本書では、水戸学の探究のためにも現代水戸学論の批判と修正を図りつつ、虚心坦懐に水戸の先人が求めたところを明らかにする。水戸学に革命論が存在するか?水戸学に徂徠学の影響が認められるか?また、関連する続編 や論賛の問題にも考察を加える。.

後期水戸学の中心的存在で水戸学の本流であった藤田幽谷の青少年期の学問成果に注目し、その形成の一端を明らかにする。幽谷門下の吉田活堂を中心とする水戸の国学、そして『大日本史』や『扶桑拾葉集』の研究を経て 辿り着く、幽谷研究の決定版。.

An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy. An annotated translation of the Tarkabhasa of Moksakaragupta, reprint with corrections in the author's hand. Yuichi Kajiyama, Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien. Vienna 1998. 173 pp.

Kajiyama has argued that the basis for the concept of _jāti_ (false rejoinder) as described in the _Nyāyasūtra_ is the concept _xiang ying_ (相応) as found in the _Fangbian xin lun_ (方便心論). Kajiyama has also shown that the sophistic arguments called _xiang ying_ are very similar to the _prasaṅga_ arguments of Nāgārjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka school. It thus seems worthwhile to investigate how later Mādhyamika philosophers treated the concept of _jāti_ that originally appeared as the result (...) of the _Nyāyasūtra’s_ criticism of the concept _xiang ying_ and was later accepted by Buddhist logicians such as Dignāga. This paper shows that there were two entirely opposite Mādhyamika positions regarding the concept of _jāti_. In order to demonstrate this difference, this paper examines in detail statements about _jāti_s that appear in various treatises, especially two works by Bhāviveka and three works by Candrakīrti. As the result, it becomes clear that the differences in the two positions correspond essentially to the differences in how Dignāgaʼs logic was evaluated by the so-called Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika within the Madhyamaka school. (shrink)

This research attempts to evaluate the hermeneutic characteristics of catuṣkoṭi (tetralemma) in the ‘Nirvāṇa’ Chapter of the _Mūlamadhyamakakārikā_ (Ch. 25), focusing on the identity thesis between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra. Regarding the structure of the tetralemma posited by Nāgārjuna (ca. 150-ca. 250), this study criticizes the dialectical interpretation of Robinson and Kajiyama from the perspective of Siderits and Katsura’s semantic approach to the extent that it does not deny ultimate truth. This sets it apart from the semantic view presented by (...) Siderits and Garfield (J Indian Philos 41:655–664, 2013). To support this position, the commentaries of Piṅgala (ca. 4C) and Candrakīrti (ca. 600–ca. 650) are also used, along with Nāgārjuna’s _Vigrahavyāvartanī_. From this standpoint, the meaning of non-duality of nirvāṇa and saṃsāra is evaluated, in the sense that both are negated in the ultimate sense, as opposed to the metaphysical view, which interprets the tetralemma in a dialectical way. Siderits and Katsura suggests that, as in the case of nirvāṇa, “just as the four lemmas applying to saṃsāra is rejected, ultimately there is no such state as saṃsāra,” because it is empty of its intrinsic nature. Following this line of reasoning, the thesis of Tathāgata in 25.17 and 25.18 can also be interpreted semantically as “there is no real distinction between before and after death, due to the absence of intrinsic nature (_svabhāva_) in Tathāgata.” Likewise, the semantic approach here negates the four propositions of nirvāṇa and saṃsāra only, as operated when clinging to identity. (shrink)

The present paper is the third in a series dedicated to uncovering the canonical sources of Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita and, to the extent possible, the monk-poet’s sectarian affiliation. Whereas parts I and II focused on Chapter 16’s indebtedness to (Mūla)sarvāstivāda Vinaya and/or Sūtra literature, this third part inquires into the sources of Aśvaghoṣa’s account of the Buddha’s enlightenment in Chapter 14 (whose first 31 verses have been preserved in their Sanskrit original). Detailed analysis reveals this chapter’s intimate relationship with T. 189, (...) a (Mūla)sarvāstivāda (?) biographical sūtra extant in Chinese translation only, but also with textual materials that have come to belong to Mūlasarvāstivāda literature and, as already demonstrated by Kajiyama Yūichi, with the Nagar(opam)asūtra of the Saṃyuktāgama. Among these likely sources, some provide a lively description of the five destinies, others relate to the iconographic prescriptions laid down for drawing the so-called Wheel of saṃsāra/existence, while yet others spell out the doctrine of dependent origination. The detailed comparison of these materials is followed by an admittedly speculative attempt to assess the relationship between these sources. (shrink)