梵本《大乘莊嚴經論》之「八何詞（kāpadeśa）」、「八若詞（yāpadeśa）」研究

A Study on the Instruction by Interrogative Pronuns (kāpadeśa) and by Relative Pronouns (yāpadeśa) in the Sanskrit Text Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra

梵文佛典Mahāyāna-Sūtrālāṃkāra（簡稱MSA，唐朝漢譯為《大乘莊嚴經論》）是闡揚佛教唯識與菩薩道哲學的文獻。其第17 品（pūjāsevāpramāṇa 供養、師事、梵住）的「八何詞（kāpadeśa）」、「八若詞（yāpadeśa）」是一個重要的研究題目，這可能是瑜伽行派、特別是無著（Asaṅga）論師的注釋形式的特色之一。因為，在MSA 的第1 品「序言」第1 偈、第16品「波羅蜜」之第52-56 偈，以及玄奘所漢譯的《大乘阿毘達磨集論》〈4 論議品〉、《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》〈4 論品〉也都有如此注釋形式。但是，日本學界對MSA 第17 品1-5 偈「明供養〔諸佛〕分別」與第9-14ab「明師事〔善友〕分別」是否屬於「八若詞」的問答決擇形式的議題有異論。因此，本論文以此為主題論述與梵語學與佛學之相關的問題，並且提出：(1) 可將梵本《大乘莊嚴經論》之「八何詞」、「八若詞」的現代中譯詞為「八種疑問代詞議決法」（或簡稱：八疑問詞論法）、「八種關係代詞議決法」（或簡稱：八關係詞論法）；(2) 其疑問代詞或關係代詞七格之「形式順序」可以不定，實質的七格之「意義順序」確定即可；(3) 其中，第八「種類議決法」與源自《阿含》、《尼柯耶》之五蘊的十一種觀察法與定義有關。(4) 學術界有認為「文法七格= kāpadeśa 或yāpadeśa 的前七義」與「如所有性」（yathāvad-bhāvikatā）關係之主張，有待商榷。

The Sanskrit Text Mahāyāna-Sūtrālāṃkāra (abbr. MSA; Chinese translation inTang dynasty Dasheng zhuangyanjing lun) is a literature that promotes the Buddhist Mind-Only and Bodhisattva Pathphilosophy. In the Text, Chapter 17 Pūjāsevāpramāṇa (Worship, Service, and Immeasurables) contains the usage of instructions conducted by “interrogative pronuns (kāpadeśa)” and“relative pronouns (yāpadeśa)”, which has become an important subject of research, and is a characteristic of the annotative style used by treatise masters of the Yogâcāra system, especially Asaṅga. We also fi nd the usage of this annotation style in Chapter 1 “Prologue” verse 1, Chapter 16 “Pāramitā (Perfection)” verses 52-56in the MSA, and in Chapter 4 “Sāṃkathya (Discussion)” in Xuanzang’s Chinese translation of Mahāyānābhidharma-samuccaya and vyākhyā. However, scholars of Japan’s academia hold different opinions on Chapter 17 verses 1-5 “Explanation of Worshiping Buddhas” and verses 9-14ab “Explanation of Serving Good Friends and Teachers”, concerning whether these passages were written in the sentence pattern of “relative pronouns (yāpadeśa)”. Therefore, this paper will focus on this subject to discuss the issues relative to Sanskrit philology and Buddhism, and suggest the following opinions: (1) Create modern terms forSanskrit “kāpadeśa” and ”yāpadeśa”in Chinese as “eight-interrogative-pronoun resolution” (or “eight-interrogative argumentation” in short) and “eight relativepronoun resolution” (or “eight-relative argumentation” in short); (2) defi ne the seven cases of the interrogative pronoun or relative pronoun in their “sequence of meaning”, in spite of their “sequence of form”; (3) among them, the eighth “resolution by kinds” is relative to the eleven kinds of investigation on the Five Aggregates, as originated from the Āgamas and Nikayas. (4) The academic assertion on the relation between “the grammatical seven cases or the seven meanings of kāpadeś or yāpadeśa” and “thusness of things (yathāvad-bhāvikatā)” should be open for further discussion.