初期仏典におけるupadhiの用法――縁起説の成立に関連して――

抄録

It is said that the twelve-fold chain of dependent origination is complete in its formative process. Although many scholars have tried to clarify the formative process and the meaning of the notion as a whole, there seems to be no generally accepted theory about it. This also applies to a three-fold chain, which includes “possession” (upadhi) as a member of the chain caused by “thirst” or “craving” (taṇhā). The question we have to ask here is why a member caused by taṇhā is “attachment” (upādāna) in common dependent originations, but upadhi in the three-fold chain. In this paper, I examine the usage of upadhi to elucidate why upadhi has come to be regarded as inappropriate as a member of the chain of dependent origination.

This examination reveals that the meaning of upadhi varies depending on context—therefore, upadhi is a specific and individual term. For this reason, there are several cases in which the cessation of upadhi does not lead to the cessation of suffering. Contrary to this, the cessation of upādāna leads to liberation in almost every case.

Based on this difference, the substitution of upādāna for upadhi in the standard chain of dependent originations may be attributed to the following: as the notion of dependent origination developed into a central dogma, upādāna became much more suitable as a member of the chain of dependent origination, because dependent origination refers not only to the occurrence of suffering but also to its cessation. Upadhi therefore became unsuitable for use in this context.