试论因明的论式
摘要
论文系统介绍和研究了因明的各个论式，并将新因明的核心问题——三支论式与古代中国的三物逻辑进行了比较研究：
首先，因明的各个论式都有自己的特点。十支论式含有更多的论辩方面的东西，实用性比较强。五支论式虽有重复的成分存在，但已内含演绎的因素，为后来陈那的三支论式做了必要的理论准备。新因明的论式主要是陈那的三支论式，再就是法称修订的二支论式。因为三支论式是新因明的核心，所以论文对三支论式进行了重点分析。论文着重对三支论式诸种说法进行了分析探讨，指出了各说的不合理之处，并试图找到能够表达三支论式的正确形式。包括形式蕴涵的肯定式及否定式；全称量词销去之后充分条件假言推理的肯定前件式及否定后件式。法称的二支论式将喻归于因中，逻辑性更强。
其次，因明论式从十支简化为五支，这一变化有一定原因。论文对此进行了分析探讨，指出这与它所依存的社会背景息息相关。另外，针对陈那改五支为三支和法称改三支为二支的情况，论文作了详细的分析，并指出在这一过程中论式的非演绎性因素逐渐减少，演绎性因素逐渐增多。
最后，将三支论式与三物逻辑进行了比较研究，分析了比较研究的意义，并指出二者的异同。得出了以下结论：三支论式虽然不如亚氏三段论格式复杂多样，但比三物逻辑的格式要丰富的多，形式化程度要高于三物逻辑。
The paper describes the various schema of Hetuvidyā, meanwhile, the core issue ofnew Hetuvidyā—Tri-avayava and Ancient China Tri-wu logic are comparatively studied:
Firstly, each schema of Hetuvidyā has its own individual characteristics. There aremore argument contents in Ten-ayayava, so it has strong practical value. Though there arerepetitive elements in Pa cāvayava, it has some deductive factors, it is the necessarytheoretical preparation for Tri-avayava of Dignāga. The main schema of new Hetuvidyā isTri-avayava of Dignāga, and then is the Twi-avayava which is amended by Dharmakirtti.Because Tri-avayava is the core of new Hetuvidyā, Tri-avayava is analyzed intensively inthe paper, including analyzing and discussing the various statements of Tri-avayava,indicating the unreasonable points and even finding the correct form of expressingTri-avayava. The affirmative expression of formal implication, the negative expression offormal implication, the modus ponens of hypothetical reasoning concerning sufficientconditions after universal instantiation and the modus tollens of hypothetical reasoningconcerning sufficient conditions after universal instantiation are all included. Twi-avayavaof Dharmakirtti summarizes Drstānta in hetu, so it has strong logicality.
Secondly, the paper analyzes the reason of the development from Ten-ayayava toPa cāvayava, and then indicates that it is closely related to the social background of itsdependence. Additionally, through analyzing the conditions of Dignāga changingPa cāvayava to Tri-avayava, and Dharmakirtti changing Tri-avayava to Twi-avayava, thepaper indicates that the un-deductive factors of schema of Hetuvidyā are graduallyreduced, and the deductive factors are gradually increased.
Finally, by comparatively studying of Tri-avayava and Tri-wu logic, analyzing themeaning and indicating the common points and differences, these conclusions are reached:Tri-avayava is not as complex as Aristotle’s syllogism, but it is more plentiful than Tri-wulogic, and the level of formalization of Tri-avayava is higher than Tri-wu logic.
首先，因明的各个论式都有自己的特点。十支论式含有更多的论辩方面的东西，实用性比较强。五支论式虽有重复的成分存在，但已内含演绎的因素，为后来陈那的三支论式做了必要的理论准备。新因明的论式主要是陈那的三支论式，再就是法称修订的二支论式。因为三支论式是新因明的核心，所以论文对三支论式进行了重点分析。论文着重对三支论式诸种说法进行了分析探讨，指出了各说的不合理之处，并试图找到能够表达三支论式的正确形式。包括形式蕴涵的肯定式及否定式；全称量词销去之后充分条件假言推理的肯定前件式及否定后件式。法称的二支论式将喻归于因中，逻辑性更强。
其次，因明论式从十支简化为五支，这一变化有一定原因。论文对此进行了分析探讨，指出这与它所依存的社会背景息息相关。另外，针对陈那改五支为三支和法称改三支为二支的情况，论文作了详细的分析，并指出在这一过程中论式的非演绎性因素逐渐减少，演绎性因素逐渐增多。
最后，将三支论式与三物逻辑进行了比较研究，分析了比较研究的意义，并指出二者的异同。得出了以下结论：三支论式虽然不如亚氏三段论格式复杂多样，但比三物逻辑的格式要丰富的多，形式化程度要高于三物逻辑。
The paper describes the various schema of Hetuvidyā, meanwhile, the core issue ofnew Hetuvidyā—Tri-avayava and Ancient China Tri-wu logic are comparatively studied:
Firstly, each schema of Hetuvidyā has its own individual characteristics. There aremore argument contents in Ten-ayayava, so it has strong practical value. Though there arerepetitive elements in Pa cāvayava, it has some deductive factors, it is the necessarytheoretical preparation for Tri-avayava of Dignāga. The main schema of new Hetuvidyā isTri-avayava of Dignāga, and then is the Twi-avayava which is amended by Dharmakirtti.Because Tri-avayava is the core of new Hetuvidyā, Tri-avayava is analyzed intensively inthe paper, including analyzing and discussing the various statements of Tri-avayava,indicating the unreasonable points and even finding the correct form of expressingTri-avayava. The affirmative expression of formal implication, the negative expression offormal implication, the modus ponens of hypothetical reasoning concerning sufficientconditions after universal instantiation and the modus tollens of hypothetical reasoningconcerning sufficient conditions after universal instantiation are all included. Twi-avayavaof Dharmakirtti summarizes Drstānta in hetu, so it has strong logicality.
Secondly, the paper analyzes the reason of the development from Ten-ayayava toPa cāvayava, and then indicates that it is closely related to the social background of itsdependence. Additionally, through analyzing the conditions of Dignāga changingPa cāvayava to Tri-avayava, and Dharmakirtti changing Tri-avayava to Twi-avayava, thepaper indicates that the un-deductive factors of schema of Hetuvidyā are graduallyreduced, and the deductive factors are gradually increased.
Finally, by comparatively studying of Tri-avayava and Tri-wu logic, analyzing themeaning and indicating the common points and differences, these conclusions are reached:Tri-avayava is not as complex as Aristotle’s syllogism, but it is more plentiful than Tri-wulogic, and the level of formalization of Tri-avayava is higher than Tri-wu logic.
引文
[1]张忠义.因明蠡测[M].北京:人民出版社,2008:59-61,71.
[2]祁顺来.论因明论式中的“喻”[J].青海民族学院学报,2009,35(4):30-31.
[3]阿旺旦增.陈那新因明的论式支分探究[J].西藏大学学报,1998,(3):11-13.
[4]祁顺来.论陈那和法称对因明学说的贡献[J].青海民族学院学报,2007,33(1):28-30.
[5]祁顺来.藏传因明学通论[M].西宁:青海民族出版社,2006:3-29.
[6]张忠义,张晓翔,淮芳.汉传因明史论[M].兰州:甘肃民族出版社,2010:147-159.
[7]梶山雄一.印度逻辑学的基本性质[M].张春波,译.北京:商务印书馆,1980:23-42.
[8]姚南强.因明的历史发展及其贡献[J].华东师范大学学报,2000,32(6):72-76.
[9]孙丽娜.从“论式”看因明的逻辑性质[J].黔南民族师范学院学报,2008,(1):62.
[10]陈大齐.因明大疏蠡测[M].北京:中华书局,2006:111-112.
[11]姚南强.因明辞典[M].上海:上海辞书出版社,2008:231.
[12]张忠义.因明的“合离”与“分离规则”[J].社会科学战线,1992,(3):43-44.
[13]张忠义.从“定有”看“同品定有性”[J].社会科学辑刊,1987,(3):25-27.
[14]拉巴次旦.试析逻辑三段论与三支论式在因明学教学中的比较运用[J].西藏大学学报,2007,(1):92-94.
[15]陈慕泽,余俊伟.数理逻辑基础:一阶逻辑与一阶理论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:80.
[16]末木刚博.新因明的逻辑[M].因明新探.兰州:甘肃人民出版社,1989:278.
[17]末木刚博.现代逻辑学问题[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1983:22.
[18]张忠义,张家龙.从现代逻辑观点看印度新因明三支论式[J].哲学研究,2008,(1):108.
[19]罗素.数理哲学导论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2002:153.
[20]傅光全.简论罗素的形式蕴涵[J].海南大学学报,2005,23(3):254.
[21]陈那.因明正理门论[M].金陵刻经处,1957:7.
[22]张忠义.试论因明的三支论式[J].哲学研究,1989,(8):71-76.
[23]商羯罗主.因明入正理论[M].北京:文物出版社,1989:1.
[24]淮芳.试析因明的论式[D].秦皇岛:燕山大学哲学硕士学位论文,2006:37-38.
[25]杨百顺.印度逻辑论式的演变及其与西方推论式略比[J].人文杂志,1985,(5):25-26.
[26]周文英.因明在印度的发生和发展[C]//刘培育,周云之,董志铁.因明论文集.兰州:甘肃人民出版社,1982:43.
[27]巫白慧.印度哲学-吠陀经探义和奥义书解析[M].北京:东方出版社,2000:413-414.
[28]渥德尔.印度佛教史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1987:436.
[29]巫白慧.东方著名哲学家评传:印度卷[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2000:360-362.
[30]杨武金,贺海峰.墨家“三物逻辑”及其在《伤寒论》中的应用[J].职大学报,2010,(1):11-12.
[31]谭家健,孙中原.墨子今注今译[M].北京:商务印书馆,2009:228.
[32]张忠义,孔祥敏.论《墨经》的故、理、类对推论的作用[J].职大学报,2008,(1):9.
[33]杨武金.墨经逻辑研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004:179.
[34]沈有鼎.沈有鼎文集[M].北京:人民出版社,1992:336.
[35]张忠义.中国逻辑对“必然得出”的研究[M].北京:人民日报出版社,2006:22.
[36]詹剑峰.墨家的形式逻辑[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,1979:5.
[37]郭沫若.十批判书[M].北京:人民出版社,1954:261.
[38]刘培育.中国逻辑思想论文选[M].北京:生活、读书、新知三联书店,1981:356.
[39]刘培育.因明论文集[M].兰州:甘肃人民出版社,1982:41.
[40] Thom,P.The Logic of Essentialism.An Interpretation of Aristotle’s Modal Syllogistic,KluwerAcademic Publishers,1996:85-86.
[41] R.Lance Factor.What is the “logic” in Buddhist logic?Philosophy East and West.Volume33.1983,(4):2.
[42] Mark Siderits. Deductive, inductive, both or neither?Journal of Indian Philosophy.2003,(31):303-321.
[43] Richard Feldman. Reason and argument.University of Rochester Published,1998:36.
[44] Marek Mejor. Contributions of Polish scholars to the study of Indian logic. Journal of IndianPhilosophy.2003,(31):9-20.
[45] Jonardon Ganeri. Ancient Indian logic as a theory of case-based reasoning. Journal of IndianPhilosophy.2003,(31):33-45.
[2]祁顺来.论因明论式中的“喻”[J].青海民族学院学报,2009,35(4):30-31.
[3]阿旺旦增.陈那新因明的论式支分探究[J].西藏大学学报,1998,(3):11-13.
[4]祁顺来.论陈那和法称对因明学说的贡献[J].青海民族学院学报,2007,33(1):28-30.
[5]祁顺来.藏传因明学通论[M].西宁:青海民族出版社,2006:3-29.
[6]张忠义,张晓翔,淮芳.汉传因明史论[M].兰州:甘肃民族出版社,2010:147-159.
[7]梶山雄一.印度逻辑学的基本性质[M].张春波,译.北京:商务印书馆,1980:23-42.
[8]姚南强.因明的历史发展及其贡献[J].华东师范大学学报,2000,32(6):72-76.
[9]孙丽娜.从“论式”看因明的逻辑性质[J].黔南民族师范学院学报,2008,(1):62.
[10]陈大齐.因明大疏蠡测[M].北京:中华书局,2006:111-112.
[11]姚南强.因明辞典[M].上海:上海辞书出版社,2008:231.
[12]张忠义.因明的“合离”与“分离规则”[J].社会科学战线,1992,(3):43-44.
[13]张忠义.从“定有”看“同品定有性”[J].社会科学辑刊,1987,(3):25-27.
[14]拉巴次旦.试析逻辑三段论与三支论式在因明学教学中的比较运用[J].西藏大学学报,2007,(1):92-94.
[15]陈慕泽,余俊伟.数理逻辑基础:一阶逻辑与一阶理论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003:80.
[16]末木刚博.新因明的逻辑[M].因明新探.兰州:甘肃人民出版社,1989:278.
[17]末木刚博.现代逻辑学问题[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1983:22.
[18]张忠义,张家龙.从现代逻辑观点看印度新因明三支论式[J].哲学研究,2008,(1):108.
[19]罗素.数理哲学导论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2002:153.
[20]傅光全.简论罗素的形式蕴涵[J].海南大学学报,2005,23(3):254.
[21]陈那.因明正理门论[M].金陵刻经处,1957:7.
[22]张忠义.试论因明的三支论式[J].哲学研究,1989,(8):71-76.
[23]商羯罗主.因明入正理论[M].北京:文物出版社,1989:1.
[24]淮芳.试析因明的论式[D].秦皇岛:燕山大学哲学硕士学位论文,2006:37-38.
[25]杨百顺.印度逻辑论式的演变及其与西方推论式略比[J].人文杂志,1985,(5):25-26.
[26]周文英.因明在印度的发生和发展[C]//刘培育,周云之,董志铁.因明论文集.兰州:甘肃人民出版社,1982:43.
[27]巫白慧.印度哲学-吠陀经探义和奥义书解析[M].北京:东方出版社,2000:413-414.
[28]渥德尔.印度佛教史[M].北京:商务印书馆,1987:436.
[29]巫白慧.东方著名哲学家评传:印度卷[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2000:360-362.
[30]杨武金,贺海峰.墨家“三物逻辑”及其在《伤寒论》中的应用[J].职大学报,2010,(1):11-12.
[31]谭家健,孙中原.墨子今注今译[M].北京:商务印书馆,2009:228.
[32]张忠义,孔祥敏.论《墨经》的故、理、类对推论的作用[J].职大学报,2008,(1):9.
[33]杨武金.墨经逻辑研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004:179.
[34]沈有鼎.沈有鼎文集[M].北京:人民出版社,1992:336.
[35]张忠义.中国逻辑对“必然得出”的研究[M].北京:人民日报出版社,2006:22.
[36]詹剑峰.墨家的形式逻辑[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,1979:5.
[37]郭沫若.十批判书[M].北京:人民出版社,1954:261.
[38]刘培育.中国逻辑思想论文选[M].北京:生活、读书、新知三联书店,1981:356.
[39]刘培育.因明论文集[M].兰州:甘肃人民出版社,1982:41.
[40] Thom,P.The Logic of Essentialism.An Interpretation of Aristotle’s Modal Syllogistic,KluwerAcademic Publishers,1996:85-86.
[41] R.Lance Factor.What is the “logic” in Buddhist logic?Philosophy East and West.Volume33.1983,(4):2.
[42] Mark Siderits. Deductive, inductive, both or neither?Journal of Indian Philosophy.2003,(31):303-321.
[43] Richard Feldman. Reason and argument.University of Rochester Published,1998:36.
[44] Marek Mejor. Contributions of Polish scholars to the study of Indian logic. Journal of IndianPhilosophy.2003,(31):9-20.
[45] Jonardon Ganeri. Ancient Indian logic as a theory of case-based reasoning. Journal of IndianPhilosophy.2003,(31):33-45.