Vol.63 , No.3(2015)211池端 惟人「Madhva派の仏教理解 ： Brahmasutra 2.2.18-32に対するMadhvaとJayatirthaの言明について」

(136)

.lburnal

_ofIhdian

andBucidhist StudiesNbl.63,No.

3,

March

2015

The

Madhva

School's

Understandings

ofBuddhism:

On

the

Statements

ofMadhva and

Jayatirtha

on

BrahmastitTa

2.2.18-32

IKEHMA

Koreto

1.

Introduction

The

tr:edZintaschool's most authoritative work, Brahmastitra,

devotes

thesecend _quarter

(pOdo)

of the second chapter

(addydya)

tocriticism against other schools'

doctrines.

In

themiddle ofthat,sfitras 18-32 criticize theBuddhist

doctrine.

It

has

been

already _pointed out that

Ramanaja

(1017-1137)

interpreted

this

part

inappropriately.i)

The Bhasya of

Madhva

(1238-1317)

and itssub-commentary, 7"tittvuprakdSikiiQfJayatirtha

(1365-88),2)

also

include

similar misinterpretations of Buddhistconcepts and terminology. rlbwhat

ex-tent

do

theyunderstand Buddhism? 'Ib

see intothisissue,the

_present

author re-examines

the statements of Madhva and

Jayatirtha

concerning Buddhism, which are normally

3)

garded

in

thepreviousscholarship.

2.

0n

lhibha-srka

and

Sautra-nttha

.

Among these 15sditras

(hereinafter

s.),4) Madhva devotesthe

first

eight

(s.

18-25) to criticism toward

Vdibha-s.

ika

and

Sautrdntiha.

UnlikeR5m5ntija's

stibhtisya,

S)

Jayatirtha

rightly enumerates

five

aggregates

(pafica-skand];a)

which are

in

the

basis

of Vdibhdsiha 6)

analysis.

On

the

contrary, Madhva and Jayatirthaapparently

have

no

idea

aboutpratyayas as

"co-operating causes," which are so _popular

in

Buddhists'texts.While three _previous

com-mentaries correctly

introduce

thetheory oftwelve nidtinas 7) and

four

kindsofpratyayas, 8)

allthese are not

fbund

in

thestatesment of Madhva and Jayatirtha.Butit

is

noteworthy that

Madhva

_paraphrases

itaretarapratyaya

(the

opponent's

_part

of s.

19)

as

paraspard-peksa.9)

The argument shown there corresponds to an opponent's opinion presented

in

_Sthiramati's

_7}'im.

_{SikiivijnNcuJtibhjisya.}

10)

Unfamiliarityof

Madhva

and

Jayatirtha

with

Buddhists'

theory

is

evidenced

in

the

-The Madhva School'sUnderstandingsofBuddhism

(K.

IKEHM)dL)

(137)

mentary en s.22-24 that

deal

with threeasamskrta-ctharmas. Their

definition

ofpratisamp-khya-nirodha

and _{apratisamkhyd-nirodha}

(presented

in

s.

22)

iD

is

far

different

from

that

fbund

inBuddhisttexts.i2) But this nearly corresponds to

Rarnatitija's

definition

and can

be

traced

back,

at

least,

to Bh5skara's.i3)Therefore,thistendency to misunderstand the

two nirodhas

is

not specific to

P"Ziis,

_nava

Vledanta.

Madhva and Jayatirtha

do

not

have

any

knowledge

of akdsa

(read

in

s.24)

beyond

bha-Sa as one ofthe

five

mahbbhtitas. i4) But,as

Jayatirtha

narrates an opponent's opinion,

he

quotesthefbllowinginference:yatsat tat

ksarpikam

dipavatfsantaS

cami

bhdvah

ff

(TP,

_p.

97,

1.2).Thisisvery _popular

in

Buddhist

texts,especially

in

the

works of 15>

vtidin,tirthawhereas

it

does

not appear

in

the

_previous

commentaries of BS. InAddition,

Jaya-presentsanether inferencei6)

(comm.

on s. 23i7)), which

has

"efficacy"

(arthakrlya-karitva)

as

its

reason.i8)

This

is

so

familiar

in

the argument of

Buddhists

over the

momentariness

(ksazeihatva).

i9) Interms ofthis, Jayatirtha_gives more

detailed

explana-tionthanthe_previouscommentaries. 2e)

3.

0n

Su'",ryavdda

t r

InMadhva's Bhdtlya,next comes a criticism of

Siiayavadin

(s.

26-29).

Though

Sfiaya-vlida was treatedlightlyinthe Ulgddnta school, 2i)

Madhva

and

its

fo11owers

boldly

consider

Sijayavada

important

as to

devote

to

it

a separate section

(adizikara4a)

_.22)

wnat

is

stranger

is

thiscitation ofptirvapaksa: atah

siaaydd

evaJ'qgad-uclaya-sampbhavad _and Stiayadeva

1'agaauipatldu

ko dosa iti.23) The actual theory of

Einayavbda,

namely, Mtedhyamiha

cer-tainly

does

not state

that

the

world is

_produced

from emptiness. 24) But

Sankara's

fbllowing

statement _provides a _good clue as tothis_pfirvapaksa:2S)

dunlyanti

cabhavad

bhdvoipattim

-"nanupamrdya _{pradurbhavdt" iti.26)Here}

Sankara

_quotes

_A57dyastitra

_{4.1.4,27) which}

argues the _{productionof an effect after}

destruction

of a cause, and attributes

it

to

Bud-dhists,

especially

Siittyavddo.

28)

Therefbre,

Jayatirtha's

statement

is

not totally unrelated to

Buddhism.29)

4.

0n

Pijfia-namdtra"stitvavdda

The

next and

last

_part

ofthis section

(s.

3o-31)3D)

is

devoted

toarefutation to Ybgacara,

also

known

as

VZihanamatritstitvavddin.

Here

Madhva

and Jayatirthaneither mention the

(138)

The Madhva Schoel'sUnderstandingsofBuddhism

(K.

IKEHrm)

Vijfianavada.But Jayatirtha_quotestwo inferencesof opponents:

(1)

sahopatambha-nlyamdd abhedb nila-tad-dhiyok and

(2)

_yatprakdsate tadvijn-anarp _{yathaj-nA"anam}

/

prakaSanteca nitadaya iti....33)

The

fbrmer

isvery common inP'ijfidnavadatextssuch asDharmakirti's34)and _already referred toinseveral textsof Vbddintaschools.3S) But

Jaya-tirtha

is

the

first

among thecommentators of

BS

tocite the

latter

inferencethatsets

fbrth

luminosity

(praknSamanatva)

as

its

reason, the original

fbrrnula

ofwhich

is

traced

back

to 36)

the_postulationsofSdkdravijnnyoptivadins.

5.

Conclusion

As explained above, reading Madhva and Jayatirtha'scommentary on BS 2.2.18-32,we can observe two

important

_points:one isthe insufficientexplanation of Buddhists'

theo-ries, and theother

is

theoriginal citations of

Buddhist

statements.

Concerning

the latter, Jayatirthacertainly had knowledge of such texts as 77im.siikavijneaptibhasyaand several works ofJfianaSrlmitra.

He

was also acquainted with Buddhistinferenceswhich the

previ-ous commentaries

did

not refer to.

On

account of this,we can say thatMadhva School

seems to

have

had

direct

access to thetexts of Buddhistseven inthe _periodof

decline

of

Buddhism

in

India.

As

fbr

the

first

_point,seeing that

Jayatirtha

knows

assertions of Buddhistschools atany rate,37) itisnot

due

toignorancebutwith the specific

intention.

The

purpose

of criticism

against other systems istonegate theirviews abeut thecause of theworld and toestablish

Visrpu

asthe only creator. 38) Concentratingon

this,

Madhva and Jayatirthaappear toomit

minute

details

unrelated tothiscontext. Therefore,this

has

nothing to

do

with the

estrange-ment

from

Buddhism.

1

₎

CL Nakamura Hajime PFNJii, Burojitma-stitorano tetsugaku 7"i77y'X' F 7 CDpt\,

ShokiVedantatetsugakushi

ipJma

ij

= - fY'-tz

S

ptil}!:

!a2,vol. 2

([[bkyo:

IwanamiShoten,1951), p. 389,_p.392.

2

)

AboutthedateofMadhva and Jayatirtha,see B.N.K.ShaTma,Hlstory

of"the

DvaiiaStrheol

of

P?da-ntaandlts Literatune,rev.

(Delhi:

MotilalBanarsidass,2000;originally _publishedinl961) ,pp.

77-83,_pp.245-249.

3) C£ Nakamura

[1951],

_p.108and V. S.Ghate,llheP'leda-nta

(Poona:

Bhandarkar Oriental

Re-search Institute,1926),_p.170.

4

₎

Inthisarticle,thenumbering ofeach sijtra isaccording tothatofMBh.

5

)

R5mahuialacksthe notion ofpafica-skandiia. CflRBh, p.484,11.13-16.

-TheMadhva School'sUnderstandingsofBuddhism

(K,

IKEHAiA)

(139)

6)

CE TP,_p.90,11.1-2

(ad

s,18)and _p.97,11.9-10

(ad

s.24).

t

7)

CflSBh,_p.456,11.1-2;BhBh,_p.117,1.28-p. 118,1.6;RBh, _p.485,IL12-18.

8)

diambana7pratyqya, samanantara-p., adhipatiip., and sahakari-ip.

C

£ Bhamati

(see

SBh),

_p.

457,IL9-11;BhBh, _p.120,11.16-20;RBh, _p.487,11.2-3. Abhi`VtarmakoSacounts hettt7pratyayain

placeofsahakliri:p.

(CtAbidharmakoSa

2.61-62andAKBh, _pp.98-1OO). '

9

)

What matters there isthatan aggregate of atoms

(paramduu)

isrecognized by means _of their

mutual comiection

(parasparjipeksd)

.C£ MBh, _p.91,1.15;TP,_p.91,11.22-23.

10)

C£ Hartmut Buescher,Sthiramatis'Tirim.Sikavijn-"aptibhdsya

(Wien:

Verlagder

Osterreichischen

Akademie derWissenachaften,2007), p.44,ll.9ff:

ll)

MBh, _p.95,1.3:nissantanah sasantinaS ca vindso na _yt{b?ate1andTP,p.95,11.7-8:samtdnam

antarerpa _{yahprati-ksa4arp}vinli"ak _yaSea sarptdnena saha

ksa4iha-mate

tayor anupapattih. !.

12) CC AKBh, _p.3,L24-p.4,1.15.

13) RBh, _p.487,1.12in:

_{ksanihatva-vadibhir}

muagart-zbhigha'ta'dy-anantara-bha"vitayopalab`thi:yo-gyae satij:S'a-saptthna-vasa-na-rmpak sthu'lo _yaijsaiij:S"a-saptthneprati-ksagea-bha-vi-

copatabcVipt"nar-hae stiksmas' ca _yoniranvayo vina's'alt_{pratisaptk]ryiipratisampkhya-nirodha-siabdabhyam}abhidhtyate /;

BhBh,_p.120,11.25-26:bhbva-hetukovindsiae _{pratisamkhya-nirodha}ityuqyate fsfiksmah svabhaviko 'nimittako

vindso 'pratisamklrya-nirodhah L

14)C£ TP,_p.97,11.6-7.

15)E.g.,JfidriaSrimitra's

_{dsa4abhahgadhydya,}

JNA, _p.1,1.8;Ratnakirti,Kisarpabhafigasiddhi, An-vayatmika, RNA, p.62,1.6,etc.

16)Jayatirtha,however,doesnot consider thisanumdna butarthopatti. Ct TP,_p.96,1.13.

17)Here, Madhva _questionsthe agreement thatan effect exists

(only)

when a cause isexisting

(kdrane

satikaryambhavati)

(cE

MBh, _p.96,11.6-7and TP, _p.96,1.14ff:).Thisseems cormeeted

toYaSomitra'sstatements. C_£ UnraiWogihara,ed.,

Sphusbrthke

AbhidharmakoSaioiakhya

bj]

Yicisiomitra,

pt.1

([Ibkyo:

The PublishingAssociationofAbhidharrnakoSavyEkhyfi, 1932-1936), _p.169,1.25,_p.

190,IL32-33.

18)

TP,_p.96,l.9ff:tathopi na satam bhavdnam

ksanikata

Sakyanis.ecldhum Xarthakrtyd-ktiritvam

khalusattvarp nama !na ca tatksauikatamantareuopapannam !_yaclyddya-klra4e_{ghatoghagantaram} uipa-dya na svayapt nalyati tadtr_{ghatdntaram api}tathetyananta-harJ,iipattih. / ato

'rtha-kTtya-haritva-sattva-siddhyai ks,a4ikotvam estavyapt bhavanamity...1.

19)E.g.,Pramanavinis'cayaII276b3-278b3

(Peking);

Hatubindu

_(Ernst

Steinkellner,ed.,

Dharvna-kirti's

lletubinduk,[IeilI

[Wien:

H.B6hlaus,Kommissionsverlag derOsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften,1967]),b.2,_p.67,11.11-13; Hetubindu(ika

(Pandit

SukhlaljiSanghaviand Muni

ShriJinavljayaji,eds., HetubindutikO

ofBha(Fa

Arca(a: FV7ththe Sub-commentary EittitledAloka

of

Durveka Misira,GOS, no. 113

[Baroda:

OrientalInstitute,1949]

),

_p.44,11.19-23.

'

20) C£ Ratnaprabhaio,akhya

(see

SBh),p.458,1.10-p.459,1.2;Bhamati,_p.458,1.7;BhBh, _p.

118,11.24-25

(This

_parallelsthestatement ofHetubindu above.) _;RBh, _p.490,11.4-6.

21) Both

Safikara

and Bhaskara

just

treat

Silayavddin

so lightly

(respectively

ad s. 31 and s. 28).

(140)

The Madhva School'sUnderstandingsofBuddhism

(K.

IKiiHAiA)

22) Three _previouscommentaries devidethissection criticizing Buddhistsintotwo _parts,namely a

refutation tosarvdstitva-vddin or baltydrthjistitva-vddin

(on

s. _18-27) and to vijn-'aptimatra-vddin

(on

s.28-31). OnlyMadhva considers thisconstituted ofthree parts. 23) TP,p.99,1.10

(ad

s.26) and TP,_p.100,l.24

(ad

s.27).

24) Ct).n4illamatthyamakakarika

_(J.

W. deJong,ALIigaijunaif-lamadbyamakakariktlk

[Madras:

The AdyarLibraryand ResearchCentre,1977])21.12ab:na bhfivZij'j'dyatehhavo bhavo 'bhavan

najay- ate 1.

25)

Another_possibiresource ofthis statement isseveral _passagesinUpani$ads,e.g.,endndogya 6.2.1:

tad cthaika ahur asad evedam agra tzsidekam evddvitiyam 1tasmad asatah scy-y'ay-ata f;

S'atapatha-brahmaua6.1.1.1:asad vb idom_agradsit1;7keittir-rya2.7:casad va idom agra dsittatovd sad

ojay-

ata

L

Butthis_possibilityisdeniedbyJayatirthahimselfiC£ TP,p.99,11.19-20.

26)

SBh,

_p.455,L 7.

27) CC IN_},dyastitra4.1.4:abhdvad bhavoipattirnanupamrdyapradurbhavat 1.

28)

The edition oflY),dyabhbsya names thissection includingthisas

"Sijayatopkedena-nirakara4a-prahara"a."C£ WalterRuben,DieIYydyasatra's: fext,Clber;selaung,Erlcfuteruugund Glossar

(Leipzig:

DeutscheMorgenlandischeGesellschaft,1928),_p.1Ol,_p.211,n. 248.Also cfi Gau4crpadubhasyaad

Sampkhyakarikb9

(Horace

Hayman Wilson, 77ieSa-nkhyaKdrikd

_by

tswara

Krishna

[Bombay:

Tookaram Tatya, 1887]);Sarvadapt"anasamgraha

_(Vasudev

ShastriAbhyankar,

Sarva-darsiana-samgraha, 3rded.

[Poona:

BhandarkarOrientalResearchlnstitute,1978]) XIV 1.53.

29) The remaining _part,namely s._28-29, seems coneerned with vivarta- or adltydsavlida

(cfi

TP, _p.

1O1,11.13-l4). Itindicatesthe intimaeybetweenifadeyamikas and earlyAcb7aitins.

30)

The laststitra s.32isjusta closing statement. CflMBh, _p.104,1.15.

31)

Cfl

SBh,

_p.477,IL6-9;BhBh,p.125,1.2

(ad

s.30)and RBh, _p.493,11.3-8

(ad

s.27).

32) This example isstated ins.29,butMadhva takesthisstitraas a _partofa criticism against

Sbaya-va-do.33)

(1)

TP,p.103,ll.6-8,and

(2)

TP,_p.103,IL8-11.

34) Thisissaid tobea _passage of Prama4avinis'caya.Also c£ 71attvasarpgrahapaiij'ika

(Swami

Dwarikadas

Sastri,

7bttvasapagraha

_ofA-cdiya

Shdntaraksitawith the commentanyy `Pai!i'ikb'

ofShri

Kamalashila, 2 vols.

[Vhranasi:

Bauddha Bharati,_{1968]) ad} k._{2068, p.705;} Jfi5nagrimitra's

SZiharasamgrahastitra161,JNA,p.569,11.2-3;Ratnakirti'sCitrddvaitapraktisiavddo,RNA, p.122, IL14-16.

35)

Cfi

SBh

(ad

s.28),_p.472,IL3-4;BhBh

(ad

s.28),p.124,IL3-6;RBh

(ad

s.28),p.494,IL 7-9.36)

Ct JnanaSm'mitra'sAdvaitabinduprakara4a,JNA, p.358,ll.11-12;Ratnakirti's Citradvaita-prakdsavada,RNA, p.122, 1.19.

r

37)

On VZiibhasika,c£ TP,_p.90,11.1-5.0n Sii,ryavadn,c£ TP,_p.99,ll.7-9.0n Vijfianavddo,c£

TP,_p.102,1.26-p. 103,l,2.The seeond statement impliesthe

difference

between samvrti-sat and

panamartha-sat, which is stated inKamalagila'sMadhyamahaiola ad v. 64,etc.

38) C[ TP

_(ad

s. _1g),p. 89,11.25-26:iSvarasyajagat-hara4atvameva vis._ayah !;TP

(ad

s.26),p.

99,1.16:_{paramegvarasyaJ'agat-kZira4atvam} vis. ayah1;TP

(ad

s.30),_p.102,11.24-25:

-TheMadhva School'sUnderstandingsof Buddhism

(K,

IKEHrvrA)

(141)

karaeatvameva vis._ayaeL

<Abbreviations>

AKBh BhBh BSJNA MBh RBh RNA

SBh

TP

AbhidharmakoSabhasyaofVasubandhu. P.Pradhan,ed. Abhidharm-Koshabhdsya

[sic]

_qf

PZisubancthu.TibetanSanskritWorks Series,vol. VIII.Patna:K,P.JayaswalResearch

Insti-tute,1967.

i

-SarirakamimimsabhdsyaofBh5skara. VindhyeSvariPrasadaDvivedin,ed. Brahmasfitra

with a Commenta,:y

by

Bhaskaracharya. Chawkhamba SanskritSeries,nos. 70,185,209.

Benares:Chowkhamba SanskritBook-Depot, 1915. BrahmasatraofBadarayarpa.

Jfi5naSrimitra'sIVibandha-vati.AnantalalThakur,ed. ManaSrimitra-nibandhavali:Buddhist

PhilosophicalPVbrko

ofJi{anaSrimitra.

Patna:KashiPrasadJayaswalResearchInstitute, 1959.Brahmasfitrabhasya

ef Madhya.RaghavendraSwamirayacharyaPanchamukhi, ed. Brahma

sutra bhashya

pfSri

Ma`llivachaiyaruaththe CbmmentaTJ,7btva:prak[xsika

ofSri

.layatirtha

and a Gloss71heneonBhavadipa

ofSri

Raghavendratirtha.Karnataka HistoricalResearch

Society,vol. 2.Dharwad:RaghavendraTimhaPratishthana,1980-1981.

t r

S7ibhdsyaof RamEnoja.VasudevShastriAbhyankar,ed. STi-bhtisJtya

by

Rtzmanig'a-cha,:ya.

Vbl.1.Bombay Sanskritand PrakritSeries,no. 68.Bembay: Government CentralPress,

1914.Ratnakirti's

IVibandhavali.AnantalalThakur,ed. Ratnantrti-nibandhdvali:BucidhistACyltya

PVbrks

_{ofRatnakirti.}

Patna:KashiPrasadJayaswalResearchlnstitute,1957.

r I

SZirirakamimapasdbhaelyaof Sankara.J.L.Shastri,ed. Brahmasfitra-Sathharabhasyam,with the Cbmmentary.'BhEi4yyaratnaprabha-

ofGovindaLnanda,

Bhinzati

of

Vacaspatimisira,

?Y),dya-nir4aya

ofAnandogiri.

Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass,1980.

ThrttvaprahaSikiiofJayatirtha. SeeMBh.

<Key

words>7edanta, Dvaita,Madhva,Jayatinha,Buddhism, asamskrta, vltsand,

Stinyavdcla