【摘要】：《集正量論》現(xiàn)保存于《丹珠爾》的不同版本中,按照內(nèi)容及歷史背景來看,我們可以基本推斷出本書大概撰寫于贊普墀松德贊時期或者后期。那么這本著作的作者是誰?這是讓讀者及研究者最為困惑的地方,因為此著作的末尾不僅沒有作者的署名,也沒有任何與作者相關(guān)的信息�，F(xiàn)存的《丹珠爾》目錄及有關(guān)藏文古籍中均承認(rèn)了《集正量論》的作者為墀松德贊,且至今為止對這方面未出現(xiàn)過任何質(zhì)疑的觀點。據(jù)現(xiàn)存的文獻(xiàn)來看,承認(rèn)此觀點的根本原因是“兩大目錄”,即《旦噶瑪目錄》及《旁塘瑪目錄》。這兩本目錄中均記載了贊普墀松德贊所撰寫的書目,其中有“正量論”的書名�，F(xiàn)有的《布頓佛教史》等很多史書以“兩大目錄”中所記載的贊普墀松德贊的“正量論”為依據(jù),推斷出《集正量論》的作者亦為墀松德贊,原因是書名相近。其中我們可以看到“正量論”和“集正量論”的書名并不一致。而且,“兩大目錄”中所提到的《正量論》共有七卷,但計數(shù)現(xiàn)存的《集正量論》的卷數(shù)時僅有兩卷多,按照這些科學(xué)的論點我們可以推斷出《正量論》和《集正量論》是相關(guān)卻不同的兩本著作。因此布頓仁波切等的觀點未具可靠的立足點。據(jù)筆者目前的查閱及了解,對《集正量論》方面似乎還未有相關(guān)的專門研究。據(jù)筆者目前所了解,在國外研究者中石泰安似乎是首次提到了此著作書名的學(xué)者,后來由日本學(xué)者森恩孝夫繼承了石泰安的觀點并進(jìn)行了肯定。但是我們必須注意的是他們的研究只局限于表層,未透徹到內(nèi)容方面。他們挑出文章中所出現(xiàn)的“波斯”及“mar ma ni”一詞進(jìn)行并論。他們利用這些詞來論證墀松德贊時期在藏區(qū)已有波斯傳來的摩尼教,并且摩尼教在藏區(qū)占據(jù)了舉足輕重的地位,因此認(rèn)為作者為了驅(qū)逐外來宗教而撰寫了此書。但是筆者閱讀此書及其它古籍時發(fā)現(xiàn),作者并不是為了驅(qū)逐外來的宗教,而是為了反對“頓漸之爭”中的頓門派而撰寫了此書。具體內(nèi)容將在正文里進(jìn)行闡述,因此在此略過。首次研究《集正量論》內(nèi)容方面的學(xué)者應(yīng)為多加旺扎多杰及曲吉更堆桑陪。兩位學(xué)者先后各自發(fā)表了關(guān)于《集正量論》的兩篇文章。其中,更值得關(guān)注的是兩位學(xué)者均質(zhì)疑了俄羅旦西熱被稱為藏族著因明典籍第一人的公認(rèn)說法,提出了這一具有建設(shè)性的觀點。兩位學(xué)者認(rèn)為藏族學(xué)者所著的第一本因明典籍為《集正量論》,且承認(rèn)了其作者為墀松德贊。筆者根據(jù)《集正量論》所記載的內(nèi)容同《集量論》及《釋量論》所記載的內(nèi)容相比較,得知《集正量論》的內(nèi)容同因明典籍《集量論》等的內(nèi)容相吻合。因此,在內(nèi)容上《集正量論》可以被稱為因明典籍。但是,筆者并不承認(rèn)《集正量論》是藏族第一本因明典籍的觀點。原因有《集正量論》是《正量論》的內(nèi)容精簡,其中可以推斷出《集正量論》撰寫的時間必定是《正量論》之后。因此,筆者對現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)進(jìn)行考證,得知《正量論》是藏族學(xué)者所著的第一本因明典籍。同時筆者承認(rèn)《正量論》的作者為墀松德贊,但不承認(rèn)《集正量論》的作者亦為墀松德贊,因為此論點至今未發(fā)現(xiàn)可靠的論據(jù)。對《集正量論》的研究現(xiàn)處于萌芽階段,要進(jìn)一步研究此典籍具有一定的難度,但是對此進(jìn)行初步研究時我們可以發(fā)掘更多新的信息。因此,筆者根據(jù)現(xiàn)有的研究狀況,對此進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的考證。此論文中提到的很多觀點均是筆者的觀點,未具先例。雖具有一定的先導(dǎo)性,但是筆者的知識淺薄,需更多的學(xué)者進(jìn)行再一次的考證及批評。本篇論文的名為《論集正量論及分支證成道理》。內(nèi)容大致分為兩部分。第一部分討論了“《集正量論》概要”。第二部分討論了“分支證成道理”。第一部分的主要論點有:分析了《集正量論》的著作名,提出了《正量論》和《集正量論》是相關(guān)但并不相同的兩本著作的觀點;解讀《集正量論》的內(nèi)容,提出了《集正量論》是《解深密經(jīng)》第十卷中所提到的四種道理,即觀待道理、作用道理、證成道理、法爾道理的注解;解讀“兩大目錄”等歷史古籍,提出了《正量論》的作者為墀松德贊,但不承認(rèn)《集正量論》的作者為墀松德贊的觀點,其中還詳細(xì)的考證了墀松德贊的求學(xué)生涯及著作。第二部分的主要論點有:分析文獻(xiàn)中所提到的“四種道理”,提出了“四種道理”首次出現(xiàn)于佛經(jīng)的觀點;研究佛教因明的前宏期與后宏期之間的時間界限,提出了《集正量論》應(yīng)屬于佛教因明前宏期的觀點;簡要分析文獻(xiàn)中所提到的“證成道理”,并同覺若魯堅參所著的《解深密經(jīng)詳解》進(jìn)行比較及考證,提出了《集正量論》的主題“證成道理”同因明內(nèi)容相吻合,因此承認(rèn)《集正量論》為因明典籍。以上所述均為筆者本人的觀點,其詳細(xì)內(nèi)容將在正文中進(jìn)行詳解,在此略過。
[Abstract]:By the content and the historical background, we can conclude that the book is about to be written in the period of Zeppe's Songjiang period or the later stage. Who is the author of this book? This is the most confusing place for readers and researchers, as the end of this work has not only the author's signature, nor any information related to the author. The existing and relevant Tibetan ancient books have recognized the author of the theory of "the amount of positive quantity", which has not been in any doubt in this respect until now. According to the existing literature, it is recognized that the root cause of this point of view is the "two directories", that is, the 'Sinian's directory> and the <. In both of these two directories, the title of the book, the title of the "positive quantity theory", was recorded in the title of the Zeppe's Songdezan. In the present, many of the history books, such as the history of the Botton Buddhism, are based on the "theory of positive quantity" of the Zhyp and the Songdzan, which are recorded in the "two directories", and the author of the theory of "set positive quantity" is also for the reason that the title of the book is similar. In which we can see that the title of the "theory of positive quantity" and the "the theory of set-forward quantity" is not consistent. Moreover, the . In the light of these scientific arguments, we can infer that the "positive quantity theory" and "the right amount theory" are relevant but different works. As a result, the point of view of Benton's Rinpoche is not a reliable foothold. According to the current review and understanding of the author, there seems to be no relevant special research on the aspect of and the content of the <-set-amount theory> the contents of the <-set-amount theory> and the content of the <-set-amount theory> and the content of the <-set-amount theory> and so on. Therefore, on the content, the "amount of right amount" can be referred to as the cause of the Ming and the book. However, the author does not admit that the theory of "set-forward quantity" is the first part of the Tibetan nationality of the Tibetan people. The reason is that the content of the is the content of the , in which it can be concluded that the time of the set-positive quantity theory> writing must be the . Therefore, the author makes a textual research on the existing literature to know that the "positive quantity theory" is the first one of the Tibetan scholars. At the same time, the author admits that the author of the "positive quantity theory" is the author of the "positive quantity theory", but the author does not recognize that the author of the "positive quantity theory" is also a truant, because the argument has not yet been found to be a reliable argument. This study is in the bud stage, and it is difficult for the study to be further studied, but more new information can be found in the preliminary study. Therefore, according to the existing research situation, the author further textual research. Many of the ideas mentioned in this paper are the author's point of view and have not set a precedent. Although it has certain forestabilities, the author's knowledge is shallow and requires more scholars to carry out the reexamination and criticism again. In this paper, the name of the paper is" the right amount of the set and the point of branch ". The content is roughly divided into two parts. The first part discusses the " Summary". The second part discusses the "to make a sense of the branch". The main points of the first part are as follows: the author analyzes the work name of the , and puts forward the views of the two books which are relevant but not the same, and the contents of the theory of "the right amount of the right amount" are analyzed. In this paper, we put forward the theory of the four reasons mentioned in the Chapter 10, namely, the view to be the truth, the principle of action, the truth of the proof, the annotation of the Farr's theory, the interpretation of the historical ancient books such as the "two directories", and the author of the "positive quantity theory" as the author of the "positive quantity theory". But don't admit that the author of the theory of "set-positive quantity" is the point of view that the author of the theory of "set-positive quantity" is the point of view, in which also the study of the school career and the work of the author. The main arguments of the second part are as follows: the "four kinds of reasons" mentioned in the literature is analyzed, and the first appearance of the "four kinds of reasons" in the view of the Buddhist scriptures is put forward; the time limit between the former macro-period and the post-macro period of Buddhism is studied. This paper briefly analyzes the "to make a sense of truth" mentioned in the literature, and makes a comparison and textual research with the is the cause of the Ming and the Qing Dynasty. All the above are the author's own views, and the detailed contents of the above will be detailed in the text, and will be skipped here.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西藏大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：B948
，

本文編號：2495675

suoshi