| 再论“因三相”——对郑伟宏《“因三相”正本清源》的几点质疑 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 姚南强.再论“因三相”——对郑伟宏《“因三相”正本清源》的几点质疑[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,37(3):25-28,37. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 姚南强 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 华东师范大学,法律政治学院,上海,200062 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 郑伟宏《“因三相”正本清源》中的一些观点值得商榷。如,第一相“遍是宗法性”中省掉的主词是“因法”而不是宗有法,宗同品、因同品的区分不是窥基所独有。此外,郑文过分夸大了舍尔巴茨基著作在中国的影响。
|
| 关 键 词： | 因三相 舍尔巴茨基 因同品 |
| 文章编号： | 1000-5579(2005)03-0025-04 |
| 修稿时间： | 2004年10月19 |
A Reconsideration of "the Theory of Trairupya" |
| |
| YAO Nan-qiang.A Reconsideration of "the Theory of Trairupya"[J].Journal of East China Normal University :Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition,2005,37(3):25-28,37. |
| |
| Authors: | YAO Nan-qiang |
| |
| Institution: | by YAO Nan-qiang |
| |
| 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | the theory of trairupya Steherbastsky sapaksa |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
|
