The actual circumstances of sutra recitation in Sectarian Buddhism have not yet been elucidated. In this paper, I examine sūtra recitation in the Divyāvadāna, focusing on svādhyāya- and √paṭh-. As a conclusion, sūtra recitation in the Divyāvadāna means the fundamental practice of studying Buddha’s teaching, and confession of belief in Buddhism. Besides, in the Dharmarucyavadāna (chapter 18), there is a scene depicting the gratification of Śākyamuni Buddha as a karmic result (vipāka) of recitation of the words of Kāśyapa Buddha. In the Mākandhikāvadāna (chapter 36), the waiting maids of Queen Śyāmāvatī, viz., Buddhist laywomen, recite and write down the words of Buddha on a daily basis.

抄録全体を表示

It seems to be strange that two different Vinayas, the Shisong lü 十誦律, Ten Recitation Vihana, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, are extant but belong to the same sect, the Sarvāstivādins. The issue of how we should place them in the historical development of the Sarvāstivādins is particularly meaningful with respect to the investigation of the history of Buddhism, but no clear result has so far been found because of a lack of information; we have only some vague traditions.

In this article, the author presents information which clearly shows that the Shisong lü and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya were related with the Kāśmīra-vaibhāṣikas and Sautrāntikas respectively.

A passage in the Vinaya is quoted in a dispute between the Sautrāntikas and Kāśmīra-vaibhāṣikas described in the Karmanirdeśa of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. The corresponding passage can be found in both the Shisong lü and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and, as a result of a detailed investigation, it turned out that the corresponding passage in the Shisong lü was modified for the purpose of reinforcement of the Kāśmīra-vaibhāṣikas’ claim in the dispute appearing in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and the corresponding passage in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (Chinese version) was modified to reinforece the claim of the Sautrāntikas.

From this fact, we can establish a close relationship between the Shisong lü and Kāśmīra-vaibhāṣikas, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Sautrāntikas.

抄録全体を表示

In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh), Vasubandhu maintains that form (saṃsthāna) is non-existent mainly on the following two grounds: 1) saṃsthāna would be cognized by two different sense organs (indriya), i.e. eyes (cakṣus) and skin (kāya) if saṃsthāna were to exist; 2) the atoms (paramāṇu) of saṃsthāna do not have their own specific characteristics (svalakṣaṇa). Against this, Saṃghabhadra raises three objections in the Nyāyānusāra. First, saṃsthāna is a different reality from color (varṇa) because it is cognized as such. Second, the forms ‘long, short’ and so on are cognized in two steps: the first step is the perception of saṃsthāna by visual consciousness (cakṣurvijñāna), and this saṃsthāna is existent; the second step is the cognition of ‘long’ and so on by mental consciousness (manovijñāna), and this ‘long’ and so on is non-existent. Therefore saṃsthāna is not cognized by the body. Finally, each atom cannot be apprehended by direct perception (pratyakṣa). It is for this reason that each atom does not appear either as colors like ‘blue, yellow’ and so on or as forms like ‘long, short’ and so on.

抄録全体を表示

The aim of this paper is to examine the sectarian affiliation of stories contained in the Xianyu jing (賢愚経), paying attention to the use of narratives and cliches in the extant Vinayas. If, for instance, we find the same story in both a sutra of an unknown sect and in all the extant Vinayas, and we can confirm that the recension of the sutra shares certain parallels in terms of the narrative and stock phrases with only one Vinaya, then the sutra can be safely ascribed to that sect. Here I would like to show some examples which may offer sufficient evidence to support the claim that the stories contained in this sutra are indeed to be ascribed to the Sarvastivadins.

抄録全体を表示

In this paper, I examine the range of meaning of the phrase saṃyojana-bandhana-anuśaya-upakleśa–paryavasthāna (結縛随眠随煩悩纒), a stock phrase used by the Sarvāstivāda school. My study is based mainly on early Sarvāstivāda texts. The results are as follows. First, this phrase as a whole is used as a general term for defilements (kleśa). Moreover, the five synonyms of defilements constituting the phrase play different roles in different ways of grouping defilements. In other words, the defilements in the phrase are not arranged as the representative name of a group of defilements but are arranged in one phrase with each having unique significance.

抄録全体を表示

The aim of this paper is an elucidation of the Mahāsāṃghika doctrines in the Apidamo da piposha lun 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 and the Apitan piposha lun 阿毘曇毘婆沙論. A previous work by Watanabe Baiyū collected all the doctrines which had been argued by many types of schools in two Chinese translations of the Mahāvibhāṣā. However, in his work, almost all the doctrines were not satisfyingly examined. In this paper, when I examined the Mahāsāṃghika’s doctrines in the Apidamo da piposha lun and the Apitan piposha lun, I compared those doctrines with the Samayabhedoparacanacakra in order to comprehend the character of the Mahāsāṃghika. As a result, two points were revealed. One is the accuracy of Watanabe’s collection. The other is the necessity to reconsider some Mahāsāṃghika doctrines. Especially relating with latter point, the evidence for the prejudice that the Mahāsāṃghika is more progressive than the Sarvāstivāda is not supported by this research.

抄録全体を表示

本論文は『大毘婆沙論』における西方尊者の学説を考察したものである．『大毘婆沙論』第六巻と第七巻では，西方尊者による煖・頂・忍・世第一法の四法からなる順決択分の考察が紹介される．『大毘婆沙論』は『発智論』に対する注釈書であるから，当然『発智論』の枠組みに従ってその本文を注釈するが，『発智論』は四つの順決択分のうちで忍のみを説かない．忍が順決択分に組み込まれる思想的な背景についてはこれまで研究がなされてきたが，本論文では『大毘婆沙論』が西方尊者の順決択分の解釈を紹介することで，四法からなる順決択分の導入の妥当性を補強した可能性に言及した．すなわち『大毘婆沙論』は，西方尊者の四法からなる順決択分に対する分析を紹介したのちに，初めて四善根位の語を用いて順決択分の考察を行う．ここでは西方尊者説が「四善根位＝順決択分」という理解の導入の役割を担っていると推測することができるのである．同時に本論文において『大毘婆沙論』における「尊者」という語の用例を検討し，この西方尊者がある特定の論師を指す可能性が高いことも示した．

抄録全体を表示

『根本

律』は，「律（経）分別」（Vinaya-vibhaṅga），「律事」（Vinaya-vastu），「律雑事」（Vinaya-kṣudraka），「ウッタラグランタ」（Uttaragrantha）という4部構成であることが知られている．本稿は，徳光（Guṇaprabha）著とされる『律経』（Vinayasūtra）に対する『律経自註』（Vinayasūtravṛtty-abhidhāna-svavyā­khyāna）において，『根本律』の構成について言及している箇所，すなわち，第1章「出家事」第98経の註釈を取り上げ，「律事」ならびに「ウッタラグランタ」の構成についての記述を紹介するものである．なお，当該箇所は『律経』「出家事」研究会によってテキストならびに和訳が出版されているが，近年の研究成果における指摘にしたがい，本稿では一部訂正を施している．

抄録全体を表示

This paper discusses the development of the language ideology of Pali within the Mahavihara school, one of so called "Theravada" schools, of Ancient South Asian Buddhism. In 5th century Sri Lanka, Mahavihara commentators such as Buddhaghosa insisted firstly that Pali, which they call Magadhi, is natural language innate to all living beings and secondly that the Tipitaka, or Buddhist canon, should thus be transmitted only in this primal language. This article serves as corrective to Peter Skilling's suggestion that the language ideology of innate language "appears to be unique in Buddhist tradition to the Mahavihara, or more accurately to Buddhaghosa." The fact that the Sarvastivada school's treatises such as the Mahavibhasa express views on innate language which echo Pali commentaries suggests that this concept was not conceived of by Buddhaghosa, but had circulated in continental India before it arrived in Sri Lanka. Rather the Mahavihara adopted the idea of innate language from continental Buddhism and formed language ideology of Pali by adding to it the idea that the language of Buddhist canon should be Pali. Moreover, the paper also elucidates that establishment of language ideology of Pali encouraged the Mahavihara monks to translate commentaries on Tipitaka from Sinhalese to Pali in the 5th century.

抄録全体を表示

　インド密教における五護陀羅尼とは，『大護明陀羅尼』を含む5種の初期密教経典の集成である．本論文ではチベット大蔵経に含まれる『大護明陀羅尼』の注釈書『大秘密真言随持経十萬註』の内容構成を中心に取り上げ，サンスクリット系統とチベット語訳系統の『大護明陀羅尼』，および，ヴァイシャーリー疫病消除説話（『根本

律』「薬事」，『ヴァイシャーリー・プラヴェーシャ』）を相互に比較検討した．『大護明陀羅尼』の注釈書は9つの章に分かれており，そのうち2つの章題には『ヴァイシャーリー・プラヴェーシャ』の経題が含まれている．注釈書の内容と各経典を比較した際の主な相違点に関しては，世尊がヴァイシャーリーに向かう直前に滞在していた場所があげられる．注釈書では，「薬事」と『ヴァイシャーリー・プラヴェーシャ』の記述と同様，「ナーディカーのクンジカ堂」が示されている一方，サンスクリット系統の『大護明陀羅尼』ではラージャグリハに住していたと記されており，チベット語訳系統の『大護明陀羅尼』よりもむしろ「薬事」や『ヴァイシャーリー・プラヴェーシャ』の記述と近しい例が見られた．注釈書が制作された頃の『大護明陀羅尼』の内容は，『根本律』や『ヴァイシャーリー・プラヴェーシャ』の影響を受けていたことが推察される．

　五護陀羅尼経典の一つである『大寒林陀羅尼』もまた2つの系統が存在し，その注釈書も2系統の経典の内容が含まれている．この点は今回取り上げた『大護明陀羅尼』の注釈書と同様である．五護陀羅尼に関連する2つの経典は，チベット大蔵経で個別に収録されているにもかかわらず，1つの注釈書の中で解説されている．

抄録全体を表示

In this paper, I discuss two texts: the Jñānaprasthānaśāstra, passed down by Pāścātya, and the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra as found in the Sarvāstivādin school. I also look at the specific textual tradition of the Sarvāstivādin school. The result of my research is that the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra that was quoted in the Chinese translation of the Jñānaprasthāna called the Fazhi lun is related to the Kṣudravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya. In addition, I point out that the Sarvāstivādins accepted a variety of types of textual traditions. In other words, we find the existence of passages with different content in the same part of the same text, but for the Sarvāstivādins this was permitted because both are regarded as passages in scripture.

抄録全体を表示