梵本《因明入正理論》

Ⅰ. 關於因三相的譯法

《入論》原著有二處具體地闡述因三相。一處見於第 3 句組，另一處是第 6 句組。

Ⅱ. 關於同品、異品與同法、異法

Ⅲ. 關於「若於是處，顯因同品，決定有性」的讀法

這是喻支中同法喻的定義。原文是一個主謂結構、被動態的直言判斷句；直譯是︰「在這裡因於同品中的肯定有性被揭示出來」。(一)、這顯然是一個簡單的句子，不是由兩個句子組成的複合句。玄奘的譯文是主從蘊涵的假言判斷句。我國學者很可能據此而誤讀成兩個句子，把「因於同品中」誤作一個「因同品」的術語。(二)、柯利賢論師對這句話的解釋是︰

這個解釋完全契合原文含義──原文的含義在於強調因（所作性）在同品中肯定存在，並不是在構築一個「因同品」的術語。基於此，玄奘的譯文「顯因同品，決定有性」應讀作「因於同品中，決定有性」。(三)、這句話裡的「同品」實質上是「同法」的異名。按照剛才就因支的「品」和喻支的「法」所作的簡別，如果說這裡的「同品」可以理解為「因同品」的話，那麼其內涵顯然比宗同品豐富得多︰前者既周延於宗有法（所作性），又同時聯繫著宗法（無常）；後者僅與宗法（無常）發生關係。(四)、還有些學者把這個定義理解為「顯因及同品（宗同品）俱決定有」，這就不無牽強之嫌。

Ⅳ.關於同、異喻體的表述

《入論》原文在因支和喻支兩處闡述喻的理論。在總結因、喻能立功能時，又複述了這一理論。茲引這段總結來討論。

原文和譯文都是根據「說因宗所隨，宗無因不有」這一因明根本原理，以合作法表述同喻體，以離作法表述異喻體。然而，在表述的模式上（語言形式的運用），《入論》的原文和《門論》的譯文都使用全稱肯定判斷。柯利賢論師的《入論疏》也是按原著的肯定判斷來解釋。[11]玄奘先在《入論》譯文中使用蘊涵的假言判斷，後在《門論》譯文中採取全稱肯定判斷。我們都知道，在現代科學中，假言判斷常被用來反映事物的規律性，表述科學預見和科學原理。玄奘交替使用直言判斷和假言判斷來表述同、異喻體。這似乎在說明，早在一千三百多年前，玄奘已悟知同一普遍命題或原理可以按不同的情況採用不同的語言形式來表達。

Ⅴ.關於宗支譯文中的刪節

核對原文，玄奘在譯文中作了兩處刪節。一處是 pratyakṣādyaviruddha iti vākyaśeṣaḥ（餘言應說︰不違現量等）。按原文，這個句子是在「......是名為宗」與「如有成立聲是無常」之間。句中的「餘言」意即「補充說明」。天主在給「宗」定義後，再補充一句︰「不違現量等」。在天主看來，這句話是成立一個極成的宗的前提。天主提醒立論者，儘管立宗可以「隨自樂為」，但不要忘記「不違現量等」這個重要的前提。否則，所立宗便變成「似宗」。事實上，這句話也是為下文所論的似宗而預作規定──之所以成為似宗，就是因為所立的宗與現量等相違。玄奘在譯文中刪去這個句子，似乎是因為他認為在宗支的定義中，只講成立極成的所立；即僅僅闡明正宗，不涉及似宗。因此，在論述正宗時，「不違現量等」這個前提，是不言而喻，毋須明言。 關於第二處的刪節是「聲常」二字。 按原文， tadyathā / nityoḥ śabdo ’ nityo veti // （例如，成立聲常或無常）。這個例句是一個選言句型，用以說明「隨自樂為，所成立性」；意思是說，誰都可以按照自己的意樂成立所立︰「聲是常」，或者「聲是無常」。原著作者的用意是顯然的︰執聲常者（尤其是吠陀語法學家或聲論師）可以按照自己的意樂成立「聲常」宗；持聲無常論者（特別是佛教徒）也可以按照自己的意樂成立「聲無常」宗。玄奘在譯文中，把原文的選言句型改為直言句型；刪去「聲常」，留下「聲無常」作例子。從邏輯和語言角度看，刪去「聲常」，無關宏旨。但從佛教徒的立場說，把「聲常」刪去，似有特殊意義。在印度，無論是婆羅門傳統的正理學派，或是佛教的因明學派，他們首先是宗教家和哲學家，其次才是邏輯學家。對他們說來，邏輯僅僅是手段，而不是目的；哲學才是目的。在任何一個辯論場合，他們總是利用各自的邏輯手段來達到宣傳本宗或本派的主張的目的。不難理解，在所有重要的正理和因明的論著中，開宗明義就有作者表明自己寫作目的的卷首獻詞。天主在《入論》的開章頌中就說得很清楚︰他撰寫《入論》， 目的在於「悟他 parasaṃvide」（啟發他人的正智）和「自悟 ātmasaṃvide 」（提高自己的覺悟）。柯利賢論師的《入論疏》有兩個開章頌︰一個表示為了把《入論》的因明原理表述清楚；一個表示為了憐憫眾生而寫作。不消說，玄奘作為一位偉大的佛教徒和梵漢佛典權威，在譯述三藏聖典中自然懷有同樣自利利他的崇高願望。這裡，他把「聲常」二字刪去，突出地反映他如何高度地熱愛佛教教義，如何堅定地維護佛教正統︰因明正理的首要任務在於宣傳自宗的哲學。「聲常」是外道的邪見，「聲無常」是佛教的正見。一個真正的佛家因明論師不能單純地為講因明而講因明，應該借助因明這個科學的推理工具來傳播自宗的佛教哲學。就以《入論》而言，它應該重點地宣傳佛教正確觀點︰一切有為法（包括聲在內）

p. 54

皆是無常。基於這一看法，在譯文中列舉正面的例子「聲是無常」就足以說明問題，不必再引反面觀點「聲常」。玄奘之所以把原文 "tadyathā / nityaḥ śabdo ’nityo veti // （例如，成立聲常或無常） " 譯作「如有成立聲是無常」， 而刪去「聲常」的例子，其理由很可能就在於此。

Summary

There has been somewhat a hot discussion on the theory of Trairūpya in the circle of Chinese Hetu-vidyā pundits. Some scholars even cherish doubts regarding the accuracy of the Chinese version of Trairupya by Xuan Zhuang, the master Buddhist Tripiṭaka translator of worldrenownd. The present paper is intended to supply, from the Sanskrit original of the Nyaya-praves'a, some materials that would be of help in removing the aforesaid doubts.

The meaning of the Chinese word "遍（bian）"（distribution）is not seen in the first rupa（pakṣadharmatva）and the third one（vipakṣa-asattva）; and the work " 定（ding）"（certainty）is also not met with in the second one（sapakṣe sattva）. These two Chineses words are additionally given by Xuan Zhuang in his chinese version. The complement of these Chinese words seems as being grounded on the meaning of "eva" that will be dealt with in Sect. II next.

The Sanskrit sentences do not contain such meaning as denoted by the Chinese words" 遍（bian） "an" 定（ding）"; but they each have a Sanskrit particle"eva"denoting emphasis. Xuan Zhuang renders this very particle"eva"into Chinese words"遍（bian, meaning distribution） "and" 定（ding, meaning certainty） "; and adds, in accordance with the different functional principles of Trairupya, the former to the first and third rupas, and the latter to the second one respectively in his Chinese version. More-over, the complementary Chinese term 「遍是宗法」（pakṣadharmatva）appears in the Chinese version, but not in the Sanskrit original.

Both of the sapakṣa and the sādharmya play almost the same role of sādhana in Hetuvidyā; the sapakṣa is dealt with n the hetu avayava while the sādharmya in the dṛṣṭānta avayava. It is obvious that each of these two terms has its own functional scope : The sapakṣa is related only to the pakṣadharma（predicate）, while the sādharmya is distribted first over the pakṣadharmin（subject）and then the pakṣadharma. It shows from his that the logical scope where the sādharmya operates is wider than that where the sapakṣa functions. The sādharmya has an independent role to play in Hetuvidyā, and is not to be considered as superfluous as by some scholars.

In the Sanskrit text the method of anvaya by which to demostrate the intrinsic nature of a sa dharmya and that of vyatireka by which to display the intrinsic nature of a vaidharmya are both written in a suject-predicate compound sentence of affirmative mood; but Xuan Zhuang changes them into a conditional one of subjunctive mood in his Chinese version, which looks closer to the practice of logical language in style.

The Sanskrit sentence is very clearly a single one of affirmative mood, and not of two sentences. Xuan Zhuang makes it into two Chinese sentences of subjunctive mood, and this is perhaps the cause that misleads some scholars to take it as two sentences. It is in this Sanskrit sentence to merely lay stress upon a hetu that certainly remains in its sapakṣa, and not to create a term for sapakṣa, and also not to mean"a demonstration of the definite existence of a hetu and its sapakṣa".

Hetuvidyā of India like the traditional logic is a science of precise thinking. Xuan Zhuang while translating Sanskrit texts of Hetuvidyā, succeeded in creating a set of Hetuvidyā terms in Chinese, accurately corresponding to their Sanskrit originals. It goes without saying that one could hardly have done so if one were not a great master of the Hetuvidyā science.