義註
佛教大綱 ![]() |
義注(巴利語:Attha-katha,意為「解釋」,「評論」)[1],是指上座部佛教巴利語南傳大藏經的註解。義註是對經文的傳統解釋。對義註的再註釋,叫做複註(ṭīkā)。複注的註釋,稱為複複註(anutikā)。[2]
現存義注雖由覺音等人完成,但其來源為古代僧伽羅語所寫就的古代註釋書,再由覺音改為巴利語。僧伽羅語古義註的主要部份,則大約定型於公元2世紀初[3]。義註中的一部分在其他佛教部派的三藏經文中出現,這代表有些註釋可能是來自於共通的早期來源[4]。
覺音
編輯傳統上認為是覺音所作的註解有十四部。不過,學術界通常認為只有《律藏》、《長部》、《中部》、《相應部》、《增支部》的註解,及《清淨道論》一書,是覺音所編纂、著作。[6][7]
巴利三藏 | 註解 | ||
---|---|---|---|
來自於 律藏 |
律藏 | 一切善見(Samantapasadika) | |
波羅提木叉 | 疑惑度脫(Kankhavitarani) | ||
來自於 經藏 |
長部 | 吉祥悅意(Sumangalavilasini) | |
中部 | 破斥猶豫(Papañcasūdani) | ||
相應部 | 顯揚真義(Saratthappakasini) | ||
增支部 | 滿足希求(Manorathapurani) | ||
來自於 小部 |
小誦 | 勝義光明(Paramatthajotika (I)) | |
法句 | 法句譬喻(Dhammapada-atthakatha) | ||
經集 | 經集注(Paramatthajotika (II),[8] Suttanipata-atthakatha) | ||
本生 | 本生注(Jatakatthavannana, or Jataka-atthakatha) | ||
來自於 論藏 |
法集論 | 殊勝義(Atthasalini) | |
分別論 | 迷惑冰消(Sammohavinodani) | ||
界論 | 五論釋義(Pancappakaran-atthakatha) | ||
人施設論 | |||
論事 | |||
雙論 | |||
發趣論 |
法護
編輯法護對小部的註解《勝義燈》(Paramatthadipani),包含:
其他的小部註釋
編輯- Saddhammapajotika,關於義釋的註解,作者Upasena
- Saddhammappakasini,關於無礙解道的註解,作者Mahanama
- Visuddhajanavilasini,關於譬喻經的註解,作者不明
- Madhuratthavilasini,關於佛種姓經的註解,作者Buddhadatta
學術研究
編輯註釋
編輯- ^ Rhys Davids & Stede (1921-25): 24–25. (原始內容存檔於2012-06-29)., "Attha"條目定義 aṭṭhakathā as "exposition of the sense, explanation, commentary...."
- ^ aṭṭhakathā. Pāli Dictionary. [2022-01-05]. (原始內容存檔於2022-01-05).
- ^ 水野弘元. 佛教文獻硏究. 水野弘元著作選集(一). 由許洋主翻譯. 法鼓文化. 2003-05-01. ISBN 9575982444. (原始內容存檔於2018-02-16).
- ^ 無著比丘. 註釋書對阿含經文的影響 (PDF). 正觀雜誌. 2009, 48 [2017-10-19]. (原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2016-10-19).
- ^ Skilling, Peter. On a New edition of the Syāmaraṭṭhassa Tepiṭakaṭṭhakathā (PDF). Journal of the Pali Text Society. 2002, XXVII: 155–158 [2022-01-05]. (原始內容 (PDF)存檔於2022-02-09).
- ^ For instance, regarding the Khuddha Nikaya commentaries, Hinüber (1996/2000), pp. 130–1, sect. 259, 260, writes:
- Neither Pj [Paramattha-jotika] I nor Pj II can be dated, not even in relation to each other, except that both presuppose Buddhaghosa. In spite of the 'Buddhaghosa colophon' added to both commentaries ... no immediate relation to Buddhaghosa can be recognized.... Both Ja [Jataka-atthavannana] and Dhp-a [Dhammapada-atthakatha] are traditionally ascribed to Buddhaghosa, an assumption which has been rightly questioned by modern research....
- ^ 莊國彬. 覺音論師注釋書略述—以《中部.注釋書》為例 (PDF). 圓光佛學學報. 2008 [2022-04-17]. (原始內容 (PDF)存檔於2022-04-23).
- ^ In fact this commentary did not originally have this title, but it has become traditionally known by it. Hinüber (1996/2000), p. 129 sec. 255, writes:
- Neither the author nor even a title is mentioned in Pj [Paramattha-jotika] II .... Thus, originally Pj II was anonymous, and moreover like Dhp-a [Dhammapada-atthakatha] and Ja [Jataka-atthavannana] was without an individual title: Pj might have been chosen at a later date because large parts overlapped with Pj I. [That is, because much of the Khuddakapatha is taken from the Sutta Nipata]. This connected this commentary to Pj I....
- On the whole, however, Pj I and Pj II are so different that it is difficult to imagine a common author.
- ^ 蔡奇林. 第四禪「捨念清淨」一語的重新解讀—— 兼談早期佛教研究的文獻運用問題 (PDF). 臺大佛學研究. 2008, 16: 1-60 [2017-12-12]. (原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2017-12-13).
- ^ 書房夜話 49:巴利文獻忘失古義. [2020-07-02]. (原始內容存檔於2020-07-02).
參考文獻
編輯- Oskar von Hinüber. A Handbook of Pāli Literature (PDF). Walter de Gruyter. 2000 [2018-09-21]. ISBN 978-3-11-016738-2. (原始內容存檔 (PDF)於2019-02-14).