上座 슈리라타(Śrīlāta)와『經部毘婆沙』

Abstract

For the last twenty-odd years, the question about the origin of Sautrāntika has been an urgent matter of concern in the foreign Buddhist circles. But a study on Sautrāntika by using the Nyāyānusāra śāstra of Samghabhadra that was not only contemporary with Vasubandhu but also widely criticized his Abhidharmakośabhāsya has scarcely been made. Through the context of Nyāyānusāra śāstra, this thesis tried to clarify the figure named Śrīlata with the title of 'Sthavira' on this text and the existence of his Sautrāntika Vibhāsā. The essential points are as follows. First, it can be said that the handing down by the Hsüan-tsang school saying that Śrīlata had made Sautrāntika Vibhāsā was accurate. Secondly, Śrīlata, as the elder of Sautrāntika(a leader of the order with high learning of old age) who had led a large number of literary disciples in the contemporary times with Samghabhadra(or Vasubandhu), had his reputation spread throughout India. According to it, Samghabhadra also called Sautrāntika of those days Sthavra' school(pāksika). Thirdly, he settled down in the east, which is comparatively decided as Ayodhā. Fourthly, Vasubandhu was not Śrīlata's disciple, but much affected by him(or his Sautrāntika Vibhāsā). Thus, a series of hypotheses about the origin of Sautrāntika which had been presented based on Kato Junsho's assertion that "it was in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośabhāsya among existing materials that the term of 'Sautrāntika' appeared for the first time", for example, the hypothesis that "the doctrine of Sautrāntika quoted on Abhidharmakośabhāsya is of Vasubandhu's own"(Kato Junsho) and the hypothesis that "the sect which has explained Yogācāra's doctrine in the name of Sautrāntika, in other words, the sect of 'Sautrāntika' is only a fictitious name"(Harada Wasō and others) should be reexamined.