http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
강성용(Kang, Sung-yong) 불교학연구회 2003 불교학연구 Vol.7 No.-
In a fragment from Vādavidhāna we can find Vasubandhu’s rejection of the three kinds of debate, i.e. vāda, jalpa and vitaṇḍā, which we can find in Nyāyasūtra 1.2.1-1.2.3 as a typical example or in Carakasaṃhitā Vi. 8.28. Although there were many different views over the debate (vāda) and related topics, such three-division of debate had been accepted in broad circle of the early debate tradition in India. Through the analysis of further fragments I demonstrated that Vasubandhu used the term, vāda in such a neutral way that both positive and negative kinds of debate can be understood by it. On the basis of a thinking experiment one can see that an unintended occurrence of an argumentative failure does not make a large difference to an intended use of an incorrect argument in a real debate. This practical inapplicability of such a differentiation was, I believe, the reason for Vasubandhu’s rejection of the three kinds of debate. In this way we can understand the view Vasubandhu’s that there is only one way of the discourse (kathāmārga). Apparently this refusal of the three kinds of debate came from the analysis of the actual debate process. These three kinds of debate were probably delivered from the ritualistic tradition and accepted as a practical guideline assistance for the debaters in the days of Vasubandhu in India