パーリ仏教文献における〈譬え〉の修辞学的考察

抄録

The analysis of three parables in the Satipattānasutta indicates that they fit the definition of upamā as defined in the Subodhālaṅkāra, but in function, it can be inferred that the three parables differ from the upamā as defined in the same text. In other words, the upamā in the text of the figure of speech is used to stimulate the aesthetic senses of the listener, and works directly to elicit aesthetic sensations, while the upamā in the Nikāyas has the function of helping the listener to understand the doctrines, a function closer to that of the dṛṣṭānta than the upamā in rhetorical texts. Thus, the upamā in rhetorical texts and the upamā in the Nikāyas are not the same, and the parables should not be analyzed as either upamā or dṛṣṭānta, but rather as being both upamā and dṛṣṭānta.