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.
抄録全体を表示