户主在《达摩经》中的地位

IF 0.4 2区 哲学 0 ASIAN STUDIES JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2024-07-25 DOI:10.1007/s10781-024-09576-6
Christopher G. Framarin
{"title":"户主在《达摩经》中的地位","authors":"Christopher G. Framarin","doi":"10.1007/s10781-024-09576-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Vasiṣṭha claims both that all four <i>āśramas</i> are equal and that the householder is the best of the four <i>āśramas</i>. This apparent contradiction would be resolved if either of these claims could be dismissed. Vasiṣṭha's claim that the four <i>āśramas</i> are equal seems entailed, however, by his endorsement of the original formulation of the <i>āśrama</i> system. His claim that the householder is superior, in turn, seems supported by the surplus of arguments that he offers in favor of the householder. Patrick Olivelle takes Vasiṣṭha to advance this surplus of arguments for the householder only to bolster the more modest claim that the householder is <i>equal</i>—and therefore not inferior—to the celibate <i>āśramas</i>. If this right, then Vasiṣṭha's claim that the householder is superior might be understood in the same way. If the balance of evidence weighs in favor of one claim or the other, however, it seems to weigh in favor of the superiority of the householder, rather than the equality of the <i>āśramas</i>. An alternative interpretation takes Vasiṣṭha to evaluate the householder in relation to two distinct metrics. The four <i>āśramas</i> are equal, he says, in their ability to attain the highest heaven. The householder is superior to the other three <i>āśramas</i>, however, in his unmatched contributions to the general welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":51854,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Status of the Householder in the Dharmasūtras\",\"authors\":\"Christopher G. Framarin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10781-024-09576-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Vasiṣṭha claims both that all four <i>āśramas</i> are equal and that the householder is the best of the four <i>āśramas</i>. This apparent contradiction would be resolved if either of these claims could be dismissed. Vasiṣṭha's claim that the four <i>āśramas</i> are equal seems entailed, however, by his endorsement of the original formulation of the <i>āśrama</i> system. His claim that the householder is superior, in turn, seems supported by the surplus of arguments that he offers in favor of the householder. Patrick Olivelle takes Vasiṣṭha to advance this surplus of arguments for the householder only to bolster the more modest claim that the householder is <i>equal</i>—and therefore not inferior—to the celibate <i>āśramas</i>. If this right, then Vasiṣṭha's claim that the householder is superior might be understood in the same way. If the balance of evidence weighs in favor of one claim or the other, however, it seems to weigh in favor of the superiority of the householder, rather than the equality of the <i>āśramas</i>. An alternative interpretation takes Vasiṣṭha to evaluate the householder in relation to two distinct metrics. The four <i>āśramas</i> are equal, he says, in their ability to attain the highest heaven. The householder is superior to the other three <i>āśramas</i>, however, in his unmatched contributions to the general welfare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51854,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-024-09576-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-024-09576-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

瓦西ṭṭha 既声称四禅平等,又声称居士是四禅中最好的。如果这两种说法中的任何一种都能被否定,那么这个明显的矛盾就会迎刃而解。然而,瓦西ṭṭha 宣称四种禅是平等的,这似乎是由于他赞同最初的禅系统。反过来,他认为家庭主妇更优越的说法似乎也得到了他提供的大量支持家庭主妇的论据的支持。帕特里克-奥利维尔认为,瓦西ṣṭha 为居家者提出的大量论据只是为了支持一种更为温和的说法,即居家者与独身的āśramas 是平等的,因此并不低人一等。如果这种说法是正确的,那么瓦西藏(Vasiṣṭha)关于户主优越的说法也可以用同样的方式来理解。然而,如果证据的天平倾向于其中一种说法,那么似乎是倾向于居家者的优越性,而不是 āśramas 的平等性。另一种解释认为瓦西藏是根据两个不同的标准来评价户主的。他说,在达到最高天堂的能力方面,四个āśramas 是平等的。然而,居家者在为大众福利做出无与伦比的贡献方面优于其他三位常住。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Status of the Householder in the Dharmasūtras

Vasiṣṭha claims both that all four āśramas are equal and that the householder is the best of the four āśramas. This apparent contradiction would be resolved if either of these claims could be dismissed. Vasiṣṭha's claim that the four āśramas are equal seems entailed, however, by his endorsement of the original formulation of the āśrama system. His claim that the householder is superior, in turn, seems supported by the surplus of arguments that he offers in favor of the householder. Patrick Olivelle takes Vasiṣṭha to advance this surplus of arguments for the householder only to bolster the more modest claim that the householder is equal—and therefore not inferior—to the celibate āśramas. If this right, then Vasiṣṭha's claim that the householder is superior might be understood in the same way. If the balance of evidence weighs in favor of one claim or the other, however, it seems to weigh in favor of the superiority of the householder, rather than the equality of the āśramas. An alternative interpretation takes Vasiṣṭha to evaluate the householder in relation to two distinct metrics. The four āśramas are equal, he says, in their ability to attain the highest heaven. The householder is superior to the other three āśramas, however, in his unmatched contributions to the general welfare.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The Journal of Indian Philosophy publishes articles on various aspects of Indian thought, classical and modern. Articles range from close analysis of individual philosophical texts to detailed annotated translations of texts. The journal also publishes more speculative discussions of philosophical issues based on a close reading of primary sources.
期刊最新文献
Ethical Causality and Rebirth in the Pātañjalayogaśāstra and Abhidharmakośabhās A3B2 tvs=1mm h-1.7 . h0.7 A3B2 tvs ya: A Mirrored Argument Divine Favour and Human Gratitude: A Study of Vedānta Deśikaṉ’s Upakārasaṅgraham Māyājāla-sūtra: A Canonical Proto-Yogācāra Sūtra? Dialogues About Death in Milindapañha and Carakasaṃhitā In Some Ways: Syādvāda as the Synthesis of Anekāntavāda and Nayavāda in Akalaṅka’s Philosophical Treatises
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1