摘要
施密特豪森(L.Schmithausen)教授雄辩地指出,在早期佛教中,包括树在内的植物是一个极限的存在,因为不确定他们是否有感情。一般的共识是,他们总的来说是无知觉的,除了一些例外。这种观念在早期大乘佛教中得到强化,他们被排除在有情(动物/人)的"四生"之外,并且清辩(6世纪)在其所著的《中观心论》及其自注《思择焰》中激烈地反对植物是有情的观念。但是,在Pu??arīka(11世纪早期)对Ya?as(?11世纪早期)所著《时轮略续》的注疏《无垢光》中,发现了一个令人瞩目的例外。Pu??arīka认为,树的出生属于有情"四生"中的一种。当相关的段落成为藏族学者关注的焦点时,人们感到十分惊讶。布顿仁钦珠(1290–1364年)及其他14世纪的学者为这一段落辩护,这一时期的一系列讨论也支持这一观念并且延续到15世纪,尤其是绛达·南加扎桑(1395–1475年)和克珠·格勒贝桑波(1385–1438年)之间的系列问答。本文是两篇系列文章中的第一篇,主要探讨支持"树是有情"的争论。这两篇论文还力图展示晚期传统在何种程度上试图证实和捍卫时轮文献的不寻常地位,毕竟时轮文献也是佛经的一部分,因此实际上也是佛语(buddhavacana)。
In early Buddhism,as L.Schmithausen has so eloquently shown,plants,including trees,are said to have a liminal existence,inasmuch as there was a marked uncertainty about their sentience.With some exceptions,the general consensus was that they were by and large insentient.This perception hardened in early Mahayana Buddhism where they were excluded from the four ways in which sentient(animal/human life)can take birth,and Bhāviveka(6thc.)argued with some vehemence against the notion that plants were sentient in his Madhyamaka?rdaya and its auto-commentary,the Tarkajvālā.However,a notable exception to the idea that trees are insentient is found in Pu??arīka’s(early 11th c.)Vimalaprabhācommentary to Ya?as’(?early 11 thc.)Laghukālacakratantra.Pu??arīka argued that trees were born in one of the four ways in which sentient life takes birth.This raised a number of eyebrows when the relevant passage became the focus of attention of Tibetan scholars.Bu ston Rin chen grub(1290–1364)and other fourteenth century intellectuals defended the passage and a series of arguments were levelled in favor of this notion during this time and this continued well into the fifteenth century,particularly,in a series of questionsand-answers of Byang bdag Rnam rgyal grags bzang(1395–1475)and Mkhas grub Dge legs dpal bzang po(1385–1438).This essay is the first of a two-part series in which the arguments in support of the question of the sentience of trees in particular was pursued.These two essays also try to demonstrate the extent to which the later tradition tried to justify and defend the anomalous position of the Kālacakra literature which,after all,was also part of Buddhist scripture and thus virtually buddhavacana,the word of the Buddha.
作者
范德康
Leonard W.J.van der Kuijp
出处
《藏学学刊》
2019年第1期196-221,379-380,共28页
Journal of Tibetology
