著者
張 文良
出版者
日本印度学仏教学会
雑誌
印度學佛教學研究 (ISSN:00194344)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.68, no.2, pp.734-739, 2020-03-20 (Released:2020-09-10)
参考文献数
1

According to the Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda Sūtra, the birth and death of all living creatures and the cause of every conditioned existence (生滅法) is not the Tathāgatagarbha, but avidyāvāsabhūmi (entrenchment of ignorance 无明住地). However, the question “Why would the Tathāgatagarbha, which is originally free from evil and defilement, generate mountains, rivers and lands (如来藏本来清净, 為什麼突然生出山河大地)?” is asked in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, which indicates that the sūtra has a tendency to consider the Tathāgatagarbha as the origin of mountains, rivers and lands. Additionally, in the same sūtra, the Tathāgatagarbha as cittaprakṛti (心性) is qualified with the function of knowing (知). Compared to the theories of Tathāgatagarbha in Indian Buddhism, the theory in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is apparently of a different nature. Then how did this theory form? Combining the theories of Tathāgatagarbha which were presented by Huiyuan of the Jingying-si and Fazang, this article evaluates the theory of the Tathāgatagarbha in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra on the basis of how these theories of the Tathāgatagarbha were altered.
著者
松田 和信
出版者
日本印度学仏教学会
雑誌
印度學佛教學研究 (ISSN:00194344)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.68, no.1, pp.1-11, 2019-12-20 (Released:2020-09-10)
被引用文献数
3

The “Tridaṇḍa” is a ritual sūtra or sūtra used for the purpose of liturgical chanting, in which āgama-sūtras are sandwiched between Aśvaghoṣa’s verses. Researchers have so far believed that only the Anityatā-sūtra, which Yijing translated into Chinese, is the Tridaṇḍa. The Sanskrit manuscript of the Tridaṇḍamālā preserved at sPos khang monastery in Tibet, however, contains forty Tridaṇḍa sūtras. With the discovery of this manuscript, it has been proven that the Tridaṇḍa does not indicate the Anityatā-sūtra only, but rather the entire forty texts as a whole. The Anityatā-sūtra is the eleventh among those forty Tridaṇḍa texts. In this presentation, I analyze the eighth Tridaṇḍa, the Paramārthaśūnyatā-sūtra, and provide the entire Sanskrit text of the Paramārthaśūnyatā-sūtra, a famous sūtra often quoted in numerous Abhidharma treatises, fully retrieved from this manuscript for the first time. Furthermore, I was able to identify that the verses presented before and after this sūtra are from Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita. It is especially noteworthy that I was able to retrieve fifteen verses on non-self (anātman) from Canto 16 of the Buddhacarita, the Sanskrit version of which had been missing until now. Finally, I have thus far collected 123 verses, corresponding to the missing verses from the Buddhacarita Canto 15 or later from this Tridaṇḍamālā manuscript.
著者
森 章司
出版者
日本印度学仏教学会
雑誌
印度學佛教學研究 (ISSN:00194344)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.67, no.2, pp.521-529, 2019-03-20 (Released:2019-09-20)

The Suttapiṭaka and the Vinayapiṭaka record the historical achievements of Śākyamuni. Nevertheless, “who” did “what” to “whom” “where” were written in detail, but “when” was not specified. Why so?Also, when this “when” is dated as ekaṃ samayaṃ (a certain time) in the Suttapiṭaka, the Vinayapiṭaka distinguishes it by expressing it as tena samayena (then). Why so?Śākyamuni had a consciousness that he became Buddha as result of following the ancient road that was travelled by the various Buddhas of the past, attaining enlightenment that the various Buddhas had attained, and of preaching the teachings that the various Buddhas of the past had preached. Based on this awareness were the suttas preached. Therefore, the contents of the Suttapiṭaka are universal, and it is not good to be caught in time.Meanwhile, Śākyamuni had the recognition that the dhamma was extinct because the Buddhas of the past did not preach the Pātimokkha. Under this awareness, he established the Vinayapiṭaka, legislative documents that he originally established for maintaining and developing his saṅgha. Time is an extremely important factor for the law, because the same act becomes a crime or not depending on when the law was enacted.The Suttapiṭaka and the Vinayapiṭaka are canonical records. The Buddha’s disciples edited the suttas in a form not limiting time using ‘ekaṃ samayaṃ,’ and edited the rules in a way that limits “time” using ‘tena samayena’. This is a poor measure of trying to solve two conflicting requests at the same time. Tena samayena does not mean “when”. Therefore, there were no biographies of Buddha in Buddhism.
著者
村上 東俊
出版者
日本印度学仏教学会
雑誌
印度學佛教學研究 (ISSN:00194344)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.65, no.1, pp.288-283, 2016-12-20 (Released:2017-10-17)
参考文献数
14

The UNESCO/JFIT project, “Strengthening the Conservation and Management of Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha, Phase 2,” focused on investigation of Tilaurakot, has been ongoing since 2014. An International excavation team of experts is co-directed by Professor Robin Coningham of Durham University and Former Director General Kosh Prasad Acharya of the Department of Archaeology, and the project is comprised of members from Durham University, the Lumbini Development Trust, the Department of Archaeology, the National Geographic, and others. The project is focusing on the morphological and chronological definition of Tilaurakot.The purpose of this paper is to report the archaeological results form Lumbini (2010–2013) and describe in outline the current archaeological survey of Tilaurakot (2014–2017).
著者
吉水 清孝
出版者
Japanese Association of Indian and Buddhist Studies
雑誌
印度學佛教學研究 (ISSN:00194344)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.61, no.3, pp.1085-1092, 2013-03-25 (Released:2017-09-01)

知行併合(jnanakarmasamuccaya)論とは,輪廻を脱して解脱するためには,梵我一如の知のみならず,ヴェーダが定める祭式をはじめとする行が必要であるとするヴェーダーンタの立場であるが,『マヌ法典』の註釈家のうち,8世紀頃のBharuciと,9世紀のMedhatithiも,林住期と遊行期の生活規範を定めた第6章の註釈の中で,知行併合を唱えている.Medhatithiは,祭式が特定の果報をもたらすのとは別に,解脱の達成にも資することを立証しようとして,Satapathabrahmana 10.2.6.13を引用し,また「結合の別異性」(samyogaprthaktva)という解釈定理がこれには適用可能であり,祭主が自他の区別にこだわっているか自他を平等に見ることができるかに応じて,同じ祭式が有限な果報をもたらしもするし,ブラフマンとの合一に導くとも言えるとした.しかしMedhatithiによれば,祭式が解脱の達成に資する真の理由は,それがヴェーダ学習と子供の養育とともに,Taittiriyasamhita 6.3.10.5に説かれた「生得的負債」(rna)の返済手段となるからである.ヴェーダ学習により共同体の過去を継承し,祭式により共同体の現在の絆を強め,子供の養育により共同体の未来を確保することが人の果たすべき義務である.Medhatithiは,主人の横暴さに嫌気がさして奉公を辞めたがっている召使の姿を思い描いて人生を瞑想するよう勧める.ただし召使はけなげにも先に主人から得ていた幾ばくかのお金の分を働いて返そうと決意すると言い,家長としての義務遂行の必要性を強調している.さらにMedhatithiは,「瞑想に熟達した遊行者は,自分の善業を好ましい者たちに,悪業を好ましくない者たちに転移する」と述べる第79詩節を,「好ましい経験を得たことを自分の善業のせいに,好ましからざる経験を被ったことを自分の悪業のせいに帰すべきこと」を述べると読み替えて,修行の一環としての忍耐の重要さを説くものとした.しかしこのような解釈は,A. Wezlerが論じているように,後代の『マヌ法典』註釈家Kullukaによって,規範を恣意的に解釈していると批判された.Medhatithiによるこの解釈は彼の独創ではなく,Bharuciを継承している.また知行併合論者を自任するヴェーダーンタ学派のBhaskaraは第79詩節本来の趣旨を擁護して,RgvedaとMahabharataから,行為の結果を他人が被ることを認める詩節を引用する.知行併合論は世俗社会での義務を重視する思想家に広く受け入れられていたが,因果応報を厳密に自業自得で捉えるかどうかは見解が分かれていた.