論敦煌寫卷伯2908的三相義詮釋

On the Interpretation of the Theory of the Three Characteristics in Dunhuang Manuscript Pelliot chinois 2908

關於敦煌漢文寫卷伯希和2908號（Pelliot chinois 2908，簡稱P.2908，下同）中的三相義詮釋，本文主要基於兩個因素探討。第一個因素是根據北涼漢譯《阿毘曇毘婆沙論》的內容討論毘婆沙師與譬喻師的三相爭論，二者基於各自對有為法性質的主張，解釋有為法的三種相，其解釋結果涉及認識主體是如何認識現象世界的問題。另外，初期大乘發展階段，在龍樹《中論》亦能見到三相與有為法的相關論述。
第二個因素據《高僧傳》記述，南朝宋（420-479）漢地僧人曾對此辯論，例如治學《成實論》且曾參與三相義討論的釋道慧（約450-481）曾與莊嚴寺僧達（生卒不詳）來往。筆者認為南朝宋關於三相義討論圍繞《成實論》，實際內容尚無法掌握。
本論文主要研究P.2908之三相義，筆者認為P.2908可能成立於西元515年至淨影慧遠（523-592）之前或者同時，為較早且完整的三相義詮釋，是相當重要的文獻。論主自認忠實於《成實論》的有為法三相論述，可作為個案檢視如何看待毘婆沙師與譬喻師相異立場的三相解讀，也展示寫卷作者看待現象世界的思維，以及運用「相續思想」為架構，解釋佛教重要名相。論主著重的論述目標是，強調《成實論》與《涅槃經》並不相違，以相續思想擴大解釋《成實論》未提及的內容。

This study investigates the interpretation of the theory of the Three Characteristics (tri-lakṣaṇa) found in Dunhuang manuscript Pelliot chinois 2908 (P.2908), focusing on two primary factors. The first involves doctrinal debates between the Sarvāstivādins and the Dārṣṭāntikas regarding the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena, as recorded in the Northern Liang Chinese translation of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. Their differing interpretations reflect competing views on the nature of conditioned dharmas and how the cognizing subject perceives the phenomenal world. Furthermore, early Mahāyāna developments like Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikāalso address related discourses on the three characteristics and conditioned phenomena.
The second factor draws upon biographical records in the Biographies of Eminent Monks (Gaoseng Zhuan), indicating that Chinese monastics in the Liu-Song period (420-479 CE) engaged in related debates. Notably, Shi Daohui (ca. 450-481), a Tattvasiddhi scholar who participated in discussions on tri-lakṣaṇa, is recorded as having intellectual exchanges with the monk Sengda of the Zhuangyan Monastery. The author suggests that the discussions on tri-lakṣaṇa during the Liu-Song period centered around the Tattvasiddhi, the actual content of which remains ungraspable from the Biographies of Eminent Monks.
This thesis focuses primarily on P.2908’s interpretation of tri-lakṣaṇa. The author argues that the manuscript was likely composed between 515 CE and either before or contemporary with the time of Jingying Huiyuan (523-592), representing an early and complete exposition of tri-lakṣaṇa and serving as a highly significant document. With the author professing fidelity to the Tattvasiddhi’s discourse on the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena, this text serves as a case study for examining how differing positions of the Sarvāstivādins and Dārṣṭāntikas are interpreted. Moreover, it demonstrates how the author views the phenomenal world and employs the framework of saṃtati (continuity) to interpret key Buddhist doctrinal terms. The central objective of the author’s argument is to emphasize that his interpretation of the Tattvasiddhi does not conflict with the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, thereby extending the Tattvasiddhi by applying saṃtati to expand upon doctrines not explicitly addressed in the original text.