“唯识比量”中“自许”简别的作用与局限

The Effect and The Loss of Restriction of “Zi Xu” in Xuanzang's Proof of Idealism(Wei Shi Bi Liang)

"唯识比量"论辩的主题是色境(对象)是否脱离眼识而存在;它针对的立敌双方是唯识论者与实在论者。它的因支满足因三相,特点是使用了简别语。对于因支中简别语"自许"的解释传统上以窥基为代表,他认为"自许"是意许了唯识宗的"不离眼识色"。窥基的解释颇为牵强,因为色境是否不离眼识本身就是双方争论的所在,不需要"自许"为"不离眼识色",否则就有乞求论题之嫌。另外,"自许"也不是对因支中"眼所不摄"的简别,因为"摄"字应当理解为包摄的意思,这样一方面与前一个摄字相对应,另一方面对象不为眼根所包括也是立敌双方都认可的,无需加上"自许"的简别。在排除了以上说法之后,简别语"自许"只能是加在因支前半部分的"初三摄"上,其作用在于重新规定比量讨论的范围,即只是讨论在色境、眼识和眼根这三要素中,眼识和色境必定具有不相离而相属的关系。但是,此做法的局限性在于论域狭小,论敌可以模仿该比量利用论域的限制提出"相违决定量"。

The thesis of Xuanzang's" proof of idealism"( Wei Shi Bi Liang) aims at realism and it holds that" visible objects are definitely not separate from visual consciousness". Its reason that" we assume[ visible objects] are included in the first three elements( dh佟tus) and not included in the visual sense" satisfies three characteristics of a reason( trair俦pya) and uses the restrictive words" we assume( Zi Xu) ". According to the traditional interpretation of Kuiji,the first disciple of Xuanzang,this restriction assumes that visual objects in the thesis are objects that are not independent of visual consciousness. This explanation is quite farfetched. That objects are not independent of consciousness is a desirable conclusion for idealism. If it is assumed with this reason,this proof is begging the question. Some contemporary scholars think that words" we assume" restrict the latter part of the reason. They explain second" be included( She) " as" be perceived" or" be grasped".Thus,the reason means visual objects are not grasped by visual sense,which is only acknowledged by idealismbecause they admit that visual objects are grasped by visual consciousness. However,if we regard" She" as" be included",the problem does not exist because the statement that visual objects are not included by visual sense is accepted by both sides in the debate. It is no need to restrict the reason as the standpoint of idealism. After excluding these interpretations of restriction,I suggest that words" we assume" only restrict the first part of the reason. Its effect is to limit the domain of debate only in the three elements of eighteen. However,the loss of this restriction is that the domain is too narrow so that the opponents can establish a counterargument by making use of a similar strategy.