因三相辩证  

On Trairūpya

作　　者：郭桥[1] Qiao Guo(School of Philosophy and Public Administration,Henan University)

机构地区：[1]河南大学哲学与公共管理学院

出　　处：《逻辑学研究》2019年第1期3-17,共15页Studies in Logic

基　　金：河南大学哲学社会科学创新团队培育计划资助项目成果

摘　　要：关于印度因明史上"因三相"概念的最早提出时间,学界意见不一。但一个公认的事实是,《门论》中关于九句因的详细分析以及正、似因的判定,表明陈那所开创的新因明革新了因三相学说,对后者的合理性进行了全面分析。玄奘回国后于公元647年在弘福寺翻译《入论》一卷,公元649年在慈恩寺翻译《门论》一卷,这是以因三相为核心的新因明传入中国的两个标志性事件。玄奘在《入论》中对"因三相"内容的翻译在汉传因明史上产生了深远影响,僧、俗两界纷纷围绕之而开展研究。继玄奘《入论》本对"因三相"的翻译之后,近代以来又有学者依据梵文或藏文的有关资料对梵文本《入论》中的"因三相"重新翻译或校勘玄奘译文。比较玄奘译本和近代以来的再译本,可以发现玄奘译本中新增了"遍"、"定"两个汉字。玄奘关于因三相的译文典雅、精致,表达三相的语句成为汉传因明的经典格言,极大地促进了因明在中国的传播。关于因三相的义理,后代学人尤其是近代以来深受西方逻辑浸染的研究者提出了不同的见解。这些不同的见解,以第一相和第二相最为明显。关于第一相,本文提出这是关于因法和宗之前陈的关系所做出的规定。关于第二相,本文认为该相和同喻体相互表里,它规定具有因法所表示属性的事物一定也都具有宗之后陈即同品所表示的性质。这一主张得到以下理由的支持:唐疏、九句因和因三相的关系、《入论》中的有关文句,以及藏传因明研究者的观点。关于第二相和第三相,二者在逻辑上的等值关系并不能取代在自悟和悟他的过程中它们分别具有的作用。对因三相中后二相的逻辑解读,不能也不应该消解二者在立破语境中彼此不可替代的作用。It is uncertain that who is the first man using the term of Trairūpya in the history of India logic.The theory of nava-pada-hetavah was introduced in Nyā-mukha(《门论》)written by Dignāga(陈那).He tells the correct and wrong situations in the book.It is Dignāga who found the basis of trairūpya.Xuan-Zang(玄奘)translated Nyāya-pravesa(《入论》)into Chinese in 647,and in 649,he finished the translation of Nyāya-mukha.From then on,nbvya-hetuvidyā(新因明)was introduced into China.The translation of trairūpya produced the profound effection in the later time,some scholars began to research the theory.Since the modern time in Chinese history,some scholars translated trairūpya into Chinese after Xuan-Zang,and Ceng-Lv gave his opinions about the translation by Xuan-Zang.By comparing the different translation,we find that two special Chinese characters were added into the translation by Xuan-Zang.They are“BIAN(遍)”and“DING(定)”.With the high quality of translation by Xuan-Zang,the theory of trairūpya and other knowledge about nbvya-hetuvidyāwere gradually understood by more and more people.In modern time,more and more Chinese people began to learn the western logic,and the study about trairūpya are influenced by the ideas of logic.Some people expressed different opinions on the meanings of trairūpya from the point of logic.Especially,researchers have obvious different opinions on the meaning of paksa-dharma-tvam(遍是宗法性),and that of sapakse sattvam(同品定有性).I think that the former talks about the relation between the middle term(因法)and the minor term(前陈),and it means that the object referred by the minor term also has the quality referred by the middle term.While the later,it means that every object referred by the middle term do have the quality referred by the major term(同品).My opinion can get its backing from the following facts:the opinions from Xuan-Zang’s disciples;the relation between nava-pada-hetavah and trairūpkya,and the opinions from the spec

关 键 词：汉传因明 因三相 译本 义理 

分 类 号：B81[哲学宗教—逻辑学]