漢訳『廻諍論』の六句議論解釈――梵本における第2句の問題点をめぐって――

抄録

This paper examines a textual problem in the second koṭi (controversy) of the ṣaṭkoṭika vāda (six-fold controversy) in the Vigrahavyāvartanīvṛtti ad Vigrahavyāvartanī k. 2. Johnston and Kunst’s edition (JK) has been read as the most common edition of the Vigrahavyāvartanī(-vṛtti). JK make a partial emendation of the second koṭi of the ṣaṭkoṭika vāda based on the Chinese translation of the Vigrahavyāvartanī(-vṛtti), the Huizheng lun (廻諍論). However, previous researches conducted to interpret the meaning of the ṣaṭkoṭika vāda do not consider the validity of JK’s emendation.

The first interpretation of the ṣaṭkoṭika vāda is that it is an objection by a realist depending on the assumption that “emptiness cannot negate the svabhāva of all things” refers to the Śūnyatāvādin’s statement (sarvabhāvāḥ śūnyāḥ). Nevertheless, according to JK, contrary to this assumption, the second koṭi derives the conclusion that “the statement cannot negate svabhāva” from the reason that “it is not empty.”

To discuss this doubtful emendation, I compared the two ṣaṭkoṭika vādas, i.e., the Chinese translation on which JK depends and the Sanskrit manuscript. As a result, it became clear that logical context of the Chinese translation is different from that of the Sanskrit original not only in the second koṭi but also for the whole ṣaṭkoṭika vāda. Therefore, it is difficult to adopt only a part of the second koṭi from the Chinese translation and apply it to the Sanskrit edition. Hence, JK’s emendation is not valid, and previous researches according to JK also should be reexamined.