『バガヴァッド・ギーター』(II,20)注解

概要

論文の詳細を見る
Bhagavadgita II.20 reads as follows: na jayate na mriyate va kaddcin na 'yam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah/ajo nityah sdsvato 'yam purano na hanyate hanyamane sarfre//The gerund bhutva in the second pada has been construed and translated in a variety of ways: (1) It has been rendered as a present perfect, present, or past tense, which is denied by the negation na at the beginning of the pada. Translators who have thus construed the verse include scholars such as Wilkins (1785): 'It is not a thing of which man may say, "It hath been [...]"'; Davies (1893): 'it has never been brought into being'; Deussen (1906): nicht ist er entstanden ; Hartmann (1919): Es ensteht nicht; Hill (1928): 'he came not into being'; and Zaehner (1969): 'never did it come to be'; Gotshalk (1985): 'He has had no coming-to-be in the past, and will have no coming-to-be in the future'. (2) The negative particle na at the beginning of the second pada is taken as belonging syntactically to the first pada, and the gerund retains its original function. Such an understanding appears in Lorinser (1896): nicht, einst entstanden, wird er sein auch wieder ; and in Telang (1882): 'nor, having existed, does he exist no more'. (3) The first na is construed as denying the whole sentence bhutva bhavita [...] na. In such an interpretation, bhavita na is understood in the sense of 'ceas [ing] to be'. For example, Besant (1905): 'nor having been, ceaseth he any more to be' ; Belvalkar (1939): 'nor, having been once "been", is he once again not going to "be "' ; Edgerton (1944): 'nor, having come to be, will he ever more come not to be' ; Radhakrishnan (1948): 'nor having (once) come to be, will he again cease to be'. Let me add here Edgerton's important remark concerning his own translation of bhutva which is not certain since it would seem to imply that the eternal Atman, the subject of the sentence, has an origination or beginning in time. But Gotshalk actually criticises Edgerton's hesitation here. (4) The na at the beginning of the pada is taken as negating bhutva and bhavitd na respectively. Furthermore, bhutva is construed as being the equivalent of a perfect. Thus, Garbe (1921): er ist nicht geworden, noch wird in Zukunft nicht mehr sein. Additionally, we must also mention that there are quite a few translations, not listed here, which choose to render the stanza in a free style. Now, a brief look at Sankara's commentary, the Bhagavadgitdbhasya, can solve the problem easily. His interpretation is that the second pada should be read as na'yam bhutva abhavita va na bhuyah. This is further explained as ayam atma bhutva [...] pascad abhavita [...] na bhuyah punas [...] He further adds that va and na imply an alternative sentence: ayam atma 'bhutva va bhavita dehavan na bhuyah punas [...]. Therefore, according to Sankara, the second pada presupposes two basic sentences, i.e., bhutva abhavita and abhutva bhavita, both of them being negated. We actually find a parallel of these two sentences in a Buddhist scripture called the Paramarthasunyatasutra (also extant in Chinese translation, i.e., the Di yiyi kong jing第一義空經), belonging to the Ksudrakagama. The Buddhist parallel reads: iti hi caksur abhutva bhavati, bhutva ca pratigacchati. (In its most common Chinese rendering, the main part of the sentence goes as :本無今有,己有還無). This formulation is often cited in Sanskrit Buddhist literature (as well as in the corresponding Chinese translations and commentarial texts). If we accept Sankara's commentary, which I find correct, the second pada can be construed as follows: na 'yam [abhutva bhavita] bhutva bhavita va na bhUyah. The first na would thus deny both [abhutva bhavita] and bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah, while na in the latter sentence would negate the preceding bhavita, the sense being 'to cease to exist in the future'. The author of the Bhagavadgita omitted abhutva bhavita (which is enclosed within square brackets above) and added va [...] bhuyah instead, without any change in the basic meaning. We can thus conclude that the second pada in this stanza of the Bhagavadgita actually criticises the Buddhist idea expressed in the Paramarthasunyatasutra. Finally, let us recall the well-known fact that Bhagavadgita II.20 has a parallel in the Kathaka Upanisad (I.2.18): na jayate na mriyate va vipascin na 'yam kutascin na babhuva kascit/ajo nityah sasvato 'yam puravco na hanyate hanyamane sarire//The second pada differs, but the rest of the stanza is almost identical, with the sole exception of vipascin instead of kadacin. Actually, it would seem that the author of the Bhagavadgita intended to criticise the Buddhist standpoint and therefore had no other choice but to modify the second pada because na'yam kutascin in the Kathaka Upanisad stanza is too similar to the sentence na kutascid agacchati in the ParamarthasunyatasUtra. Should we then conclude that the purport of Kathaka Upanisad I.2.18 is Buddhist? The answer should be 'no'! The Kathaka Upanisad itself actually criticises the Buddhist position as it appears in an earlier stage of development. It would seem that the second pada of Kathaka Upanisad I.2.18 intends to refute an idea as found in, for instance, the Paccayasutta (SN II 27,6-8): aham nu kho smi. no nu kho smi. kim nu kho smi. katham nu kho smi. aham nu kho satto kuto agatto, so kuhimgami bhavissati. The question of the relation between the Bhagavadgita and Buddhism has long been debated and remained largely unsettled. The findings above will prove that the author of the Bhagavadgita was certainly familiar with the Paramarthasunyatasutra, whose doctrines he rejects. This should actually be regarded as the first recorded instance in the history of Classical Indian philosophy in which a Buddhist source is clearly referred to and criticised.
国際仏教学大学院大学の論文

著者

今西順吉
国際仏教学大学院

『バガヴァッド・ギーター』(II,20)注解

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク