A Reconsideration of "the Theory of Trairupya"

  • Nan-qiang YAO
Expand

Received date: 2004-10-19

  Online published: 2005-03-25

Abstract

This paper affirms Zheng Weihong's proper viewpoints in his article, "Legitimating the Theory of Trairupya, " but focuses on those issues with different views. For example, instead of dharmin, the subject hetu is omitted in the first paksadharmata, which should be quality of dharmin in the paksa. Therefore, it can not be simply regarded as the hetu. It is not proper to exaggerate influences of the former Soviet Union scholar Steherbastsky's writings in China. It is not Kui Ji's original creation to distinguish between sadharmya and sapaksa. At least, it is a popular statement maintained by Xuan Zang's disciples under the Tang Dynasty.

Cite this article

Nan-qiang YAO . A Reconsideration of "the Theory of Trairupya"[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2005 , 37(3) : 25 -122 . DOI: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5579.2005.03.004

References

1 沈剑英. 因三相答疑[A]. 觉群·学术论文集[C]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2001.
2 郑伟宏 , 2003, 《"因三相"正本清源》, 《哲学研究·增刊》
3 法尊 1982, 释量论·释量论释. 北京: 中国佛协.
4 沈剑英 1985, 因明学研究. 北京: 中国大百科出版社.
5 吕澂 1978, 因明纲要. 台北: 佛教出版社.
6 沈剑英. 中国佛教逻辑史[M]. 华东师范大学出版社, 2001.
7 周文英 , 1981, 《印度逻辑史略(二)》, 《江西师范学院学报》
8 沈剑英. 遮罗迦本集的逻辑学说[J]. 台湾: 正观, 第8期。
9 陈大齐 1997, 因明大疏蠡测. 台湾: 台南智者出版社.
Options
Outlines

/