晚明和江戶唯識註釋的比較——以《觀所緣緣論》為例

The Contrast of Late Ming Weishi Commentaries and Edo Weishi Commentaries on Xuanzang’s Guan suoyuanyuan lun

在晚明的唯識復興期間，中國出現了至少三十五本唯識註釋本，這些唯識著作都是在唐朝窺基、慧沼和智周等重要唯識註疏佚失中完成的。然而，自唐以來，日本法相宗的法脈和唯識的重要經典註疏，卻未有類似的中斷和佚失。因此，晚明的唯識著作不免遭受質疑與挑戰。其中，來自日本江戶註釋家的批評，尤其嚴苛，毫不留情地指責晚明的唯識註釋錯誤百出，沒有參考價值。本文試圖考察江戶唯識註釋家如此的批評是否公允，以及晚明與江戶註釋家之間有沒有唐朝唯識註疏輔助的差異，如何型塑他們對於同一個唯識文本的了解和詮釋。
本研究選擇玄奘譯的《觀所緣緣論》當作基準文本，比較晚明唯識註釋家智旭、明昱與江戶唯識註釋家基辨、快道的註釋。分析先以綜觀高度的分析來尋找差異點，如江戶註釋家有比較長的導言和比較大比例的引述等差異。再深入地分析差異點，如引述的來源和頻率、為什麼有比較長的導言等議題。分析發現: 有沒有唐朝唯識註疏的輔助，的確對於註釋家尋找爭議點、區別不同的實在論、和處理唯識派內部爭論的能力有很大的影響。此外，分析也發現，註釋家的主體性、不同的議程和個人專長，對於註釋家決定要註釋什麼以及如何註釋上，扮演著舉足輕重的角色。

In the late Ming there was a renaissance of Weishi (consciousnessonly)in which at least thirty-fi ve Weishi commentaries were producedin China without access to the key Weishi commentaries authored byKuiji, Huizhao, and Zhizhoh. On the other hand, the Weishi lineage ofFaxiang Zong in Japan together with those key Weishi commentarieshave never been interrupted since Tang dynasty. Due to the lostWeishi lineage and texts, those late Ming made Weishi commentarieshave been in doubt and challenged. Especially some Weishi expertsin Japan in the Edo period criticized some late Ming authors forproducing valueless and incorrect Weishi commentaries. This articleattempts to investigate if such challenges and criticisms are fairenough and if the differences between the late Ming commentaries and the Edo commentaries in terms of the access to the key Tang Weishicommentaries shape how these two groups understood and interpretedthe same Weishi text.
Thus, this study selects Xuanzang’s Guan suoyuanyuan lunwhich is Xuanzang’s translation of Dignāga’s  lambana-parīkṣā as abase text and compares two late Ming commentaries that were writtenby Mingyu and Zhixu with two Edo commentaries that were authoredby Kiben and Kaidou. The analysis is conducted in two levels: thehigh-level analysis and the deeper dive analysis. In the high-levelanalysis, several interesting areas are identified including: 1) theEdo commentators had much longer commentator’s introduction.2) Kiben, Kaidou and Mingyu spent most effort in commenting onthe second verse & the second prose. 3) The quotation accounts forapproximately 40% of the Edo commentaries. On the contrary, in thelate Ming group Mingyu quoted about 10% and Zhixu quoted lessthan 1%. In the deeper-dive analysis of the sources and the frequenciesof quotations, of the longer Edo commentator’s introduction, of thecontroversial about the second moon as “dṛṣṭānta” (example), ofwhat making the appearance of the collection, and of what makingthe sense faculties, it is found that the access to the key Tang Weishicommentaries does significantly impact the commentators’ capacityto identify controversial issues, to distinguish different realists’ views,and to address the Weishi internal arguments. However, there aresome occasions that commentators seemed choosing not to use all thesources that available to them. Several possibilities were discussed. Inaddition, the commentators’ different agendas, sense of subjectivity,and personal expertise also play important roles in determining whether and/or how they comments on what.