論巴利語論書對「法處」的不同認識

On the Different Understanding of''Dhammāyatana''in Pāli Abhidhamma Commentaries

筆者在研讀巴利語論書《法集論》與《藏釋》時發現，此二部論書對法處的認識不同於《分別論》等其他論書。其不同為：前者認為法處不包含無為，而後者認為法處包含無為。這兩種觀點造成了比較嚴重的理論與實踐衝突，事關佛教的根本問題。根據前述研究，本文的結論為：（1）此兩部論書對「法處」的定義不同於其他的巴利語論書，也不同於漢譯的阿毘達磨論書。（2）對法處的不同認識不僅造成了理論衝突，還造成了實踐衝突。在結論的基礎上，推測了三種可能情況：（1）《藏釋》、《法集論》（至少部分內容）不屬於南傳上座部傳統。（2）佛教內部的理論衝突產生較早。（3）部分巴利語論書與早期漢譯論書的觀點一致，說明它們可能具有共同的源頭。此外，本文特別提出兩點思考：（1）兩種不同認識是否反映了不同的部派傳統。（2）在阿毘曇系統中是否存在不同的理論體系。本文的學術貢獻為：發現《法集論》與《藏釋》對法處的認識不同於其他巴利語論書，總結了因此造成的理論與實踐衝突，並提出了幾種可能的推論與思考。

As reading southern Abhidhammas, I found that the two southern Abhidhammas, Dhammasaṅgaṇī and Peṭakopadesa, had different understanding of the dhammāyatana from other Abhidhammas such as Vibhaṅgapāḷi. The difference is: the former thinks that dhammāyatana does not contain asaṅkhata, while the latter thinks that dhammāyatana contains asaṅkhata. These two views have caused serious conflicts in theory and practice, which are related to the fundamental problems of Buddhism. According to the above research, the conclusions of this paper are as follows: (1) the definitions of dhammāyatana in these two commentaries are different from those in other Southern commentaries, and also different from those in the commentaries of northern Abhidhammas. (2) These two different understandings not only cause the conflict of theory, but also cause the conflict of practice. On the basis of the conclusion, three possible situations are inferred: (1) At the time of the collection of the southern Abhidhammas, the tendency of Buddhism sect was not obvious. (2) the southern Abhidhammapitaka do not belong to the same school, It came into being earlier. (3) the views of Abhidhammas such as Vibhaṅga are close to those of the northern Abhidhammas, they may have a common origin. In addition, this paper puts forward two considerations: (1) whether the two different understandings reflect different sectarian traditions. (2) Whether there are different theoretical systems in Abhidhamma system. Academic contribution: This paper finds that the understanding of dhammāyatana in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī and Peṭakopadesa is different from other southern Abhidhammas. This paper summarizes the conflict from theory to practice, and puts forward several possible inferences and thinking.