漢傳、日本因明學對「合」的理解：Anvaya 還是Upanaya？

The Understanding of He in Chinese and Japanese Hetuvidyā: Anvaya or Upanaya?

在漢傳佛教中，印度陳那論師的因明理論體系之傳承肇始於玄奘對《因明正理門論》、《因明入正理論》的譯介，光大於窺基《因明入正理論疏》的註釋。該疏被後世尊稱為《因明大疏》。其後，以窺基《因明大疏》為代表的這一因明理論體系進一步傳入日本。在玄奘所漢譯的《因明正理門論》、《因明入正理論》等因明著作中，表示同喻中因法、宗法間肯定邏輯關係的anvaya 和五支論式中合支的upanaya 均被翻譯為「合」，而在此後漢地、日本相關因明學注疏中，窺基等後繼者們對這個「合」之概念的理解成為了一個重要的話題。在將anvaya 及upanaya 二者融於同一「合」概念的理解模式影響下，陳那的因明體系並非真正去除了合支，而是將其包含于同喻，且同喻體必須引入宗主項有法，因而導致了因明論式邏輯結構的改變。本文將解讀窺基、慧沼、善珠的相關闡釋文本，以試圖厘清此種對「合」之理解的產生與放大脈絡，並考察其對漢地、日本因明學的影響。

Dignāga’s system of the science of reasons was introduced into Chinese Buddhism through Xuanzang’s translations of the Nyāyamukha and the Nyāyapraveśa. The study on this subject was later promoted by Kuiji, who was Xuanzang’s most important disciple and wrote a commentary on Xuanzang’s Chinese translation of the Nyāyapraveśa. Kuiji’s commentary was honored as the Great Commentary on the Science of Reasons by later generations. After a new development in China, this system, with Kuiji’s Great Commentaty as a representative work, was transmitted into Japan. In Xuanzang’s translations of the Nyāyamukha, the Nyāyapraveśa, and so forth, both anvaya and upanaya, which mean quite differently, were translated as he(合), then in the elevant Chinese and Japanese commentaries by his successors, such as Kuiji, how to understand this he became a notable issue. It caused discussions not only about the exclusion of upanaya as well as the function through anvaya of the positive example in Dignāga’s system of the science of reasons, but also about the entire logical structure of inference. Thus, this paper is to examine the problem of he in the commentarial texts by Kuiji, Huizhao, and Zenju, with the purpose of elucidating how it was generated and magnified, and how it impacted the Chinese and Japanese traditions of the science of reasons.