated by Paramārtha 眞諦, and the *Vaiśeṣikadaśapadārthaśāstra 勝宗十句義論, translated by Xuanzang 玄奘, are the only treatises of classical Indian systems rendered into Chinese and included in the Chinese Canon also testifies to the importance attached to these two schools. The way Buddhist thinkers regarded Sāṁkhya philosophy can be grasped from two angles. One is to survey their criticism against this system as reflected in Buddhist philosophical works. The other is to examine how the Ss was understood and assessed in commentaries written by Far Eastern Buddhist thinkers. The latter approach has not been attempted so far, and the present paper is part of a larger project to explore this less known aspect in the history of ideas. It seems that no exegetical work was written on the Ss in traditional China. By contrast, Japanese Buddhists showed considerable interest in this Sāṁkhya text. This can be seen as early as the Tenpyō Era (729-767), when the name of the Ss appears amongst the manuscripts copied by imperial order. We have no concrete data for the following centuries, but later, by the middle of the Tokugawa Period (18th century), the Ss became the object of an intense commentarial activity. Unfortunately, only very few of these works were printed and became available to the general public. Most of the rest has remained practically unknown to outside circles. As much as I could check, no less than 26 commentaries on the Ss (including texts no longer extant) were written during the Tokugawa Period. We know the names of 17 of these exegetes. For three of the commentaries, the authors’ names have been lost. An important figure, which I also briefly discuss, is Nyokai Nichimyō 如海日妙 (?-1711) who appears to have written or edited the ‘Postface to the *Suvarṇasaptatiśāstra’ 金七十論跋 attached to the woodblock print edition of the Ss issued in the Tokugawa Period. My paper also examines the texts and materials used by the scholar-monks associated with the Ss exegetical literature, the common corpus of knowledge shared by them as well as the distinctive characteristics of each of the available commentaries. I have paid special attention to the following three works which illustrate the philological methods of textual interpretation representative of this age: the Kon shichijū ron bikō 金七十論備考 by Gyō’ ō Gonzō 曉應嚴藏 (1724-1785), the Kon shichijū ron sho 金七十論疏 by Chidō Hōjū 智幢法住 (1723-1800), and the Kon shichijū ron sōkyō 金七十論藻鏡 by Rinjō Kaidō 林常快道 (1751-1810).