著者
土屋 太祐
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.777-783, 2019

<p>The phrases "it is difficult to continue" (相続也大難) and "the blood lineage is not interrupted" (血脈不断) are found in the <i>Biyan lu</i> 碧巌録, one of the most important works of <i>gong'an</i> Chan 公案禅 during the Song dynasty. These phrases came from the sayings of two patriarchs of the Cao-Dong 曹洞 lineage, Dongshan Liangjie 洞山良价 and Caoshan Benji 曹山本寂. There is a possibility that these phrases had been passed down in the traditions of the Cao-Dong lineage. These phrases show that, when interpreting <i>gong'an</i>, the <i>Biyan lu</i> had a tendency to show an appreciation of monks changing their positions constantly and developing questions and answers without interruption. In this interpretative perspective, emphasis is placed on skillfully preserving the flow of dialogue, and individual phrases of a <i>gong'an</i> are not interpreted on the basis of their inherent meaning. This is one of the reasons that the <i>Biyan lu</i> is difficult to understand.</p>
著者
鈴木 知子
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.1092-1089, 2020

<p>The <i>Rājataraṅgiṇī</i>, a Kashmiri royal chronicle written by Kalhaṇa in the 12<sup>th</sup> century, consists of eight <i>taraṅgas</i> ("waves," i.e. chapters). In the 19<sup>th</sup> century, there was a debate about the authenticity of the last two <i>taraṅgas</i>. The debate seems to have been closed by G. Bühler and A. Stein, who asserted that one and the same Kalhaṇa wrote all eight <i>taraṅgas</i>. Shortly after this discussion was over, it was revealed by an incomplete manuscript that the eighth <i>taraṅga</i> had been revised for political reasons, and the text on which Bühler and Stein had based their assertion was a revised recension. By examination of this newly found manuscript, a question arose about the authenticity of the eighth <i>taraṅga</i>, which was full of rhetorical defects. Apart from textual credibility, it should be noted that the <i>Rājataraṅgiṇī</i> is a <i>kāvya </i>governed by the <i>śānta-rasa</i> (sentiment of equanimity), as declared in the first<i> taraṅga</i>. It is the seventh <i>taraṅga</i> which ends with the tragic death of King Harṣa, that is more suitable for the concluding chapter of a <i>kāvya</i> bearing the <i>śānta-rasa</i>, rather than the eighth <i>taraṅga</i> which ends with a eulogy dedicated to the king of the time. In the 19<sup>th</sup> century, scholars' discussions concerning the <i>Rājataraṅgiṇī</i> were focused on the authenticity of its seventh and eighth <i>taraṅgas</i>. Now, however, the issue should be revisited as a question about the authenticity of the eighth <i>taraṅga</i>.</p>
著者
下田 正弘
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.1043-1035, 2020

<p>More than fifteen years ago, Schopen (2004, 492) revealed his concern about a certain understanding widespread among scholars of the history of Indian Buddhism, writing, "[t]he historical development of Indian Buddhism used to be presented as simple, straightforward, and suspiciously linear. It started with the historical Buddha whose teaching was organized, transmitted, and more or less developed into what was referred to as <i>early Buddhism</i>. This Early Buddhism was identified as Hīnayāna ... , Theravāda ... , or simply 'monastic Buddhism.' ... A little before or a little after the beginning of the common era this early Buddhism was, according to the model, followed by the Mahāyāna ... " A similar apprehension has recently been expressed in slightly different terms by Harrison (2018, 8–9). It is certainly surprising that scholars' basic frame of reference for the history of Indian Buddhism is more or less what it was in the late 19<sup>th</sup> century, despite all of the progress recently made in this field. Developments in the particulars of the subfields of Indian Buddhist history have not entailed comparable developments in the broader frame of reference, despite the fact that such a frame is what allows us to identify and synthesize the details of our field. This paper attempts to address this problem by focusing on three points: first, it reexamines the current state of affairs of materials for the reconstruction of the history of ancient India; second, it reevaluates the status of Pāli materials as historical sources; and third, it reconsiders the concept of 'canon' in Buddhist studies.</p>
著者
梁 特治
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.891-887, 2020

<p>It is highly probable that the "Sŏn master Nang" 朗禅師, mentioned at the end of the Tianshun edition of <i>Bodhidharma's Treatise on the Four Practices </i>菩提達摩四行論, is the Silla monk Pŏmnang (c. 630–730), a Dharma successor of the Fourth Patriarch Daoxin 道信 (580–651).</p>
著者
バンチャード チャオワリットルアンリット
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.3, pp.1155-1159, 2020-03-25 (Released:2020-09-10)
参考文献数
9

Dhammachai Tipitaka Projectでは,Dīghanikāyaの新校訂版を作成するために,シンハラ文字,ビルマ文字,コム文字,そしてタム文字という4つの写本伝承から,延べ45本の写本が,主要な資料として厳選された.このテキストを編集する過程において,十分な数の異読が収集されていくと,パーリ聖典の写本伝承に関する新しい理解を提案することが可能になりつつある.概して言うと,パーリ聖典は,シンハラと東南アジアという2つの主要な系統を通じて私たちに伝わっているよう思われる.後者は,さらにビルマ文字,コム文字,そしてタム文字の写本系統に分けられる.本論文では,コム文字の写本系統に焦点を当てることによって,少なくともラッタナコーシン期以前とラッタナコーシン期(1782年以降)という2つの分岐系統が存在することが判明した.前者はまれな写本にのみ現存するが,後者は,タイにおけるパーリ聖典の標準版となるSyāmaraṭṭha版の基礎であると考えられる.歴史を振り返れば,アユタヤ王国が1767年に戦争で完全に破壊された時には,パーリ聖典を含む膨大な数のコム文字写本が失われたようである.そのことから,パーリ聖典のコム伝承はシンハラやビルマの伝承からの助けを得ながら,自分の伝承を回復せざるを得なかったという指摘がある.つまり,コム伝承では両伝承からの混交(contamination)という問題があることを意味する.しかし,ダムロン王子の記録及び本論文で取り扱うコム文字写本に見出される異読を検証した結果,アユタヤ期以降のパーリ聖典のコム伝承は,シンハラやビルマ伝承との著しい混交を示していない.逆に,ラッタナコーシン期のコム文字写本のいくつかの読みは,コム伝承が独自のものであり,シンハラとビルマの両伝承から距離を置くことが確認された.
著者
神達 知純
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.55, no.1, pp.64-67,1188, 2006

In Tiantai doctrine, naraka is known as one of the ten realms of living beings (十界). In China many Buddist scriptures that had a well-organized description about naraka had already been translated and written in the Northern and Southern dynasties. It follows that Zhiyi (智〓) developed ideas such as that each of the ten realms contains the other nine within itself (十界互具), in times when fear of naraka was common. In this report I take up some problems about naraka which are derived from the four-word phrase about Sila and Yana (戒乗四句) in "<i>Mohe Ziguan</i> (摩詞止観)".