№18868Добавлено: Вс 16 Июл 06, 21:42 (11 лет тому назад)Герменевтика Дхармы: шесть альтернатив
В книжке Джэксона  в главе про порядок проведения диспутов есть такая цитата Са-пана (Сакья Пандита) <зелёным>.
Scriptural Contradictions. When the participants in a debate both maintained the same scriptures, they could use them against each other. But if the two disputants came from different traditions, then only the other party's own scriptures could be used against him, and not one's own. As he stated in the sKyes bu dam pa (333.2.6 = na 75a): "If you do not contradict the established tenets that you yourself maintain, then there is no harm even if you contradict (read: 'gal) the established tenets maintained by others." It was likewise pointless to quote one's own scriptures against the opponent if the latter did not accept them as his own (DS III 491 = 40b; KhJ III 31-32). To disprove an opponent through scripture, one always had to show him to be in self-contradiction. For instance, one could cite the texts or early teachers of a lineage to refute the later followers of the same lineage (DS II 6 = 14b; III 490-1 = 40b, 496-8 = 41a). Therefore, it was necessary to determine from the beginning what the opponent's basic lineage or school was.
Interpretation as the Main Escape from Apparent Scriptural Self-Contradictions. If in the course of a debate or controversy, one disputant was charged with being in contradiction with his own scriptures, and there did indeed seem to be a contradiction, he needed then to be able to explain these contradictions as being merely apparent and not real (KhJ III 33). In order to reply satisfactorily, he needed to show the true intended sense of the scripture, and therefore it was necessary to draw certain hermeneutical distinctions, such as between scriptures spoken with a hidden or ulterior intention and those simply spoken directly with no special intention. The debater had to be able to show for instance that the scripture in question was not literally binding because it was spoken with a special or hidden motive. Sa-pan also mentioned these hermeneutical principles near the end of section II of the KhJ, because they were presupposed for successful explication of scripture through the method of "objections and replies":251
Through [the method of] objections and replies, one should establish the purport of the text by means of scripture and reasoning. (KhJ II 33)
There exist words and meanings that are extremely weighty and difficult to understand, apparent mixtures of non-Buddhist Indian Sectarian and Buddhist established tenets, and many subjects for debate regarding the differences of theory and practice not only between the Greater and Lesser Vehicles of Buddhism, but also within the Lesser Vehicle, between the four basic monastic communities and the eighteen schools that developed from them. And also within the Great Vehicle, there are differences between the Perfections (Paramita) and Mantra [approaches], and there are many apparent contradictions of established tenets such as in the Perfection (Paramita) [Vehicle] between Yogacara and Madhyamaka, and within the Mantra between the four classes of Tantras. Consequently, one should expound by establishing [one's subject] through [stating] the objections [of opponents] and the replies [of one's own school], making use of both scriptural quotations and logical reasoning. For if on such occasions one does not ascertain [the matter] through objections and replies, one will not know wrong doctrine from right.
That person who knows the "six alternatives" is extremely learned at explaining texts. (KhJ II 34)252
For the explanation of major scriptures, one needs to know the "six alternatives" [or six principles of interpretation], which are: (1) special intention (dgongs pa) (2) without special intention (dgongs pa mayin pa), (3) provisional meaning (drang ba'i don), (4) definitive meaning (ngespa'i don), (5) literal (sgraji bzhinpd), and (6) non-literal (sgra ji bzhin ma yin pa).253
(1.) Statements [having] special intention. By understanding the four intentions (dgongs pa, Sanskrit abhipraya) such as "sameness" (samata) and the four allusions (Idem dgongs, Sanskrit abhisamdhi) such as "the allusion of introduction" (avataranabhisamdhi), one will understand the apparently contradictory words and meanings of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, and therefore they will become non-contradictory. I have not written on these in detail, fearing that [my text will become] excessively long. Therefore [to learn more,] one should refer to such works as the Mahayanasutralamkara [Skt. XII16-18].
(2.) Statements without special intention are words and meanings that themselves directly convey the intended import of the Buddha without one's having to seek another special intention as above.
(3.) [Provisional meaning] is [found in teachings given] for the sake of assisting some sentient beings. [Such teachings,] though not the truth, conform with those [sentient beings'] dispositions, and gladden and lead their minds, and serve as the basis for them afterwards to enter into definitive meaning.
(4.) Definitive meaning is the sense that is correctly understood by individuals of sharp capacities through following the words themselves. One should understand the preceding two [types of meaning] in more detail from such [scriptures] as the Samdhinirmocana [Sutra].
[Objection:] All the Buddha's words are of definitive meaning alone, but they cannot possibly be of interpretable meaning, for if there were such a thing as interpretable meaning it would mean that the Buddha uttered falsehoods.254 [Reply:] Those persons [who say this] are simply ignorant of the intent of the Sutras and Tantras. For if [all the Buddha's utterances] were exclusively of definitive meaning, the different doctrinal systematizations such as the three kayas, the three "baskets of scripture" (tripitaka), and the three trainings (trisiksa) would for the most part contradict each other, and how could there be disparate doctrinal systematizations in the definitive meaning of ultimate truth? [Such doctrinal differences] were established based on conventional usage, the surface-level truth, [and] provisional meaning.
Furthermore, if such statements [by the Buddha] as "I have perfectly understood all dharmas ...," and also: "I have become wholly awakened. There exists nobody like me....' were of definitive meaning, infinitely great faults would be entailed. For instance, there would be the consequence of [the Buddha's] postulating a self like the non-Buddhist Indian sectarian, and also his indication of past and future would establish the three times as substances.
(5.) Literal [expressions] are those that signify the sense in exact accordance with the words, such as [the words] "the salutary" (dge ba) and "the preparatory accumulations [or 'equipment'] of merit and Gnosis," and such statements as: "Generosity leads to the enjoyment of wealth, and moral discipline leads to happiness."255
(6.) The non-literal consists of words that signify something different [from their usual referent], such as the line "father and mother are to be killed."256 And instances of [such non-literal usages] are found in the Sutras and Tantras, and in some poetical treatises. Fearing that [the present work] will grow too large, I have not written in detail about these methods [here]. If one does not know the "six alternatives," one will err whether teaching Sutra or Tantra, for as Candrakirti said:257
"Whoever says that he has definite understanding without the 'six alternatives' is just like someone who, wanting to look at the moon, looks at the tips of his fingers."
Sa-pan employed these six "alternatives" or "limits" in various passages of his sDom gsum rah dbye and other doctrinal writings in order to interpret the scriptures and to refute their erroneous interpretation. He often employed these principles separately in other combinations or separate pairs, not counting them as a set of six:
(1) Types of "explicational statement" (bshad pa). He divided these into three types: (DS I 139-40 = 9a; III 416 = 37a): (a) having a special intention (dgongs pa), (b) having a hidden intention (i.e. as allusion) (ldem por dgongs), and (c) having straightforward intent (drang por dgongs).
(2) Types of meaning (don): definitive (nges don) or provisional (i.e. indirect) meaning (drang don) (DS I 142-3 = 9a; III 411 = 37a). Sometimes he identified a scripture as having one or the other kind of meaning. He showed for instance the faulty identification
of provisional as definitive (DS I 155-6 = 9b-10a). He also strongly objected to the notion that all scriptures were of definitive meaning.
(3) Types of expression: literal (sgra ji bzhin) or non-literal (sgra ji bzhin ma yin pa) (DS III 411 = 37a). These two overlapped closely with 1(c) and l(ab) respectively.
In addition, Sa-pan utilized a number of other basic distinctions to classify scriptures, doctrines or practices in his DS and elsewhere. To list some of the main ones here:
(1) Different "Vehicle": mundane ('jig rten) or supramundane ('jig rten las 'das) (DS III 412 = 37a, 523-4 = 42b)
(2) Buddhist versus non-Buddhist doctrine or practice (DS 1143 =9a; cf. ThGS 48b)
(3) Different systems of established tenets (siddhanta: grub mthay) (DS I 19-20)
(4) Different categories of Buddhist doctrine: theory (lta ba) versus practical conduct (spyod pa) or meditative cultivation (sgom pa) (DS III 518ff = 42b).
(5) Different levels or classes of Buddhist vows (sdom pa), i.e. distinguishing among the three classes of vows: Pratimoksa, Bodhisattva, and Mantra. He clearly distinguished between the Sravaka Pratimoksa and the Bodhisattva vows (DS I 1-3 = 2a; I 35-39 = 4a; I 151-154 = 9b) or between the Pratimoksa and the Mantra (DS I 27 = 3b)
(6) Different levels of truth: surface (kun rdzob) versus ultimate (don dam) (DS III 70-71 = 21a-b)
(7) Different levels of doctrinal importance, i.e. whether a teaching is an essential or crucial doctrine (gnad) or merely an incidental one (DS III 421 =37a-b, 460-1 = 39a)
(8) Difference between relatively coarser (rags pa) or more subtle (phra ba) doctrinal formulation or systematization (rnam gzhag) (ThGS 75a).
There also existed several more technical conceptual schemes that had important scholastic applications, such as the threefold scheme of definiens (mtshon byed), definiendum (mtshon bya), and exemplification of the definiendum (mtshan gzhi) (ThGS 63b). But the above should be enough to show the sophisticated tools that scholars in this tradition had at their disposal.
№18872Добавлено: Вс 16 Июл 06, 22:10 (11 лет тому назад)
Потому что мотивации уже забиты другим смыслом (1-2м).
Я Mahayanasutralamkara не читал, но предполагаю, что отличие provisional от special intent в том, что provisional подготавливает к постижению более глубокого смысла, так сказать закладывает основы, а special intent когда Будда хочет (intent), чтоб слушатели поняли пустоту или праджняпарамиту, но при этом их не объясняет в явном виде. Тоесть не говорит мол пустота, это то-то, праджняпарамита, это то-то, но говорит нечто такое от чего может родиться понимание.
№18876Добавлено: Вс 16 Июл 06, 22:23 (11 лет тому назад)
Про буквальный смысл? А чего, нормально. Интерпретативные смыслы различаются по замыслу говорящего, значению (в зависимости способностям слушающих, полностью излагается какая-то теория или только её часть), буквальности (символичности сказанного). И типа больше никак.
Root tantra texts (rtsa-rgyud) are purposely written in obscure language, known as vajra expressions (rdo-rje'i tshig), to ensure that disciples rely closely on tantric masters for studying and practicing tantra. Without a hermeneutical device, the texts appear confusing or meaningless.
The Six Alternatives
1. a) explicit suggestive meaning (drang-don, Skt. nityartha) and b) implicit suggested meaning (nges-don, Skt. neyartha). Типа, явный намёк, и неявный намёк.
В системе коренной тантры 'vajra expression' может иметь любой или оба значения:
a) намекает или подводит на второй смысл непохожий на буквальный.
b) смысл к которому должны подвести и в котором следует убедится.
a) For example, the explicit suggestive meaning of Vajra-Holder (Skt. Vajradhara) is a Buddha-figure who holds a five-pronged vajra in his hand.
b) Thus, the implicit suggested meaning of Vajra-Holder is the unified pair (zung-'jug, Skt. yuganaddha) of clear light ('od-gsal) and illusory body (sgyu-lus).
В системе Сутры фраза может иметь только один из:
a) drang-don (explicit suggestive meaning) refers to interpretable meaning
b) nges-don (implicit suggested meaning) refers to definitive meaning.
2. a) Metaphorical, and b) Nonmetaphorical Meanings
В системе коренной тантры только одно из смыслов (отличающихся от систем низших тантр и сутры):
a) метафорический, использующий слова несущие совершенно другое значение.
b) обозначаемый явно и прямо, не требующий толкования.
a) For example, "Find a young virgin with broad eyes and adorned with a beautiful youthful form, twenty-five years of age" are words of metaphorical meaning. They indicate the unified pair of clear light and illusory body with words that are different and contrary to this meaning.
b) For example, "Sit in the total absorption of the samadhi called vajra identitylessness" are words that nonmetaphorically indicate meditation on clear light.
3. Conventional Language and Nonconventional Language Meanings
В системе коренной тантры один из:
a) обычный язык или санскрит. (Смысл совпадающий с системой низших тантр.)
b) язык будд.
a) An example of the latter is "even those sentient beings with great negative karmic force, such as from having committed heinous crimes, can attain the supreme vehicle of the great ocean of Vajrayana."
b) For example, "kotakya, kotava, kotakotavashcha, and so on" is a list of names for the Buddha-figure Vajrapani.
The Four Modes
1. Literal Meaning (Можно понять пользуясь словарями и грамматическими справочниками.)
2. General Shared Meaning (Как правило скрытый от практиков сутры).
3. Hidden Meaning (Как правило скрытый от практиков низших тантр.)
4. Final Ultimate Meaning (В терминах глубочайшего Ясного света или союза).
Рассматривается термин самая и буквальный перевод одного отрывка из Гухьясамаджа тантры.
Есть интересное сравнение тантрических текстов и рецептурных книг или руководств по ремонту, хоть последние и требуют определенного образования или помощи от специалиста, они всетаки написаны без кода, в то время как тантры записаны с явным умыслом скрыть смысл.
Дается пример толкования по 4м уровням:
(1) invariant sense, i.e., literal meaning (aksarartha),
(2) shared sense (shared with non-tantric Buddhism or with lower Tantras (samastangartha),
(3) pregnant sense (garbhyartha),
(4) ultimate sense (kolikartha).
1. the 'invariant sense' is the meaning that the important terms have in this literature no matter what else they may mean by metaphorical extension, or by deliberate use in some other way. Thus the tantric author Ratnakarasanti as I cited him illustrates this invariant meaning by the three-Buddha identification with the honorific Body, Speech, and Mind, called Diamond of Body, etc. Thus Diamond of Body is Vairocana, Diamond of Speech is Amitabha, and Diamond of Mind is Aksobhya. This is the invariant sense.
2. Next, he gives the identification with seed mantras: Diamond of Body is OM, Diamond of Speech is AH, Diamond of Mind is HUM. This is the shared sense, he says, intending that all the Buddhist Tantras would identify this way.
3. He then brings in the notion of the three channels of the body, called the three "veins" nadi, which are usually placed in what is called the "subtle body": Diamond of Body is the "vein of the tortoise" kurmaka (the right "vein"), Diamond of Speech is the "vein of the moon" sasanka (the left "vein"), and Diamond of Mind is the "vein of love's umbrella" madanatapatra (the middle "vein"). This he calls the pregnant sense as shown by arbitrary terms as a kind of private or mystical language of that particular tantric literature, or particular Tantra.
4. Then he identifies with the three kinds of sense objects by the classification, desirable, repulsive, and neutral: Diamond of Body is desire, Diamond of Speech is aversion, Diamond of Mind is indifference. This he calls the ultimate sense.
Знакомые "шесть альтернатив" у него "три пары альтернатив":
Besides there was a theory of three pairs of alternatives, as I have translated them:
1. "hinted meaning" (neyartha) and "evident meaning" (nitartha);
2. "twilight language" (samdhya bhasa) and "non-twilight language" (no samdhya bhasa);
3. "standard terminology" (yatharuta) and "coined terminology" (no yatharuta).
1. The pair 'hinted meaning' and 'evident meaning' is the only set which is referred to in terms of "meaning" (artha). Т.е. тантрические neyartha и nitartha.
a) As Ratnakarasanti illustrates these, Diamond of Body is an appeasing rite (santika), Diamond of Speech a controlling rite (vasikara), Diamond of Mind a destroying rite (abhicarika); and this is termed 'hinted meaning'.
b) While Diamond of Body as Body-mandala, Diamond of Speech as the Speech-mandala, and Diamond of Mind as the Mind-mandala, is termed 'evident meaning'. (By mandala here is intended a group of deities arranged in a design called mandala).
The verse speaks abour some beings called vidyarajas and some called diamond-possessors who confer the supreme success (siddhi) upon the adepts (siddha) of this system.
a) When one interprets the verse with 'hinted meaning' the first group of beings becomes the furious deities (krodha), the second group the celestial Bodhisattvas.
b) When one interprets with 'evident meaning' the two groups become human men and women.
a) Therefore, when in Mkhas-grub-rje's Fundamentals of the Buddhist Tantras it is stated that Locana and other goddesses in this set hold the flask and confer the initiation (abhiseka) to the disciples, this must be the 'hinted meaning' (neyartha)
b) for the usual literal statement that the guru holds the flask and confers the initiation; while if this guru be interpreted as a human it would be counted as the 'evident meaning'.
2. the 'twilight language' and the 'non-twilight language'. Ratnakarasanti illustrates
a) Diamond of Body is blood; Diamond of Speech is semen; Diamond of Mind is scented water; and this is termed 'twilight language'. ((In short, when the statement is made, "Diamond of Body is blood", the term "blood" is not being employed as a meaning; rather, Diamond of Body is called "blood". Thus, it is a kind of name.))
b) Diamond of Body is Light; Diamond of Speech is Spread-of-Light; Diamond of Mind is Culmination-of-Light; and this is termed 'non-twilight language'.
a) So also in (Wayman 1977:317) it is pointed out that kunduru "resin" is twilight language for undefinable union. Therefore, 'twilight language' can itself be given meaning, or a series of meanings, as does the tantric Nagarjuna in his work Samdhibhasa-tika. Thus, I cited his comment on "kunduru 'resin' is the union of the two" for the initial explanation "is the union of sense organ and perception".
3. The final pair of alternatives is 'standard terminology' and 'coined terminology'.
a) Diamond of Body is the mandala of twenty-hasta size; Diamond of Speech is the mandala of six-teen-hasta size; Diamond of Mind is the mandala of twelve-torn size; and this is 'standard terminology'.
b) Diamond of Body is Brahma; Diamond of Speech is Mahesvara; Diamond of Mind is Visnu; and this is 'coined terminology'. ((Notice that for the 'coined terminology' the words are outside the system which is Buddhist, since the three deities mentioned are the Hindu trimurti.))
№21963Добавлено: Пт 22 Сен 06, 00:50 (10 лет тому назад)
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata." [AN 2.25]
№38901Добавлено: Пт 24 Авг 07, 19:53 (9 лет тому назад)
Пример из Abhidharmasamuccaya Асанги с комментарием Валполы Рахулы о расшифровке скрытого смысла.
ASCERTAINMENT OF THE PROFOUND MEANING (ABHISAṂDHIVINIŚCAYA)
7. What is the ascertainment of the profound (hidden) meaning (abhisaṃdhiviniścaya)?614
614 For the four kinds of abhisandhi – avatāraṇabhisandhi, lakṣaṇābhisandhi, pratipakṣābhisandhi and pariṇāmanābhisandhi – see Sūtrālaṅkāra, XII, 16, 17. See also Saṃgraha, p. [ ].
It is the transformation of the meaning expressed by the groups of names, words and consonants (nāmapadavyañjanakāya) to make the hidden sense, which is different from the first, apparent.
It is said in the sūtra: ‘A man who has killed his mother and father, the king and the two learned ones (brahmins)615 and who has destroyed the kingdom with its ministers, is called very pure.’616
615 According to the Tibetan version: two śrotriya brahmins’. Dhp XXI, 6 also says: dve ca sotthiye.
616 Cf. Dhp XXI, 5: mātaraṃ pitaraṃ hantvā rājāno dve ca khattiye / raṭṭhaṃ sānucaraṃ hantvā anīgho yāti brāhmaṇo. ‘Having killed his mother and father, the two warrior kings, and having destroyed the kingdom with its ministers, the brahmin is free of suffering.’
Again it is said in the sūtra: ‘He who has no faith (aśraddha),617 who is ungrateful (akṛtajña),618 he who robs by breaking and entering (sandhicchedin),619 who has destroyed space (hatāvakāśa)620 and who loathes aspiration (vantāśa)621 is truly the noblest of men.622
617 The evident meaning is ‘he who has no faith or confidence’, but the hidden meaning is ‘he who is not gullible, so does not accept things on hear-say, out of belief, because he knows them by his own direct cognition.’
618 The evident meaning is ‘ungrateful’ (a-kṛtajña), but the hidden meaning is ‘he who knows the uncreated’ (akṛtajña), i.e., he who knows the absolute, nirvāṇa..
Here ‘mother’ means ‘thirst’ (tṛṣṇā, desire), ‘father means ‘ignorance (avidyā) or ‘pride of I-am’ (asmimāna), ‘the two kings’ means ‘the two wrong views’ eternalism (śaśvatadṛṣṭi) and nihilism (ucchedadṛṭi), the ‘kingdom with its ministers’ means ‘the six sense organs and their external objects (dvādaśāyatana) with attachment (mandīrāga).’
Thus the real (hidden) meaning is: Having destroyed desire and ignorance (or pride) and the two wrong views of eternalism and nihilsm, and the twelve spheres (āyatana) with attachment, an arhat (brahmin) goes to nirvāṇa free of suffering.’
It is interesting to note here that the brahmins claimed that a brahmin was blameless no matter what he did. Here the Buddha uses the term ‘brāhmaṇa’ to means an arhat, and he speaks symbolically.
619 The ordinary meaning is ‘robbery by breaking and entering’, but the hidden meaning is ‘he who has put an end (cut) (chedin) to the linkage (rebirth) (sandhi = pratisandhi).’
620 Literally, “he who has destroyed space”. The hidden meaning is ‘he who has put an end to the occasion of doing good and bad actions’. This means an arhat is free from good and bad karma.
621 The hidden meaning is ‘he who has abandoned all desire’.
622 Thus the abhisandhi or profound and hidden meaning of this verse is: ‘he who does not accept things on faith (because he knows them himself with his own direct knowledge), who knows the uncreated (nirvāṇa), who has put an end to rebirth, who has destroyed the occasion for producing good and bad karma, and who has abandoned all desire, is truly the noblest of men’.
Again it is said in the sūtra: ‘Those who consider the non-essential as essential, who are well settled on the wrong side, who are thoroughly stained by their defilements, obtain supreme awakening.’623
623 This verse is cited as an example of pariṇāmanābhisandhi in the Sūtrālankāra, p. 82: asāre sāramatayo vipayāse susthitāḥ / kleśena ca susaṃkliṣṭā labhante bodhim uttamām. This verse is also found is the Saṃgraha, p. 132.
Furthermore, it is said in the sūtra: ‘The bodhisattva, the great being, endowed with five qualities, quickly accomplishes the perfection of generosity (dānapāramitā).’ What are these five qualities? ‘(1) He cultivates (realizes) the nature of greed (mātsaryadharmatā),624 (2) he becomes weary with generosity,625 (3) he hates those who ask (yācaka),626 (4) he never gives a little,627 and (5) he is far from generosity.’628
624 By destroying the anuśaya and the vāsanā of greed (mātsarya), the bodhisattva realizes the dharmatā and tathatā of greed and obtains the āśrayaparāvṛtti. Thus he realizes mātsaryadharmatā, ‘the nature of greed’.
625 In order to practice generosity for a long time, he undergoes many difficulties and thus tires himself out with generosity.
626 Here yācaka means ātmagrāha ‘grasping at self’.
627 I.e., he gives everything at every moment.
Cf. Dhp. VII, 8, has exactly the same verse: assaddho akataññū sandhicchedo ca yo naro / hatāvakāso vantāso sa ve uttamaporiso.
628 He does not await, he does not accept the results of generosity. Thus he is far from generosity.
Again it is said in the sūtra: ‘The bodhisattva, the great being, endowed with five qualities, becomes chaste (brahmacārin), possessing completely pure chastity. What are these five qualities? He does not seek freedom from sexual relations except in maithuna;629 he is not interested (upekṣaka) in giving up sexual relations;630 he gives himself up to his innate desire for sexual relations;631 he is frightened by the teaching opposed to sexual relations;632 and he frequently enages in dvayadvaya (copulation).’633
629 Here maithuna means yathābhūtaparijñāna (knowledge of things such as they are).
630 He considers prahāṇa-upekṣa as not being a means of brahamcarya.
631 When desire arises in him, he gives himself over to the effort of driving it away.
632 I.e., he frightens others by the teaching opposed to maithuna.
633 Here dvayadvaya means ‘ relationship of two’, i.e., laukikalokottaramārga ‘mundane and supramundane path’ and śamatha-vipaśyanā ‘ mental stabilization and insight’.
Вам можно начинать темы Вам можно отвечать на сообщения Вам нельзя редактировать свои сообщения Вам нельзя удалять свои сообщения Вам нельзя голосовать в опросах Вы можете вкладывать файлы Вы можете скачивать файлы