Vol.63 , No.3(2015)219石田 一裕「仏典は書き換えられるのか？： 『大毘婆沙論』における「有別意趣」の考察を通して」

(188)

Jburnai

_ofincfian

andBucldhist

Studies

Vbl.

63,

No.

3,

March

2015

Were

Buddhist

Texts

Rewritten?

From

the

Viewpoint

of"There

Are

Other

Meanings"

(you

bie:yiqu)

in

the

Mahavibhdsd

IsHiDA

Kazuhiro

1.

The

Aim

of

This

Essay

In

Buddhist

studies we

think

that

Buddhist

texts

were rewritten or revised.

Buddhist

scholars

identified

the

earliest existing

Buddhist

literature.

In

Satras

the

Aethakavagga

and

the

Pardyanavagga

in

the

Sutta-IVipdta

are

the

earliest.

In

vinayas

Hirakawa

Akira

as-sumed

the

_primitive

Pratimoksasatras

based

on

his

rigorous studies. i)

In

Abhidharmas,

ac-cording

to

comparative studies about

Chinese

Buddhist

texts,

we understand

that

the

San-gitiparydya

(Ji

yimen

zulun

fise.

Perede)

and

the

Dharmashanctha

(jFbyun

zulun

2illwtre

th)

are older

than

other

Abhidharma

texts.

According

to

an example of revising a

text

which

Sasaki

Shizuka

_pointed,

the

chapter of

kandhaka

in

the

Mahasampghika

P7naya

was

revised

based

on

the

change of

the

definition

of

Sarpghabheda.

2)

These

studies elucidated

that

there

is

the

earliest

_part

in

Buddhist

texts

and as new

_part

was added

there,

an existing

text

was organized.

It

is

obvious

that

Buddhist

texts

were rewritten or revised.

However

it

is

difTicult

to

explain when a

Buddhist

text

was rewritten or revised, or when

rewriting or reyising a

Buddhist

text

was

finished.

Can

a

Buddhist

text

continue

to

be

re-written or revised?

I

think,

no

it

cannot a

Buddhist

text

stops

to

be

rewritten atsome

_point.

Then

I

would

like

to

exarnine when some

Abhidharma

texts

were

finally

fixed

in

this

essay.

2.

"There

_Are

_Other

_Meanings"

_in

_the

_{Maha'vthha-s.}

We

can

find

the

_passage

"there are other meanings"

(you

bielyigu

aBUPtas)

in

the

MVi.

This

_passage

which appears

29

times

in

the

MVi

is

used

to

defend

the

_passage

maintained

by

the

Vaibh5rpika

against criticism

by

other

_groups

or scholars.

The

Vaibhfisika

uses

this

passage

in

the

MVi

when

the

variant reading ofthe same

_part

is

indicated

by

others.

In

other

words,

that

means there

is

a mistake or room

fbr

interpretation

in

the

Vaibhasika's

reading.

Were

Buddhist

[[lexts

Rewritten?

(K.

IsHiDA)

(189)

used

the

_passage

"there are other meanings"

to

defend

their

traditional

reading.

Exarnple

1

Now

I

show an example ofthis

_passage

as

fo11ows:

Question

1

:

wnat

are

intrinsic

natures

(svabhava)

ofomnipresent

defilements

(sarvatraga-anuSaya)

?

Answer

1

:

There

are eleven

in

the

kama-dhatu,

namely

five

views

(paffca-d;$ti)

_,

doubt

<vicikitsa)

_, and

rance

(avidyE)

in

the

[aenictions]

eradicated

by

insight

into

the

tmth

ofsuffering

heya)

, and mistaken view

(mithya-drsti)

, attachment

to

one's own view

(d;sti-parEmarSa)

,

doubt

and

ignorance

in

the

[afflictions]

eradicated

by

insight

into

the

truth

oferigin ofsuffering

daya-darSana-heya)

.

There

are thesame eleven as

the

k5ma-dh5tu

in

the

r[ipa-dhatu and

the

dhatu.

The

ignorance

in

this

passage

means the one associated with

five

views or

doubt,

and the

distinct

one.

It

is

mentioned

in

the

Abhidharma:prakaraea

that

t`In

ninety-eight

defilements,

three

are emnipresent, and sixty-five are non-ornnipresent."

Question

2:

In

ignorance

in

the

[arnictions]

eradi¢ated

by

insight

into

thetruthoforigin ofsuffering,

[there

are

two

types

of

ignorance,]

one

is

omnipresent, the other

is

non-omnipresent.

wny

is

it

mentioned

in

the

Abhictharma-prakarapa

that

"thirty-three

are omnipresent, and sixty-five are non-omnipresent"?

Answer

2:

The

western

Venerable

recites as

fbllows:

"In ninety-eight

defilements,

twenty-seven are

ent, sixty-five are non-orrmipresent, and six are

inferable.

There

are omnipresent or

ent

in

the

igriorance

in

the

[aMictions]

eradicated

by

insight

into

the

truth

of origin of suffering.

What

is

the omnipresent?

It

is

_the

ignorance

_that

is

_{not associated with non-onmipresent}

in

_the

[a"

fiictions]

eradicated

by

insight

into

the

truth

oforigin ofsufiering.

What

is

the

non-omnipresent?

lt

is

the

ignorance

that

is

associated with non-omnipresent

in

the

[aMictions]

eradicated

by

insight

into

the

truth

oforigjnofsuffering."

[[Ihis

passage

[ofthe

westem

M:nerable]

is

correct

in

meaning.

_.

_.

_.

wny

do

not

the

scholars

in

Kashmir

recite this

_passage?

3)

We

should recite this

_passage.

However,

we

do

not

do

it

because

thereare other meanings.

"There are other meanings"

in

this

_passage

means

the

_{reason why}

Kashmiri

_scholars

do

not recite

the

same

_passage

as

the

western

Venerable.

Kashmiri

scholars understand

that

their

_passage

about onmipresent

defilements,

especially

the

igriorance,

is

not correct.

More-over

they

recognize

that

the

_passage

recited

by

the

western

Venerable

is

more

understand-able

than

theirs.

However,

they

do

not correct

their

_passage

because

there

are other

mean-ings.

After

this

_passage,

Kashmiri

scholars enumerate

their

reasons why

they

do

not recite

like

the

western

Venerable.

Here

the

_passage

"there

Kash-(190)

Were

Buddhist

Ibxts

Rewritten?

(K,

lsHiDA)

miri scholars

did

not rewrite

their

texts

though

they

knew

the

correct

_passage.

The

AP

(X)

and

the

AP(G),

two

Chinese

versions of

the

Abhictharma-prakararpa,

read

the

same

pas-sage as

the

western

Venerable.4)

We

should not

think

that

the

Sanskrit

original

text

of

the

AP

_(X)

and

the

AP

(G)

was revised

by

Kashmiri

scholars

because

they

accept

their

mistake

about

the

_passage.

In

the

MVi,

they

stated

that

"We

[Kashmiri

scholars] should recite

the

passage

ofthe western

Venerable.

However,

we

do

not

do

it

because

there

are other

mean-ings:'

According

to

this

_passage,

they

absolutely

did

not change

their

_passage.

Actually,

the

Abhidharma-avatdira

and

the

A5,dya-anusara

defined

the

number ofomnipresent

defile-ments as

thirty-three.

5)

Moreover,

in

the

Ny,

the

theory

which

defined

onmipresent

defile-ments as

twenty-seven

was criticized.

The

theory

of

Kashmiri

scholars was certainly

handed

down

to

_posterity.

This

is

evidence

that

the

_passage

"thirty-three

are omnipresent,

and

sixty-five

are non-omnipresenV' was not revised.

We

can understand that there are

two

_passages

or understandings about omnipresent

defilements

from

the

_period

of

the

MVi.

Not

being

rewritten,

two

passages

existed

together.

Example

2

Next

I

shall examine another example

in

relation

to

the

abandonment of

defilements.

Question

1:

Is

the

abandonment ofbonds

(samyojana)

in

the

_path

ofimmediate succession

(anantaryamatga)

or

in

the

_path

of

liberation

(vimuktimarga)

?

Answer

1:

Why

do

you

askus?

Question

2:

It

is

because

both

answers

have

amistake.

If

there

is

the abandonment of

bonds

in

the

_path

of

immediate

succession,

is

the

_passage

in

this

[Bond]

chapter

[ofthe

.lfianaprasthana,]

"there

are

bonds

eradicated

by

cognition

(jfiEna)

ofthe

realityofsufftiringor

by

subsequent cognition

(anvayajfiana)

of the

_path"6)

consistent with

this

answer?

Iftherc

is

the

abandonment ofbonds

in

the

_path

of

liberation,

is

the

_passage

jn

the

Wisdom

chapter

[ofthe

JfiP]

"it

_is

_bonds

eradicated

by

insight

into

the

truthof suffering

that

are not eradicated

by

cognition ofsuffering or are eradicated

by

acceptance

(ksanti)

ofsuffering.

Or

bonds

eradicated

by

insight

into

the

tmth

of

the

_path

thatare not eradicated

by

cognition of

the

_path,

or areeradicated

by

acceptance ofthe

_path"

7) consistent with

this

answer?

Answer2:

There

should

be

an answer as

fbllows:

there

is

only

the

abandonment ofbonds

in

the

path

Were

Buddhist

tcxts

Rewritten?

(K.

IsHiDA)

(191)

Question

3:

Ybur

answer

is

consistent with _the

_passage

in

the

Wlsdom

chapter. However,

how

can

it

be

tentwith

the

_passagc

in

this

[Bond]

chapter?

Answer

3:

This

passage

should

be

written as

fo11ows:

"there are nine

divisions

ofbond, namely

the

[bond]

eradicated

by

acceptance ofcognition of

the

reality of suffering or

by

aceeptance ofcognition of

the

path."

However,

it

is

not rewritten so,

because

thereare other meanings. 8)

From

this

discussion,

we can understand

that

there

is

no consistency

between

one

pas-sage

in

the

Bond

chapter

(sarpyojanaskkanda)

and

the

ether

in

the

Wisdom

chapter

(Prajfi5-skkanda) .

The

passage

in

the

Bond

chapter states

that

bonds

are eradicated

by

cognition.

The

_passage

in

the

Wisdom

chapter states

that

bonds

are eradicated

by

acceptance.

The

lat-ter

is

right

based

on

the

theory

of

the

SarvEstivEdin.

Therefbre

the

former

_passage

in

the

JfiP

_quoted

in

the

MVi

should

be

corrected, and

then

the

MVi

_proposes

an alternative

pas-sage which

is

more appropriate

than

that

_passage.

･

Orginal

passage

[There

are nine

divisions

ofbond, namely]

bonds

eradicated

by

cognition ofthe

ity

ofsuffering or

by

subsequent cognition of

the

_path.

･

Alternative

passage

[There

are nine

divisions

ofbond, namely]

the

bond

eradicated

by

acceptance of

nition ofthe reality ef suffering or

by

acceptance ofcognition ofthe

_path.

However,

the

above alternative

_passage

was not adopted

because

"there are other

mean-ings."

After

this

_passage

some reasons why

the

_passage

in

the

Bond

chapter

is

corrected

appears with exarnples.

That

means compilers of

the

MVi

did

not rewrite

the

_passage,

un-derstanding

an error ofthis

_passage.

3.

The

Text

Was

Not

Rewritten

I

examined

two

examples

in

the

MVi.

The

first

is

a

discussion

about omnipresent

defile-ments.

The

second

is

a

discussion

about

an

abandonment

ofbonds.

In

the

first

discussion,

two

passages

about omnipresent

defilements

which were

_queted

from

the

Abhidharma7prakara4a

do

not agree.

One

_passage

is

_quoted

fi:om

the

Abhidharma-prakara4a

recited

by

Kashmiri

scholars;

the

other

is

recited

by

the

western

Venerable.

Kashmiri

scholars evaluated

the

_passage

ofthe western

Venerable

because

that

_passage

has

(192)

Were

Buddliist

fexts

Rewritten?

(K.

IsHiDA)

that

_because

"there

are other meanings."

This

_passage

"there are other meanings"

is

not

only an excuse

that

they

do

not opt

fbr

more appropriate

_passage,

but

also statement

that

they

keep

their

traditional

reading.

I

_presurne

that

Kashmiri

scholars could not change their

passage

because

they

think

tradition

is

more

important

than

logic.

Their

tradition

made

in

the

history

of

the

Sarvastivadin

in

Kashmir

is

the

way

how

to

recite or understand

their

scriptures.

Because

they

were

in

that

tradition,

they

were

Kashmiri

scholars.

Therefbre

they

could not change their

_passage

even

if

it

is

not

logical.

As

an altemative

to

correcting

their

_passage,

they

developed

to

interpret

unclear or

incorrect

_passage

as correct meaning.

As

a result,

in

the

AA

and

the

Ny,

the number of omnipresent

defilements

is

thirty-three

though

it

should

be

logically

twenty-seven.

On

the

other

hand,

the

_passage

"twenty-seven

are omnipresent, sixty-five are non-omnipresent, and six are

inferable"

exists

in

the

AP

(X)

and

the

AP(G).

This

is

evidence

that

two

existing

Chinese

versions of

the

AbhicViarma-prakararpa

are related

to

the

western

Venerable.

Probably,

as

the

western

Venerable

means

the

Gandhara

scholars,

the

original

Sanskrit

text

ofthe

AP

(X)

and

the

AP

(G)

was retained

there.

That

means at

least

there

are

two

types

ofthe

Abhiciharma-prakara4a

in

India.

9)

In

the

second

discussion,

it

is

ascertained

that

the

_passage

in

the

Bond

chapter ofthe

JfiP

is

incorrect.

Thus

alternative correct

_passage

is

_proposed

in

the

MVi,

but

even so

that

pas-sage

is

not chosen

because

"there

are other meanings."

This

is

an

interesting

matter so

that

it

shows

the

JfiP

was compiled

including

incorrect

_passage.

We

can

think

that

Buddhist

texts

are not always accurate, and an

incorrect

_part

in

the

Buddhist

text

has

been

main-tained

for

a

long

time

without modification.

Actually,

Kashmiri

scholars

did

not

_put

their

incorrect

_passage

in

the

JfiP

retained

by

them

to

rights.

They

chose

to

maintain

that

_passage

rather

than

to

correct

it.

4.

Conclusion

I

examined

the

_passage

"there are other meanings"

in

the

MVi.

According

to

this

exami-nation, we can

understand

an attitude made

in

their

history

and a

treatment

of

their

texts.

The

attitude of

Kashmiri

scholars

is

that

they

interpreted

an

incorrect

_part

in

their

texts

as

correct

because

that

part

had

"another meaning."

However,

a

discoverer

of

that

meaning

is

none other

than

the

Kasimiri

scholars.

They

maintain

their

_passage

to

be

correct with

their

interpretation

when

they

understood

the

_passage

is

inapt.

Therefbre

their

texts

are not re-written.

An

incorrect

part

in

their

texts

is

retained.

Were

　

Buddhist

　

Texts

　

Rewritten

？

_（

K ．

　

IsHIDA

）

（

193

）

　　

The

　

treatment

　of　

their

　

texts

　

is

　

the

　

preservation

　of　

their

　traditional　reading 　

in

　which 　

there

is

　an　

incorrect

　

part

．

　

The

　

Kashmiri

　scholars 　created 　

the

　

interpretation

　

to

　

preserve

　

their

　read

−

ings

．

1

陀xts　

fixed

　as　scriptures　could 　not　

be

　rewritten 　

in

　

the

　

Sarvastivadin

．

　

Hence

_，　we 　can

find

　

two

　versions 　of　

the

　same 　

text

_，　namely 　the ．

4bhidhar

〃2a

−

praka

厂α_嬋 of　

the

　

Kashmir

　and

the

　

Gandhara

，　

in

　

the

　

MVi

．

　

In

　other　words ，　

the

　

MVi

　

defined

　

tWo

　versions 　of　

the

　

Abhidharma

−

prakara4a

　as　scripture

．

　

Examining

　existing 　

Sarv

巨stiv互

din

　

texts

　

in

　order 　

to

　understa 皿

d

　

the

history

　of　

their

　

texts

_，　we 　can 　

presume

　

that

　

the

　

MVi

　

defined

　some 　

texts．

　

The

　

MVi

　as　com

−

mentary 　made 　

the

　

history

　ofSarv 互stiv盃

din

　

texts

　which 　were 　

impossible

　

to

　

be

　rewritten

．

）

）

）

）

）

＞

1234FD

ハ 0are

　

bonds

　eradicated 　

by

　cognition 　ofthe 　reality　of 　suffering 　or　

by

　cultjvation

．

7

）

Jfip

，　

P．

963b

．

8

）MVi

，　

p．333c．

g

）

Cf

．

　

lshida

［

2009 ］．

Hirakawa

［

1999］．

Sasaki

［

2000 ］．

MVi ，

　

P

．

91

レ c

．

AP

_（

X

_）

_，

_p．

702c

；

AP （

G

）

，

p

．

637c

．

AA

，　

p．

9830

；

Ny

，　

p．

611a

．

JfiP

，　

p．940c．

　

This

　

passage

　

is

　the　abridged 　

quotation

丘om 　the　

J

煮

P．

　

The

　original 　

passage

　

is

ら6there

　　　　　　，

，

＜

Abbreviations

＞

AAAP

（

G

）

AP （

X ）

 

W

恥

Abhidharm

δvatbra

，

　

Ru

　a_ρ

idamo

　

lun

入 阿

毘 達磨 論 ．

艶

isho

　no

．

1554

，　vel

．

28

．

Abhidharma −

_prakara4a

　translated　

by

　

Gupabhadra

　with 　Bodhiya 忌a_，　Zhongshifen 　apiian 　

lun

衆

事

分

阿 毘

曇論 Taisho

　no

_．

1541

_，

vol

_．

26

_．

Abhidharma 一

ρrakarana 　translated　

by

　

Xuanzang 玄

奘

，1

）

inlei

　zulun

_{品類 足 論．}

　

Taisho

　_ne

．

1542

，vol

．

26

．

Jfianaprasthbna

，　

Fazhi

・

lun 發

智

論．



Taisho

・_no

．

1544

，　vol

．

26．

MahavibhaSa

，　

Da

　

piposha

　

lun

大毘 婆沙 論．

　

Taisho

・_no

．

1545

_，

_vol

．

27

．

Nydya

−

anusara

_，

　

Shun

　zhengli 　

tun

　）

1

］頁正 理 論

．

　

Taisho

　no

．

1562

，

　vol

．

29

．

〈

Bibliography

_＞

Hirakawa

　

Akira 平 川彰．1999．

　

Ritsuz

δ　no　

kenkyfi

律蔵

の

研

究

1．

　

Hirakawa

・

Akira

・chosakushn

平川 彰

　　

著作 集 9。

Tokyo

：

Shunjasha

．

Ishida

　

Kazuhiro

_{石 田}

一

裕 ．

2009 ．“‘

Honmiron ’

to　saih6 　shoshi

”

_〈

_{品 類 論}

_〉

と西 方 諸 師 ［

The

　_relation

　　

betWeen

　

Abhidharma

　

prakarai

　a　and　

Gandhfira

］

．

Sankj

　

Bunka

　

KenkyilJ

’

o　nen _ρδ三

康 文化研 究所

　　年

報

［

Annual

・ofthe ・

Sanko

・

Research

・

lnstitute

・

for

・

the

・

Studies

・_ofBuddhism

］40

_：

171

−

209

．

（

194

）

Were 　Buddhist 　Texts　Rewritten _？

（

K

．

IsHIDA

）

　

教 変移 論

：なぜ

仏 教

は

多 様化

したの か

．

Tokyo 二

Daiz6

　

Shuppall

．

〈

Key

　words

_＞



Abhidharma ，

　

Mah

∂vibhdS 凌

_，

　

prakarapa，

　

Jfianaprastha

−

na _，　

Gandhara

　　　

（

Research

　

Feliow，

　the　

Institute

　

for

　

Comprehensive

　

Studies

　ofBuddhism ，　

Taisho

　

University

）

New

　

Publication

Saito

　

Akira

（

_ed

．

）

　　　　　　

Buddhism

　

_and

　

Debate

_：

　　　　　　　

The

　

Development

　

of

　

Mah

互

y

盃

na

　

Buddhism

and

　

lts

　

Background

　

in

　

Terms

　

of

　

Religio

−

Philosophical

　

History

　　　　　　　（

Acta

　

Asiatica

　

lO8

）

18

．

2

×

25

．

7cm

，　v ＋

99

　

pp

．

，￥

4

，

300