日本西蔵学会々報 (56) 007KUMAGAI Seiji「The Two Truths Theory of the Bonpo Me stop Shes rab 'od zer (1058-1132 or 1118-1192) ： A Comparative Study」

The

Two

Truths

Theory

of

the

Bonpo

Me

ston

Shes

rab

'od

zer

(1058--1132

or

1118-1192)

A

_CoJnparative

Study

Seiji

KUMAGAI

oIntroduction

In

Tibetan Buddhism, thetitle

dBu

ma

bden

_gnyisrefers toeither theSac)udva)uvibhartga

(SDV)

of

Jfidnagarbha

_(8'h

cen.) or

its

autecemmentar}4 theStxpmdvaytvibhangavrtti

_(SDVV).

Concerning

theBon religion, modern studies have regarded thetitleclBu ma bden

_gnyis

as referring totwo treatisesas

fo11ows:

(1)

dBu

ma

bden

_gnyis

kyi

_gzhung

(bDen

_gnyis)byMe ston Shesrab 'od

zer

(also

known as Yarme

Shesrab 'od

zeg 1058-1132or 1118-1192).

(2)

77iagpa ahen po'idbu ma bdengnyis

kyi

'grel

ba

(bDen

gayis'grd ba)

by

mNyam med Shesrab

rgyal

mtshan

(1356-1415).

[I]he

autocommentary of the bDen _gnyis,thatistosay thebDen _gnyisrnng 'grel islistedin

the catalogue ofNyi ma

bstan

'jin

(b.

_1813),(i)

_but

_it

_is

one of therare treatiseswhose whereabouts have

not beenknown fbralongtime.

It

was

found

enly recently

in

BK77.(2)[I:hisisstrangely not referred to

by mNyam med Shesrab rgyal mtshan

in

his

bDen

gnyis'grel ba.

This

may suggest thatmNyam med

didnot have access toit.Ifthatisthecase,itrnust

have

remained unknown tosome Bonpo authors

beforeits

_present

_publication

inBK71

TliebDen

gayis

isa short treatisecomposed oftwo hundredand

fbrty

_padas

(or

sixty yerses).(3)It

hasbeendiMcultto

_grasp

Me ston

ig

theory of"two _truths"

(satyadva)u,

_bden

gnyis)

in

detail

through

thistextalone. Howeveg thediseoveryofitsautocommentarM the

bDen

_gnyisrtxng 'grel

makes it

possible

tounderstand histheorymore

_precisely

Inthis_paperwe examine

how

Me ston, a Bonpo

thinker

in

the

eleventh and twelfth centuries, came tolearnBuddhisttheoriesof"two

truths."

1

Fourwaysappearancesareperceived

Me

ston _presentsthe

following

four

ways a

_person

may

_perceive

appearances:

(1)

Tb

`bne

who

has

defective

eyes"

(mig

skyon can) thingsappear

in

double

fbrrn.(`)

(2)

An

`brdinary

person"

(byis

pa

so so'i

Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapaneseAssociation forTibetan Studies

'The

TXvoTruthsTheeryoftheBenpe Me stonShesrab 'od

zer

(l058-1

132orl1l8--1192) them.C5)

(3)

"One who attains the wisdom at

the

_{post-meditation}of the

holy

one7' (G)

(dum

_pa

'i

i:r'esshes)

understands

that

appearances are

false

likean

illusion.(7}

(4)

"One who obtains themedhative equilibrium of the enlightened one and holyone"{g)

(sangs

rgyns

dam

pa'i

mn.vam bzhag)hasno discursivethought nor doeshe

_perceive

any

[duaiity

of

subiect and oaject].(9}

The

above theory

had

already

been

_givenbyIndianBuddhistthinkerCandrakini

_(ca.

600-650).(iO)

Indeed

Me

sten _quotes

Candral(irtils

MAvBh concerning thereiation between thetheory of "two

truths" and _personswho

_perceive

appearances.(ii) From this

_point,

we can understand that Me

ston was willing to adopt Buddliistdoctrineand he was infiuencedespecially by the

_position

of

Candrakirticonceining the relati'onbetweenthe '`two

truths"theory and thesubject of_perception.

Here Iwish tomention the

_problem

of thedateof Me ston. There aretwo

_{possibilities.}

Kvrerne

[1971:

230]

_gives

one: 1058-1132,and Martin

[2001:

75-76]_givesanother: 1118-1192.As we saMr

above, Me ston

_quotes

theMAvBh. The translator of theA`t`lvBhwas Patshab Nyima

_grags

(b.

I055).

[1]

FollowingKva}rnelsdates,Me ston would havebeencontemporary with Patshab.Inthiscase, we can

imagine

that

Me

ston must

have

managed either toobtain acopy of

the

Tibetan

translation

itself

or a source thatwas closely relatcd tQit.

[21

On theother handfbUowingMartinwould mean that,Me

ston would havebeenabout sixty

_years

_younger

than Patshab.Inthiscase, hemight haveobtained

thetextfroma lateadherent of Patshah

It

is

also

_possible

thatMe ston

_got

a copy of theMAvBh

just

after itwas translatedintoTibetan. However itseems mere likelythatMe ston didnot obtain acopy of the.wnvBh until thetranslation

had

become

famous

in

Tibet,Inconclusion then Martin'stheory seems more ],ikely

2"Conventional

truth"

_{(saptvrtisatya,}

kun

rd2:ob

kyi

bden

_pa)

2.1

Mestoll'stheoryof"conventionaltruth"

Now

we sumrnarize

Me

stenls theory of `℃onventional truth,"

-

_Defifiition

_of`

℃onventional tmth": `'appearance

ef

the

obiect which

does

not exist

ias

true],"<M)

-

_Word

_{meaning of} `

℃onventional trutrr':"that

which

has

characteristics covering over

[the

way of

existence]

by

conception."(`3)

-

_Relation

_witlt

_logical

_{analysis: the saiTisaric} `keonventional

tiuas'

is

not established throughthe

logical

analysis

becau,se

it

appears to

be

false

[if

it

isanalyzed

logically].

Ifitwere

established,

it

would

become

the

nirva\a without any negation.

If

it

is

not examined

[logically],

it

appears to

be

_pleasing.

If

it

isexamined

[logically],

itcannot withstand the

power

[of

logical

anaiysis].(i")

-

_Other

explanation of `keonventional tmtrr':"all

_{deceptiveness,"}

(iS)"that _{which is}

postulated

in

the

side of the

knowledge

of ordinary _person,"{i6>`･saipsaric

dhamas,"

CS7}"that which

is

likean

-gs-The [IkvoTlruthsTheoryofthe BonpoMe stonShesrab 'od _ncr

(l058-1

_{132or 1l18-1192)}

illusion".(ig}

-

Subdivislon

ofthe`

℃onyentional truth""9):

`℃onventional truttr'

(kun

rdzob)

F

`pure

conventionai truttr'

(dag

pa

kun

rkob)

g

t "impure

conventional trutif'

(ma

dog

kun

rdrob)

tIFi?8C,LC.Z",e,itXO.RmeilIll:.g,dn.S,k,,":,ii`ZOb)

[[Ihbie

1]

The

explanation of each subdivision of `℃onventional trutrr'

is

as

follows:

-"pure

conventional tmtrr':"appearance

which

is

regarded as a

dream

or

illusion

and which

does

not

cover oveT

the

[true]

meaning."{2e)

-"impure

conventienal trutif':"samsEric

dharmas

which appear as various subjects and objects of

grasping,which are Tegarded as trueaccording te

their

appearances, and which obscure the

understariding of

the

way ofexistence." (2i)

-`

℃orrect conventional truthr':"that

which

is

_grasped

by

ordinary

_persons

whose objects and sense

organs are not _polluted

[by

delusion]."

(22)

-"false

conventional trutrr':"appearance

toone who

has

defective

objects and sense organs

Iike

double

appearance

fbr

one who

has

defective

eyes." (2')

Me

ston _presents,as an opponeRtls theoTy

the

fotlewing

four

characteristics of `℃orrect conventional _trutit'(24)inorder tedistinguishitfrom

the

"faise

conventional truth,"and then

he

refutes

this

theoly

[1]

"that _{which is}

produced

fromcause _{and condition"}

(rs),"

nk[yen lassdyes)

[2]

"that which appears commonly

[to

ordinary _persons]"

(mthun

_parsnang)

[3]

"that which

has

theability to_perfOrma

function"

(don

tued

nus)

[4]

"that which

does

not exist when

it

isexamined

[logically]"

(brtcrg

na

dben)

2.2

Influence

of

the

Buddhist

_philosophy

on

Me

ston's

theory

of"conventional

truth"

We

now examine the

influence

of the

Buddhist

_philosophyon

Me

stonls theory of `tonventional

truth."

2.2.1

Surfhee

similartty between hissubdivisien of "conventional _truth"

and those of late

Madhyamika thinkers

Me

stenig

theory

i,s

similar tothoseof lateMadtiyamikathinkerssuch as

Sdntaraksita

(ca.

725-788)

and

Atiga

(ca.

982-1054),

in

thatthey

ai1

subdivide the`℃onventional truth"intotwo stages. Butwe also must notice

that

they

are similar meTely on thesurface.

Me

stonig subdivision of `leonventional

truth"

is

essentially similar to

that

of

Candrakirti

as explained inthenext section.

Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapaneseAssociation forTibetanStudies

The[[XvoTruthsTheeryofthe BonpoMe stonShesrab 'ed _zer

(1058-]l32

_er1l1S-1192)

-`℃onventienal truth"

_(kun

idlob) 1

l

･ "correct conventional truth"

Qiang

clag_pa'i

kun

rdzob)

{

L---- "incorrect conventional trutlt'

<>urng

ddg

_pa ma _yinpa'i kunftlzob)

L

F-

"that

which

has

conception"

(rnam

par rtog pa

dang

bcas

pa)

L-

`cthat

which

has

no conception"

(rnam

_parmi rteg _pa)

[[Ih'ble

2]

Atigds

subdivision of

the

"conventional truth"

in

his

SIMC26)

is

as

fo11ows:

-"conventional truttr'

(kun

ntzob)

'

F--"correct

conventional truth"

Oung

dog

k"n

rdzob)

l "false

conventional trutrr'

(logpa

kun

tdzob)

t::waoeJ,eg7cesg,os.th,:,x:ISa,E,e,zf.W,:t:r,lEti'Z",ZiC-',,.,,.,

l[fabie

3]

2.2.2

SlmilaritybetweeRMe sten's subdiyision ef"cenventienal truth"and

Candrakirti

In

fact

the subd{vision of the `

℃enventional trutrr'of

Me

ston corresponds to

that

of Candrakirti.

Moreover,

Me

ston _quoted the

MAvBh

conceming the relation

between

the subdivision of

`

℃onventional truttr'and the

fbur

different

ways of

_perceiving

appearances. He thereforeseems tobe

strongly

influenced

by

Cafidraklni.

[[

he

correspondence

between

the subdivision ofthe`℃onventional

truttr'of

Me

ston and

that

of

Candrakrrti

can

be

seen

iR

thetable

below

subject Meston'ssubdivisienCandrakTrti'g,subdivision_' U1'phagspa dagpakunrdleb samv,rtima'tra(k"nrdzobtsan;)(X}_tt

[2]sosp'isk}'ebo.vangdagkunntzoblokasai7;vrtisadyu('J'igrtengyikunrdzobkyibden_{lokataijsaijifi{)'igrtenn.vidiasbden)C)"''} I3]migsk.lvncat;logpakeinrdzob alokah'aptvrti<V'igrtenkunrdcebbdenpaina.vin lokutomith},a('Vigrtenn.vidtastogpa)(3i) {!m cy))

[[fable

4]

22.3 Influenceof lateMfidhyamika thinkers eoncerning therelation between the"cenventional

truth"and

logical

analysis

As

we saw;

Me

ston explains thatthe"conventional truttr'cannot beestablished bycorrect

logical

analysis

because

it

appears to

be

false

if

itisanalyzed logicallyThisexplanation conceming the

rela-tion

between

the`

℃onventional trutrr'and logicalanalysis seems to

be

influenced

by

the

SDVV

of

the

Buddhist

thinkerJfianagarbha,etc.C32}

Me ston alsosays thatthe`

℃onventional truttr'cannot withstarid

the

_power of

logical

agalysisifit

is

examined

logtcally

Thisstatement ls

quite

close towhat

is

fbund

in

the

MAIii'i

of

Santaraksita.C]3)

Me

ston

further

explains thatthe`℃onventional trutlf'appears tobe_pleasing

if

it

is

not examined

logically

T[his

explanation

also

seems to beinfluenced

by

theexpression, "that which

is

_pleasing

insofar

as

it

is

not examined

[logically]"

(avicaruikarzimapti}u,

ma

brtqgs

_gcigpu na n)tims dga' ba) stated

by

late

Indian

Mfidhyamika

thinkerssuch as

Santarak$ita,(34)

-90-The'twoTruthsTheory oftheBonpoMe stonShesrab 'od

zer

(1058-1132

or 1118-1192)

ThusMe ston seems tobestrongly influeAcedbythe IndianMadhyamika thinkersconcerning

his

understanding of therelation betweenthe`bonventiofiai _{trutif'and legicalanalysis.}

2.2.4

VVerdmeaningefthe"conventionaltruth"

As we have seen,

Me

ston explains

the

`bonventional _{tmtrr' as the} "thing _{which has the}

characteristics covering over

[the

way of existence]

by

theconception"

(kun

t"

brtagspas

sgrib _par

Eoed

mtshan mdi

dngos

_po).Thisexplanation alsoseems tobeinfiuencedbyBuddhist

_philosophy

Candrakirti

uses

the

word: "to cover over"(35) buthe

does

not use theexpression: "by

the

conception."

Jfiiinagarbha

regards the"false conventional truttr'as "that which

is

collceptualized"

(parikaipim).

He alsoconsiders the`

℃onventional trutri'as "that

which covers thetruthbytheconceptual mind."

(36)_{From these}

_facts

_{JfiEinagarbhdsexplanation seems to}

_be

_{closer tothatof Me ston.}

22.5 InfluenceofBuddhist logiciansconcerning the"abMty _to

perform a function"

(arthakrlyasamartha,

don

byed

nuspa)

As we saw above, Me ston

_presents,

as an epponenfs theoryfourcharacteristics inorder to

distinguish

the `

℃orrect conventional truttt'from the"false

conventional truth,"and then herefutes

thisidea(37)Inene among these foug"that

which hastheability to

_perfOrm

a function"is

_given

as

ameans of distinguishingthe`

℃orrect conventional truth"fromthe"false

conventional truth."This

mode of _analysishadbeenalready adopted byindianlogicianssuch as Dharrnakirti

(ca.

600-650),(38) and alsoIndianMadhyamika logicianssuch as Jfianagarbha.C3Y}Thus while Me ston doesnot accept such atheory as hisown _position,henevertheless _presentsitas hisopponenfs, and we can therefore

say thathewas

in

thisregard indirectlyinfluencedbyIndiaiiBuddhistlogicians.

3

3.1

"Abselute

_truth"

<Parama-rthasaty&

den

dam

bdenpa)

Me

ston's

theory

of "absolute

truth"

Now

we summarize

Me

ston

ls

theoryof `labsolute truth."

-_Definitionof "absolute

truer':

the'

`labsolute

truth"without

discursiveness

has ne definition

essentiaily

But

it

is

defined

as "that which

is

without discvrsiveness"

in

order toexplain for

disciples.(40)

-_{Word meaning of} "absolute

trutrr':"that

which isan object and

is

also exellent" (`i}

(kanmattharu)u

compound) er "the

objectof one who isexcellent" {42)

(taipuruFa

cornpound).

-_{Demonstration}of"absQlute

truthl':tliereisneither objectto

be

demonstratednor any

demonstration

coneernifig the "absolute _truth."(43}

-_Otherexp!anation of`labsolute _truttr':"that

which

has

no

deceptiveness,"

C")"that

which canrmot

be

thought of or

described,"

(`5>"that _which

cannot

be

thought,

described,

compared, or seen,

isnot an object tobeconceptualized, and isnot to

be

regarded asanything," (`6}"that which,

Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapaneseAssociation forTibetan Studies

TheTXvoTruthsTheoryofthe BonpoMe stollShesrab :od

zer

(1058-l

132or11]8-1192)

-_Subdivisionof "absoiute

tmthr':

-_The "absolute _{truth"without discursivenessisnot established as anything, so there}

is

_{neither number}

norsubdivision.(48'

-_{The distinctionbetweenthe}"categorized

absolute truttr'

(rnam

_grangspa;i

don

dam

pa'i

bden

pa)

and the"uncategorized _{absolute truthr'}

(rnam

grangsma _.yinpa'i

don

dam

_pa'i

bden

pa)

is

a

mere method

fOr

leading

disciples,

so itisthe`<sub>℃onventional truttr'ina very real sense.(`9]</sub>

3.2

Influence

of

the

B"ddhist

_philosephy

oR

Me

sten's

theory

ef "abse!ute

truth"

We now examine the infiuenceof the Buddhist

_philosophy

on Me stonls theoryof "absolute

truth."

Bhfiviveka

(ca,

490-570)

givesthe three

interpretations

of thecompound "absolute truth,"that

istosay

[1]

karmadhanraya,

[2]

taipurusa, and

t3]

bahuvrthi.(Se>

Candrakini

adopts only two:

[1]

karmadha-rarand

[2]

tatpur"Fa.<5i)As we haveseen, Me ston also _givesonty two:

[1]

karmadhara.}u

and

[2]

taipurusa.Thisfaetmight also beevidence thathewas infiuenced

by

Candrakirti's

theory

Me ston does not admit the subdivision of the "absolute

truth" intothe t`categorized

absolute

trutff'and the"uncategorized

absolute truth,"and he considers the "absojute truth"as unique. Inthis

respect,

he

seems to

have

been

infiuenced

by

AtiSawho admits aunique "absolute

truth."<52)

4Conclusion

HeTe

we summarize theexamination, mentioned above, of Me stonls "two

truths"theory and

how

it

is

influencedbyIndianBuddhisttheories,

The

structure of

Me

stonlstheory o'f`'two _{truths"isas seen inthetabiebelo"t}

-"two _truths"

(bden

gnyis)

tIL':i2i.t?i.t'.Ualthli.(k:Mn'rdzob)

L

`bure _{conventional trutit'}

(dcrg

pa

kun

rzlzob)

t"impure

conventional trutif'

(ma

dcrg

kun

ntzob)

tllf:ls'eeCctoCnOv"e"n:lotiOa"il:iXpa(1.(L>Up".gkd,ag.:,".brt)tZOb)

[[fable

5]

[1]

Concerning

the`keofiventional _truthl'

-_The suT[face structure of Me ston's subdivision of the'

℃onventional truthr'seems tobesimilar tothat

of

Sfintaraksita

and Atiga.

-

_On

_{theotherhand the}actual contents of the subdivision seems tobesimilar tothatof

Candrakirti.

-_{Hisexplanation} of the relationship

between

the"conventional

trutff'and logicalanalysis seems to

-92-TheTWo TkeuthsTheoryofthe BonpoMe stonShesrab 'od

zer

(1058-1

132or 1118-1192)

havebeeninfluencedbylndianBuddhistMadhyamika thinkers,

(eg.

avica'raikaramae;)aa) -

_He

_{seems to}

_present

_{some theories}ef known Buddhistlogiciansas hisopponentsJ .

(eg,

theconcept:

"existence oftheeffective

function"

(arthakriya"samartha,

don

Zoed

nus _pa) asthe

_proof

of

the

`℃orrect conventional truth,"inorder to distinguishi{

from

the"false _conventlenal

truthl')

[2]

Concerning

the`hbsolute

truttr'

-_Me ston seems to

be

similarto

Candrakini

in

thatthey

both

_present

only two

interpretations

ofthe

compo'und of "absolute

trutif':a

hamiadhatzi)u

compound and taipurnsa compeund.

tinlike

Bhfiviveka,

neither mentions the_possibilityef interpretlngitas a

bahuyrthi

compaund.

- _Me ston seems to have been influenced

by

Atisia

in

that

they

both

refute the_possibilityof

subdividing the"absolute

truth,"unlike Bhaviyeka,Jfi2nagarbha,

SEintaraksita,

etc.

[3]

Concerningthe entiTe structure of the"two

tmths"

-_The surface structure of Me stenls"two _{truths"theoryseems tobesimilar tothatef AtiSa.}

-_{On the}other handthe actual contents of Me stonls "two

truths"theery seems tobesimilar tothatof

Candrakirti.

(eg.

citation of theMAvBh)

-_Hisexpianation of some technicalterrnsseems tohave beeninfiuencedbythetheoriesof Ifidian

BuddhistMEdhyamika thinkers

-_{From thesefacts}we caii say thatMe ston composed a new theory of "two

truths,"by collecting

various theoriesof lndianBuddhistthinkers.

inthis

paper

Ihaveoutlined how Me ston incorporatesBuddhisttheoriesintohisown theor>gbutit is

_possibie

thathernight haveadopted them according toa Tibetantradltionfromhisteachersrather

than direetlyfromIndianBuddhisttextsthemselves. Inany case hetrulyshows a Bonpo original

theoryof "two

truths,"buthistheory doesnot seem tohavebeenfo11owedby other Bonpo thinkers

who created various ether theoriesof "two

truths."As Ihaveshown inanother

_papeg(53)

theugh these

Bonpo thinkers classify the`

℃onventional truth"ina variety of differentways we can identifytwo

main ways inwhich they subdivide the"absolute

truth."

[A]

Tfietraditienthatregards the`labsolute

trutrr'as unique: thebDen _gayisand thebDen

_gnyis

rang 'grel byMe

ston, and thebDen _gnyis'grel baby

mNyam med.

[B]

The traditionthatdividesthe "absolute

trutrr'intotwu: the 71Piag'grel

which isanonymous

(rediscovered

inthe

fifth

`tycle"

(rab

byung),

i.e.

1267-1326),

the Bon sgo _gsal

h}ed

by Tre

stonrGyal mtshan

dpal

_(14ti'

cen.), and theSdlamiung 'grel

bymNyam med.

Me

stonls

hDen

_gnyisand bDen _gnyisrang 'grel

seem tobe theearliest source inthe Benpo traditionwhich adopts the_positionof asingular `hbsolute

Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapaneseAssociation forTibetan Studies

The _{[[XvoTruthsTheory}ofthe Bonpo Me stonShesrab 'od

zer

(lOS8-1l32

or H18-l192)

Abbreviations

BKT CBKT DJIBSOtani P7bhoku

Bon_pobKin]brten_publishedbySogsde bsTtm _pafinyi ma inLhasa

(no

date).Thecopy ofthis

edition _preservedinthelibraryof theGraduateSchoolof Lettersof Kyote Universitybearsthe

accessionnumber: Buddhism, A-III-341,

A Catalogue

_of

theNew CoUection

_ofBomp

Katen llixts,BonStudies4,Osaka:NationalMuseum

of EthnologM2001.

Tibetan Tripitaka,sDe dgeEdirion.

.lournal

ofindian

and Buddhist9udies.

(

rEPke}i:tltif7ernD

TTie7Vbetan7}'ipitakaCatalogueand index,[[bkyo:SuzukiResearchFoundation,1961.

_(rqpr,

7}ie

TibetanT}'ipitakaCatalogueand index,Kyoto:RinsenBookCo.,1985,) Tibetantripitalca,Pekingedition.

A CompleteCatalogue

_of

the TihetanBuddhistCanonsedited byHakuja Ui,MunetadaSuzuki,

Yen$h6 Kanakura, and T6kanTleida,Sendai:[fohokuImperialUniversitM1934.

Bibliography

I"dianselirces ma rmwi MAv emvBh PPr PrasP PV SDA swV SDVP SDVV w

Santaraksita:

Madh.vamaka'lat?!kilrakarika",dBuma _rg)ung.yitshig _le'urb)uspa.

D:7bhoku Ne. 3884;P:OtccrtiNo.5284.Tib.ed. Ichigo

I1985].

SEntaraksita:

Madh.vumakalaptka-ravrttfi; ctBu ma'i _rg}ungyi'grelpa,

D:7bhokuNo,3885;P:Otani

No.

5285.Tib,ed. Ichigo

[1985].

CandrakirtiiMadhyctntakavata±ra; dBuma la'jugpa,

D: 7bhokuNo. 3861;P:OtaniNo. 5261.Tib.ed, DelaValleePoussin

[1912],

Candralclni:Matil!yamahavatdirubh`iF.)u;dBesma la

jug

pdi bshadpa.

D:7bhekuNo.3862;P:OtaniNo.5263,Tib.ed, De laValleePoussin

[1912],

Bhfiviyeka:Prtu'n-qp-radipamtilamadh.vamakavrtti; dBunza rtsaba'i'grelpashes rab sgn)n ma. D:lbhok"No.3853;P:OtaniNo, 5253.

Cumdrakirti:Prasannapada-na"'ma Ma-dh)timikavrtti;`Mu ma rtsabdi'grelpa

tshig_gsalba, Skt.ed.DeLaWtl}6ePoussin

[1913].

D:7bltokuNo.386e;P:OtaniNo. 526e,

Dharinakirti:Prama-n.ava'rttika;tshadma rnam 'grel_gyitshigie'ur

_ojuspa,

SkL

1

Tib.ed.Miyasaka

[1971-72],

Skt,ed. Tbsaki

[1979],

[1985],

D:7bhokaNo,4210;P;Otani No,57e9,

Atiga

(Diparpkaragrijfidna):

Sti4vadvaya-vutara;bPen_pagn,yista'J'ug_pa.

D:7bhokuNo.3902,4467;P: OtaniNe. 529&5380.Tib.ed. Lindtner

[1981],

Iljima

[1983].

Jfianagarbha:Sa4nduci)vrvihhaitstiklirikdi;bDen_{pa gnyis}rnampar 'b}edpdi

tshigid"rb)uspa. D:7bhokuNo.3881,Tib.ed. Eckel

[1987],

S5ntaraksita:

Sltnydva>ttvibhahgapabjika-;bDen_pagnyisrnampar 'toedpdi dka''gret.

D:7bhoku No,3883;P:OtaniNo. 5283,

JfiEnagarbha:Sbpadvu)uvibhangav"ti;bDen_{pa gnyis}rnam _par 'bjedpa'i 'gretpa.

D:7bhok"No.3882.Tib.ed. Eckel

[1987].

Bhaviveka:Madloutmakahrda.lutvrttitark[ijva-la';ctBu mdi snying _pe'i 'grei

partog _ge'bar

ha. D:7bhokuNo.3856;P:OtaniNo.5256.

Tibetansources

TIFieg'grel

Unknown authorship

(rediseovered

inthefifthRab byung,i,e.1267-1326):71tegpdi rim pa

The　Two　Truths　Tlheory　ofthe　Bonpo　Me　ston 　Shes　rab　’od　zer _（1058−1132　or　ll18−ll92）

　　　　　　　　　mngo η　d“　bshadpdi　md ∂rgyud 　

kyi

’8rβゆα．　Bonpa　6rub　Mtha’　Mcrterial．　Dola_切i：Tibetan　Bonpo

　　　　　　　　　MGnastic　Ceatre，1978，　pp．387−599．

bDen　_gnyis　Me　ston 　Sher　rab ’od　zer （1058−11320r　l　l　I8−U92 ）1

　　　　　　　　　

IA

］｛fBu　ma 　bden　gnyis　kアi　gzhung　in　5b　Jα 配 rnam ’_ク｝ed ’

Phrut

　s8ron 　ntsa　’grel　theg　chen 　

gzhi

　　　　　　　　　〜αη暑’brasみ麗rtsa’gre9　

dbu

囃 αrtsa’grel∫たor　gyi　gsungs_μ）

4

　bzh“n8s，　vo 廴2Kha ，（Ka血umandu ，

　　　　　　　　　1991 ＞，No ，　Cha ，（5　fblios，　dbu　can 　script）

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

［BI　ctBu　ma 　bden　_gnyis　

kyi

　gzhung　edited 　by　Yam 　Lama 　a皿d　Samt玉n　Jans童n，　De翫童，！96廴（6｛bhos，

　　　　　　　　　dbu〃ied　script）

わD召n　gnyis’grel　ba　mNyam 　med 　

Shes

　rab　rgyal 　mtshan （1356−1415）：Tlteg　pa　chen 　po’i　dbu　ma 　bden　gnyis

　　　　　　　　　妙∫’

grel　ba　in　Sa　gam　rnam ’b_）ed ’phtZ｛1　sgron　rtsa’grel　theg　ehen　gzhi　tam ’bras　bet　rtsa ’grelの闘

　　　　　　　　　那 αr磁 ’g副 誼oアgyi　gsungs　_pod　bzhungs_，　voL 　2　Kha ，（Kathumandu ，1991），　No ．　Ja。（45pp．）

bDen　gnyis　rang ’grel　 Me 鰍）n　Sher　rab ’odzer _（1058−1B20r 　1118−1192）：_{跣 曙 脚} 伽 π_卯 励 砿麗 ∫覿 ηg

　　　　　　　　　’grel　gsal　b｝ed　sgron　ua 　tegs　par　

bshcui

　pa．（脚 _［201−1］．This　is　an　autooommentary 　by　Me　ston．

　　　　　　　　　Acopy 　of　this　text　was 　given　to　me 　by　Dangsong　Namgyal　a　Bonpo　monk 　of　Triten　Norbutse

　　　　　　　　　m ・_{nas 勧} y　lt　has　94　_P．　Th藍s 賞eat孟se　is恥田d童韮  ca重a｝09瞳e　of　Nyi−ma 　bs伽 一’dzin，

　cf．　Kvacrne

　　　　　　　　　［1974；117（T35−2）｝

B・π _{柳 鯉 厩} 4Tre ・st・n 雌 _yal鵬 han　d_{衂 （}14’h　_cen ．_）：bK_・’1_”ng　spyiyi’gretbab_・n　sgvgsalbyed．

　　　　　　　　　（C蹴ical　edition）Mimaki ＆Karmay ［2007］．

5屠    8 ’grel　 mNya 磁 med 　

Shes

　rab _磐yal　mtshaa _（1356−1415_）：5b　lam’_{phrul　gyi　sgron 　mdi 　rang} ’_8rel，

　　　　　　　　　（Critical　edition）Argu三11i邑re ［2006：308一三9］．

Secondary

　seurces

Akahane _，　R ．_（赤羽　律 ）

　　　2003　“Nendai　Kakutei　no　Shihyou　toshite　no 　Avicaraikaramaplya” _{（年 代 確 定}の指 標としての

　　　　　　　　　avic歪ra  rama _肛ya，　On　the　Value　of‘‘_αv_葺罐耀 f_{疋σ  η軍}

岬醐 ”as　_an　lndicator　te　Establish　the　Date_＞，

　　　　　　　　　Journal【of　the　Nanto　Society　

for

　Buddhist　studies （南 都 仏 教）_，　voL 　83，　pp．33−59．

Argu茲16re，　S．

　　　2006　“mlV_．vam　med 　Shes　rab　rgyaユmtshan 　et　la　scola頭_queわoπamoumant 　du　XIVe　et　du　XVe　si邑cles：

　　　　　　　　　pr6sentation　de　la　Pn）di8iezase　tampe　des　terres　et　desvoies ，”_Acta

　Orientalia，　voL　67，　PP　243−323．

De　la　Va産16e　Pouss韮n，　L．

　　　　　　ノ

190111912　　Prq／fia−kOramαti’s　Comrnentaりy　to　the　Bodhicar_）Jdivat δra　of　

Sa

−ntideva _，8乙New 　Series，　Nos．983−

　　　　　　　　　1305．

　　　1912　　MadhyamakaTvata’ra　par　Candraki−rti，　Bibliotheca　Buddhica ，　voL 　9，1907−1912．

　　　1913　　Mu−lamadhJumakaktirika−s_‘Mtldhyamikasu’tras_丿de／Vδ₉δ_nlブuna 　avec 　la　PTasannapada−（Jommentaire

　　　　　　　　　deσα 配d7召鳶π ’．i，　Bibliotheca　Buddhica，　vol，4，1903−1913．

Eckel，　M ，　D．

　　　1987 　　JfidnagarbhdS　Cemntentary　on the_Distinctionbeneeenthe_{Tuv 　Truths}．　An 　Eighth 　Centuり’

　　　　　　　　　Handbook　ofMadhyamaka 　Phitesophy，　New 　Y6rk：State　University　of　New　Yt〕rk　Press．

Ejima，　Y ．（江島　恵 教 ）

　　　1980　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　 ＾

1983

Ichigo，　M ．．_（一郷 　　　1985

Ch羞_ganshisbno _Tenkai∫　Bha−vaviveka _Kenkyn　（中観，思想a）展 開一 Bh互vaviveka 研 究， 1）evetoPment 　of　Ma

−

dh_）umika Philosophyin　India．’Studies　on　β宛認脇1／iveka_）Tokyo_：Shunjusha

Publishing　Company ．

‘A_譱ano

　Nishinrisetsu”

（ア ティーシャの 二真 理説 ，Ad§爵 Two　Truths　Theory），1〜_伽 1_野∂_gnku

no　Kenkyt2_{（龍 樹教 学}の研 究，5厩

4y

　on　Na−gaijunaiv　phiiesoph_＞，_）edited　by　Taishun　Mibu _{（壬 生台}

舜），Tokyo：Daiz6　Shuppan　Co．，　pp．359−・91．

　　　　　正 道）

　　　　　　　／

Madh）ZimakO ’larpkara　ef　Sm；taraksita　with 　HiSF　Own　Commentary　or　Vrtti　and 　with 　the

Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies

NII-Electronic Library Service

Japanese _{Assooiation 　for 　Tibetan 　Studies}

The　Two　Truths　Theory　ofthe　Bonpo　Me　ston　Shes　rab ’od　_{zer （}1058−11320r1118−1192）

　　　　　　　　　Subcommenta厂y　or　Pafij

』

∫姫 ｛ガκα η蟹祕α覦α，　Kyoto；Buneid6．

Kishine

，　

T

　

@

（岸根　　

@

　敏

）　　　2001 　Candrakt’nt 　no　_{Chaganshisott} （ チャ ンドラキ ー ル_ティの中 観思想，　MaMdh）ur ．mika　Philosephy

qf

　　　　　　　 　　Candrakini ），　T（ ）kyo：Daito 　Ptiblishlng

Ce

． Kumagai， 　

S

，（熊

　誠慈） 　2008

　’‘The 　Ltw 〔〕truths _’（sat）

adva

＞u）in　the　dBtl 　ma 　hden 　g_πy 話（Saりadvayavibhcviga ）of 　t

　

Bon

　　　　　　　religion ；’JIBS，　vol．56−3，　pp ．11

イ｝

7

．　　　f｛）rthcoming　」_つevelopment 　of　theTheory　 of 　the ‘Two　Truths ’in 血e　Bon　Religion ，”East 　and

West

， 　　　　　　　　　

l．59． Kvee

e

，　P．  　　1971　_‘“AChronologicalTableoftheBon　po_：TheBstanrcis_{of 　N．yi　ma}　

bstan

_’jin，”Acta　Orientati

C

　

vol

． 　　　　　　　　　33，pp．

5

−−48， 　　1974

　　‘‘IIIhe 　Canon◎

f

　the　Tibetan　Bonpos_，PartTwo_二lndex　of 血e　Canon；’Indo −1ぬ η如ηJourna

C

　

v

．

ol

， 　　　　　　　　　14−2，pp

96−1．44 ．Lind

er

，　Chr， 　　　1981　“Ati舊a’s　Introduction　to　th．e　Two　Truths．，and 　its　Sources，”　

JourJ2aS

　eflndian　Pltilosoph｝_，，　

1．9，　pp． 　　　　　　　

　161＿214．

Martin

，

D

　　　2001　_〔ノhearthin8 βon 　

Treasures

−L旋and 　Centested 　 Lega（ツ（〜f　a？_「ibe；an　5cnPtu「e　Reve

e

「’

wish

　

a

　 　 　　　　　　　

Generai

　Bibliograρh）’OfBon−，　Le

en

：Brill ． ．

Mimaki

，　K．（御牧　 克_己）and　Ka

ay

，　S，　

G

_． 　　　2007　　Bon　s80　gsat　

b

．Ved−Ctarlfic：ation〔）fthe 　Gates 　ofBon，　A　Fourteenth　Centuりy　Bonpo　Do

graphicat

　　　　　　 　　　万 θα爵8−，Kyoto：　Graduate

　

Schoel　of　’Letters　of　Kyoto　 iversity． Miyasaka ，

Y

、（宮坂　宥．勝） 　 　　1971− 72　P雌〃厩 解_αレδ π ’故α々δr疏δ（Sanskrit 　and 　Tibetan丿，Acta　lndologica 　

C 　_PP．1 −206．

M

重

ya

ki

，　L（宮_崎　泉） 　　 2009　 　“Ati§a．　no 　Nitaisetsu 　Saikou

”

（アティシャの二諦 説再 考．，　Atiga ’＄Two 　

uths

　

Theory

　　　　　　　　　Reconsidered ），　JIBS ，　vol．5

C　pp．128−32．

Tb

ki

，　

H

．（_戸崎宏正） 　　　1979　　BukkyδNinshikiron 　

no

　

Kenkya

（仏_教．認 識論の研究，AStudy　on　tke　Buddhist Episte

oiogy

），　

vol

． 　　 　　　　　　　1，

Tbkyo

：Daito 　

blishing

　Co _． 　　　1985 　Bukkyδ 　Ninshikiron 　

no

　 K8nk _］，a　（仏_教認_識論の研_究，　A　Stud．y　on　the　Bttddhist　Epis

motogy

），

vol

， 　 　　　　　　　2，Tokyo：Daito　

blish

g

　 ．

ot

〉

1

（（ （3） （ 4） （5_） （6） Kvrerne矼

19

：1！7（T35−2 ）｝． Iam　 grateM to　Dr _．　DangsongNamgyal ，　a　Bonpo　monk　of　Triten　Nerbu　Tse　iponaster

@in 　Kathmandu， who　gave　me　a　copy　of　lhe 　

bDen　gnyis 　ran8 ’gret 　and　Professor　Shnichiro 　Miyake 　of　_O

iii 　Universitywho　taught　me

s　bibliographybDen 　gηy_’3　IA5a6， 　B6b4−_5］；7’heg ραClten　Pt〕db”ma 　bden 　g確_yご

3

　gsalわ_αrわ）ed 　pa ’_i　

higs　5尻bcad　

padr

_∬9

g　pa　rdzOgS so〃 う1）en　gnyis_［A養

b4

，　B2a2 − 3 ］_：〃庭8　slyon 　can瓰mi8_＞りr　snang／dag pa πy

｛∫」σg_∫α_眤magrab／ bDen　gnyis_［Alb3，　B2a1亅：

byis

　pa　so 　so　’i　skye　bo　la／sna　tshogs　snang　zh

fig　bdenpa厂zhen／ According　tothe 　hDen　gnyis　rang’g厂召’［6b2−3」，‘_‘tbe　wisdom 　at　the　post一 editati

　

of

　the　holy　one” （ぬ醜ρゴ‘ rjes 　shes ＞mea甦s　thピ‘w呈sdom　at　the　p〔｝st−mod 量tation 

of

　the 　holy 　

加t”ぐ

The TXvoTruthsTheoryofthe BonpoMe ston Shesrab 'od zer

(1OS8-1

132or1118-1192)

(7)(8)

(9)(10)

(11)

u'esshes).

bDen _gnyis

[Alb3-4,

B2al-2]dampa 'i

ny'esshes snang ba mams lsgyuma bzhin

du

idzun par rtogs 1 AccordingtothebDen_gayisrung 'gret

[6biF6].

the"meditative

equilibrium of the enlightened one and holyone"

(sangs

rg)usdom pa'i mn)um bzhqg) means `･individually discriminatingwisdom of mere appearance without truth"

(bdenpas

stong pa'i snang batsam so so rtogs pa),the"thought ofthe

enlightened one"

(sangs

_rg)us

kyi

dgengspa),theC`thought of the meditative equilibrium of thesaint"

(

'phagspa'i

mn)um bzh(rg_gi(igongs _pa). bDen_gnyis

[A1b4,

B2a2]:sangs _rg)asdam_pa'i

mn)um bzhqgla1spros med cir_)ung mthong mi 'gyur1 Concerningtherelation betweenthe

theory

of "two truths"and thesubject of perceptienstated by Candrakirti,see Kishine

[2001:

66-67].

bDengnyis rang 'grel

[6a6-b2]:'Jiig

'grel lasldela sosos bo rnams idontinm a an in a

cL,'i/'uiEgEpgh'i

an id n inEt!gtlg.ebg

etlggE`2g:LEmedyu(d

lrnams ikunrkob tsam inlalde'i

mn bzhinston

(12)(13)(14)

(15)(16)

(17)(18)(19)

(20)(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

adeni demams idonciam ayinpa'o 1zhes

gsungs so1

MAvBh, chap,

6,

M 28

(De

laVitlleePoussin

[1912:

108,13-16];lbhoku

[No.

3862,'A, 255af]):dela so so'i sk}igbornams

kyi

donclam_{pa gang yinpa} denyid

lphags

pasnang hadangbcaspa'isp)vdyul

can rnams

kyi

killt

mbob

tsam _yinla1de'i

rang bzhinstong _pa nyid _{gnng yinpa}de ni cie rnams

kyi

don ciam _pa'o 11/

bDengayis

[A2a5Tib1,

B2b5]:kunrzizob bdenpa'i mtshan nyidni")vdpa ma yindonsnang ba'o rz bDen_gayis

[A2a1,

B2a45]:kuntu

brtcrgs

pas sgrib _par b}ed,fmtshan ma 'i cingos pasbdenpa'o " bDen_gayis

[A2b1-2,

B2b6-3a1]: 'khorbakunrtinobbden_palaV)angdug rigs _pas 'grub mi 'gyur"kun rztzob rdzun _par snang _plryirro 17_grubna mi _gnod m)ung Ubs 'gyur rzmabrtag_nJums

ciga' ltarsnang

ba"brtagna rigs_passbimgs mi bzod1 bDen_gayis

[Alb3,

Blb4]:'khrutpa _thams

cad kunretzeb lab'

bDen _gnyis

[A2b2-3,

B3a1-2]kunwhob

byis

pdi shes ngo laVltoste rnam _par bzhag_pas na "gang labden rztzun _gr"btshod laIsgrub

_b}ed

rig

(sic,

read rigs)_pditha sn)ad _gdqgs"

bDen_gnyis

[A2b4,

B3a3-4]:'khor _hdibon

tveams kun rdzob dang"

hDen

gnyis

[A2b4,

B3a4]:sgyu ma ltab"rstonpas _gsungsi7

bDen_gnyis

[A2a2,

B2a6]:'kun,zizob dEoAeba _gnyissu Zibdhidog_pa dbngni ma dagpa'o11

bDen_gnyis

[A2a3,

B2b1-2]: ma ttag kunrzizob mam _gnyiste"log_paddngni_)uingciag_go"

bDen_gnyis

_[A2a3,

B2bl]:snang ba rmi lam sgyu nta bzhinffder mthong donla'grib mi 'gyur iP' bDengnyis

[A2a2,

B2a6-bl]: sna tshogs _gzungdzin'khor

ba'ibon"snang bihinbden mthong 'grib

par tved"

bDen_gayis

[A2a4,

B2b3]:_yutdangdbangpo ma bsladpasI

Vig

rtenpa _yisgang blungbah'deniynng dogkuntdeob _yin"

bDen_gnyis

[A2a3,

B2b2]:mig sk}vn can tamig _)mprsogs /7dbang_poyullaskyon ldan_pa-sk[}onmed laltostog_parbzhcrgI

bDengnyisrang 'grel

[14b24]:

kha

gcigna re !_rgyurk)en lassk)nes 1mthun_parsnang1 don b>ednus 1 brng na dben!deltarmrshan nyid bzhidangldan_pa)ang dag _pa'ikun

whob

_yinta1debzhinmi ldan palogpa'ikunrttzob _yinzer te1

SDIx:P

_(7bhoku

[No,

3883;27a7]):cteltarna kunntzobni mam _pagsum dubstante1}ung dag_pdi kun whobnimam _pagciggoI)ung dag_pa ma _yinpdikun

rkob

lani mampa _gnyiste_1mampar rtogpa dnngbcas_padangrnam _parmi rtogpdi

b)e

btzrg

giph.yir'roi;'

SDt4,k,2-3

_(Lindtner

[1981:

190];Iljima

[1983:

361-362];7bhoku

[No,

3902,72a45]): kun rdzob

rnam _pagnyissu abdIlog _padnngni _)ung dag_go" dang _{po gnyis}techu ztadong"grub mtha' ngnn

pa'irtog _pa'o/7'ma brtqgs_gcigpun)ums tlga'ba'i"sk}ebadangni

Vig

_pa'ichos /7don byednus dang ldon_pani")nng clagkunidzob _yinpartibd"

Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapaneseAssociation forTibetan Studies

The1[WoTruthsTheory of theBenpo Me ston Shesrab 'od

zer

(1058-1132

or11l8-1192)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

MAvBh, chap. 6,M 28

(De

laValleePoussin

[1912:

108,11-19];7bhoku

_[No.

3862,'A, _2S5a4-6]):de

ltarna re lhig bcemlclanUas

des

kun

rttzohkiyibden_padungkunrdzob tsam du_{gsungspa yin}no b'de laso so'i sk)e bornams

kyi

dendampa _{gang yinpa} denyid 'phags_pa snang badang bcas_pa'ismed

y"lcan rnams

kyi

kun ntzobtsam _yinta1ddi,ung bzhinstong _panyid _gangyinpa deni demams

kyi

dondam_pdo "sangs_rg)nsrnams

kyi

don

dam

_pa nirang bzhinn.yid_yinzhing1de_)ungsluba rnedpa nyid

kyis

dondam_pdi bden_payinla!deni dernams

kyi

so sor rang _gisrig _par b)uba_yinno I

PrusP,chap. 24,M 8

(De

laYhl16ePollssin

[1913:

493.56]): loka-saptvrtyasac}urp

loka-saptvrti-sapam 1sama eva-)nm abhidha'nabhidheJutin-a-nav'n-eya-di-i{}uvahanro 's'eFeloka-saptvrti-sacyimity

uc)ute 17bhoku

[No.

3860,163b2-3]:

lr'ig

rten _gyikunrdzobtubdenpanior

7ig

rten kunrzlzob bdenpa ste " bu'odb)udang1

_ijod

b}eddang1shes_pa ddngfshesb)alasogs _pdi tha sn)ud ma luspaUiclagthams

cad ni1

7ig

rten _gyikun

rdzob

kyi

bden

_pazhes b)u'o"

MAv, chap, 6,k.25

(Cited

inBCAP, chap

9

y 2:De laVal16ePoussin

[1901/1912:

353.13-16]):

vinopaghatena _Jndindriya"n.arp_{sae"amapigra-h}am}aTuiti lokaef sopm hitaltokntaevarp s'eFam vikaipitapt

tokota

eva mitiryd"

De laVal16ePoussin

_[1912:

104.4-7];7bhoku

[No.

3861,'A.

205a7]:

gnodpa medpa 'idbang _po drug mams

kyis

Igzung ba _gangzhig

7ig

rten _gyisrtogs te"

'7ig

rten nyid lasbden_yinthagma nih'

Vig

rtennyid lasJog_parrnam _par bzhag

"

PrasP,chap. 24,y 8

(De

laVal16ePoussin

[1913:

493.2-4]):atha va'

timira-kdmala-dy-upahatendri}u-vipartra-tlan"andvasthanas te Zokas_tesa-m.ya samvrtirasav aloka-samvrtih. 1cuovis'iF)ute

loha-sarpvrti-siu)um iti1

7bhaku

[No.

3860,162a7-bll: rub rib dang lingtog sngon _podang1mig ser lasogs _pasdbang_po nymns _pasmthong ba_phyinciJogta_gnaspadedagni'jig

rtenma _yinte1dedag_gik"nrdzob_{gang yin}

pa cieni1

Vis

rten kunrztzob bden_pama _yinpas" 'J'ig

rtenkunrdzob bden_padangIzhesdelaskh.vad par dubyosso"

Seefootnote29,

SDVV, v 21ab

(Eckel

[1987:

173.7-10];7bhoku

[No.

3882,10a7]):

ji

ltarsnang bzhinngo bo'i_phyir

// ailadP)teld_pami 'jug

go 11

(k.

2lab)ciste kun ,dzob niJ'iltarsnang babzhinyintefdelanij'i

shad bshadpdi`ip)udpa'i _guas medpa nyid doht

MAL-Ai,y

64

(Ichigo

[1985:

202-204];11)hoku

[No.

3885,70b7-71al]):kunrdzob Uini sgidi tha snynd

tsam _gyibclagnyid ma _yingyimthong badang tlbdpa'icbigos _po rten cing 'brel

par 'toJung ba

mams

niebuegue!teta'b d _{)ungdagpdikunrdzobste/} AccordingtoAkahane

_[2003:

51-52],theexpression"that

which

is

_pleasing

insofar

as

it

is

not

exami-ned logically"

(avicaraiharumapti-}a,

nta brtqgs_gcigpu na n)ums ttga'ba)isattested inAvalokitavratds

Ptzij'n-oprctdipacilaa

_(7bhoku

[No.

3859Za,84a6,Sha,245b7])fbrthefirsttime among Buddhisttexts,

But Avalokitavratauses thisexpression merely astheadjective ofthe"illusion"

which isan example of the`

℃onvemional tmth" Hedidnot havetheintentiontouse itasthedefinitionof the`bonventional

truth"'This

expression isused forthedefinitionof the`

℃onventional trutrr'in

Satitaraksitals

MA

_(k.

64a: Ichigo

_[1985:

202],7bhok"

_[No.

3884,55a6])fOrthefirsttime, and then

later

thinkers

started toused

it:KamalasudsMadh)umaktllarphampabjika,

Sn-guptals

llittvavataravrtti,AtiSdsSDA ete,

PrusP,chap. 24,y 8

(De

laVhll6ePoussin

[1913:

492.10]):samanta'd varnpapt sarpvrtih. 1 7i)hoku

[No.

3860,163a5]:kunnas sgrib _pasna kunrdzob ste 1

SDV; k.15ab

(Eckel

[1987:

17Ll-2];7bhok"

[No,

3881,2bl]):_stmg zhig _gissam _sang zhig ta")wig

dagsgrib

byed

kun,dzob bzhed"

SDVV,M 15ab

(Eckel

[1987:

171.1-2];fohoku

[No.

3882,9a2-3]):blogang_zhiggissam blo_gnngzhig

la_)vdna >ungdcrgpasgn'b _par

byedpa

'7ig

rten na _gnrgspade ttabuni kun,tizob tubzhedde1

-98-The[IWoIimthsTheoryofthe BonpoMe ston Shesrab 'od _zer

(105g-1132

or 11l8-l192)

(37)(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)

(47)(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

SDVV; v 8d

(Eckel

[1987:

160.25-28];7bhoku

[No,

3882,5b6-7]):_)ungdagninnikunbrtqgs_yinfl

ik.

8d)_)ungdag_parsk}e balasogs _{pa sung yinpa}deni mog _pa'ibzossb)ur baste!cieni _)ung clag _pa ma _yinpa'ikunrtlzob

kyi

bdenpa'o"

Seefootnote24,

PX chap. 3,k.3

OV[iyasaka

[1971-r72:

424S]):

arhakri}u-samarthapt _yuttad ana _paiinzarthasat 1

anpt saptvptisat_prvktam tesvasaTma-n}ntaksa4e iP'

dondtwndon

_byd

n"spa _gangh'de'dir dbndam

yodpayin"

gzhanni kun ntzob_)udpaste"de dag iung _spyi'i

mtshan _ayidbshad"

SDV k.12

alckel

[1987:

163.21-24];

fohokti

[No,

3881,

2a4-5]):

suang

du

ara

_)ung

dbn

tny)ed

`trg"nus

pdiphyirtimg mi mtspdyir

"}ung

dog>tvlgdag,nayinpas"kim tztzob

kyi

nidbjebaEBigis,P'

bl)en_gnyis

[A2b

1,B2b5-6]:dondunzmtshare nyid mam _par ahad" 'on

k}ang

_sprospa mams

dtaig

brul

bf

bDen gnyisrang 'grel

[12a6Lb2]:

gnyispadondamgyimtshan nyid _yintefdonclampa lamtshcm _gzhi tlang mtshan _ayiddong1mtshanmed iasegs _sprpspar 'gyur _basbz]itig_tu

med _pa'o ₁'on

kvang

gdul

bju

la

mtshonpa tsam_sprospa'i

mtha' thams cad brulba_yinzhespa tsammo 1 bDen_gnyis

_[A2a1,

B2af]:dbn_yindampa _yinpa 'am"

hDen

gayis

[A2a1,

B2a5]:

dom

pa,nams k[yi_yulyinta"

bDeng,tyis

[A2b4-5

B3a4]:dondam bsgrub

bju

rnam _parchadIde lasgrub bpedJ"iltar_yod"

bDen_gtryis

[Alb3,

B1btF2a1]:'khmi

pa thams cad kunnizob la"de _yisdben_pa

don

dam

_ayidh'

bDen_gayis

[A4b2,

B5b4]:dondam bsambu'odyulmin

beng

,O'

bDen

_gnyis

[A4b34,

B5b5-6]:bsammed bijodmed iipe med _pa 1bltarmed rtog _pa'iyutmin teIcir

)ungmthong bamedpa

la

"de nyidmthong zhestha smpadgdags I

bDen_gayis

_[A4b5-a

B6a2]:don damnam mkha' bzhindunifimtshan tnamedpa gsal,:togspa 'i" bl])en_gnyis

[A2a4-5

B2b3-4]:dondcua_sprospa rnams dungbralIcir_{)ung grubpa}med _paiall

gmags dting

dtc>e

ba

mampar cltad"

tDen_gayisrang 'grel

[1

lbS-12a1]:rnam _gmngs dondclln_pa'i_bden

pa dong/dema _{yinpa gnyis}su

'dodpa dang_fsk}eba

med _padang f,tmg bzhinmedpa lasags bshadpas sv!zhena fdeni_gduttbifi

dlrzings_pa'idon_yinte/mdzub mo 'i

rtsemo la_linbamed

oong

fbyts_pa

la

m:shon nas

bstan

_paclang

'dta'ofbDen

gnyisrtmg 'grel

[12a3]:

sangs rg)us

kyi

(sic,

read

dyis)

setnscan drdngsdondudondum_pdi skad

ston_payintefdonduktoirttzobbo1

As

_ffima

[1980:

102-105] has

_pointed

out, Bhaviveka _presentsthreetypesof interpretatienof the

cempound ef thewerd "absolute

trllttt'

(Skt.

pa,ama+rtha.7thdondam),thatisto say

[1]

kamstxdhareJu compound,

[2]

taipuntsacompound, arid

[3]

bah"vrihi

compound.

Pk

(fohoku

[No.

385a [E)gha,228a3-4]):dondant_par

_(sic,

read _pa) ni

[1]

dedon

bymg

_yinia1

dam

pa )nng yinpas don duJnpa'am 1

[2]

mctm _parmi rtog_pa'ipeshes {tam pdidon_yinpas1dondom_pa

ste!PP}"

(7bheku

[Ne.

3853

[[Sha,

228af-6]):

[3]

mamparmi mog _pdipeshes dUi_yulcan _pangyulmedpa'i

tshut_{gyisdondum pa} ste1detadondumpa _yodpdipdyirro"de 'gog

pa dangu'essu mthun _pa sAoite bamedpa lasogs _pabsttm_patiang lthospadanglbsams_pa dangfhsgems _palasbyungba'ishes itth

k>tuig

dbndam_paste /dondampa rtogspa'i thtzbs

kyipdyirpdyin

cima iog_pa'ipjlyirro I

7:l,chap 3,y 26

(7bhoku

[No.

3856,Dza,59b1]):dondam_pazhesbsduba ni

_[1]

dedbn _)wigyinla

clam_{pa)ungyinptzs}

don

dcua_pa'o

h'

[2}

_ymg na

dom

pdi dontemom _parmi ttog_pa'i>eshes dum_pdi

don_yinpasdam_pdidonto1{3]_ymg na dondm _pa dangntihi"; _pa ste

don

dom

_pamogs_patlang

ijes

sumthtm _pdishes ,ab indondam_pa de_)edpas dondom_padongmthun _pa'o"dontinm _par na lhes Lvu

bani don datr;_patlerryiddu'ang

(P:

'atn) don

clampar ,v nt

Conceming Candrakirtilsinterpretationof thecornpound of the word "absolute

Japanese Association for Tibetan Studies

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapaneseAssociation forTibetan Studies

TherlNvoTfuthsTheoryQfthe BonpoMe ston Shesral) 'od

zer

(lO58-l132

or l1a8-!I92)

<52)

C53)

[2001:

103-104].

PrttsP,chap. 24,v 8

(De

laValleePoussin

[1913:

494.l]):_pa,umas'ca-saHv arthas' ceti _parumaJthah 1

MAvBh, chap. 6,y 23

(De

laValleePollssin

[1912:

102.16-17];7bhoku

[No,

3862,'A,

253a6-7]):cie

ladonddm_pa ni _.vangdag_{par gzigspa} rnams kly:i_)eshes

kyi

kh.vadpar_gyiyulnyid k[visbdag_gingo bo rn>edpa _.ving.yi!

As Lindtn¢r

[1981:

189]and

Ejima

[1983:

370-373]haveobserved, Atigaseems toadopt a unique

"absolute _tn}th."He

rejects thesubdivision ef the"absolute _{truttr'intotwo inhisSen}

(k.

4,Lindtner

t1981:

190];

_Ejima

_t1983:

362];lbhoku

[No.

3902,72a5]):ciampdi donnigcignYid de1glhan dczg

rnampa _gn.vissu dodllcir _.vangma _gr"bchosnyid deVgnyiscinng _gsum sogs _gnla'gyuri7 inhisrecent studM Miyazaki

[2009:

l29-130]focuseson especially Atigdstheoryof `

℃onventional truttr'and _pointsout itssirnilarityto

Santaraksita's

theoryef "conventional

truth."BeforeMiyazaki

[2009],

rnodem scholars emphasized thesi]nilaritybetweenAtiSaand Candral(rrti,

Miyazaki

_[2009:

130-132]also states that thereseems to be a similarity betweenAtiSaand

Santaraksita

concerning the theory ef the "absolute _{truth."That istosay heimpliesthatAtiSaalso}

'

admits the"secondary

absolute trutrr'inrelation totheC

℃orrect conventional truttr'likeSantaraksita

because AtiSashows feursyllogisms to

demonstrate

the"absence

of self-nature," ene of which is

Stintaraksittis.

However as mentioned above, Atigacategorically stated thatthereisonly one '`absolute

truttriby rejecting _thesubdivision of "absolute _truth"into

two.Miyazakils$ugesstionseems tobevefy

interes-tingbutitseems tobebettertokeep_{provisionally}thetheory ofLindtnerand

Ejima:

"There isaunique

absolute truth,"untilwe can solve thiscontradiction completely

Kumagai

_[fbnhcoming]

has already outlined thehistoryof the development of Bonpos' theories of

"twe _truths,"

Aeknewledgemellt

Iam _gratefu1to_professQrKatsurniMimakiand _professorIzumiMiyazakiofKyotoUniversitywho directed

my study and especially _professorSamtenKarmay of CNRS who _gaveme a lotof usefu1 suggestiens. Iam

also _gratefu1toMr. EricGreeneof UC Berkeley who improved my English.

CIEhis

research was supperted in

_part

byaGrant-in-AidforJSPSfe11ows)

'