解藏護之學派思想傾向考察──以《論理的語言》中四學派一節為主

Mokṣākaragupta (ca.1050-1292 C.E.) is a Buddhit scholar of the final stage of Indian Buddhism. His work Tarkabhāṣā is about Buddhist epistemology and logic. On his school position, Japanese scholar Kenjo Shirasaki has assumed that he is contrast to Jitāri (ca. 940-980 C.E.), and seems to be a Sākāravādin, according to the Buddhist four schools’ doctrine contents in Tarkabhāṣā compared with Jitāri’s counterparts in the Sugatamatavibhaṅgabhāṣya. However, Kenjo Shirasaki makes his points based on Mokṣākaragupta and Jitāri’s references: Mokṣākaragupta qoutes from Dharmakīrti (ca. 600-660 C.E.), Prajnākaragupta (ca. 750-810 C.E.) etc., who was regarded as Sākāravādin; and Jitāri quotes from Śāntarakṣita (ca. 725-788 C.E.), Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 10-11th C.E.) etc., regarded as Nirākāravādin. These scholars who represented the Sākāravāda and Nirākāravāda, are advoted by scholars like Yuchi Kajiyama, but has been doubted by Toru Funayama in his article Kamalaśīla’s distinction between the two sub-schools of Yogācāra. A provisional survey. In this work, Funayama points out some problems of the past studies, and reveals that Kamalaśīla’s distinction between two sub-schools of Yogācāra, the criteria of classification is different from known before. This indicates that we have to reconsider about the classification of the two sub-schools of the Yogācāra, and their represented Indian scholars. In this research, researcher based on the discussion of Kenjo Shirasaki, and adds the opinion of Toru Funayama about Sākāravāda and Nirākāravāda, to go back to the text itself to rediscover the school position of Mokṣākaragupta. And just follow the way Toru Funayama did, this reasearch also reviews the Sākāravāda and Nirākāravāda studies of the past, and offers some rough opinions. With this study hopes to provide more hard evidences of the two sub-schools of Yogācāra from text, and makes us have better understanding about Buddhist school development in the final stage of Indian Buddhism.