{"title":"6. 耆那教权威话语的合法性","authors":"M. Gorisse","doi":"10.1515/9783110557176-007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Jain theories of authority ( ā ptatva ) can be productively read as reactions to a fundamental philosophical issue – namely, in the situation of the coexistence of two contradictory discourses, both recognized as authoritative by different traditions, what are the means available to distinguish between them? Some of the solutions posed to address this problem of contradiction include consistency with practice, the consensus of a community, the conformity of the discourse at stake with universal laws such as coherence, or appeal to faith or extramundane knowledge. This paper analyzes the development of critical strategies employed by Jain thinkers to establish the authority of the Jain corpus by refuting theses pro-moted by competitors from outside of the community. To trace this development, I focus on the Ā ptam ī m ā ṃ s ā ( Investigation on Authority ; Ā M ī ), composed by Samantabhadra (530 – 590). This text provides an illustrative case study for my analysis because it marks a transition from a conception in which the reliability criterion of an authoritative discourse is the authoritative character of the speaker, to a conception in which the validity and soundness of the discourse itself are foremost. The text ’ s authorship is also significant, since Samantabhadra is one of the first Jain authors to attempt to logically prove the omniscience of the Jain teachers, and the first one to link this doctrine to the celebrated Jain theory of “ non-one-sidedness ” ( anek ā ntav ā da ). for the sake of easy understanding, discerning, reasoning, and the operation of consciousness. subject matter they deal with); they are persons who seek to establish something that is contradicted by what is seen to be the case.","PeriodicalId":282337,"journal":{"name":"Framing Intellectual and Lived Spaces in Early South Asia","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"6. The Legitimation of an Authoritative Discourse in Jainism\",\"authors\":\"M. Gorisse\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/9783110557176-007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Jain theories of authority ( ā ptatva ) can be productively read as reactions to a fundamental philosophical issue – namely, in the situation of the coexistence of two contradictory discourses, both recognized as authoritative by different traditions, what are the means available to distinguish between them? Some of the solutions posed to address this problem of contradiction include consistency with practice, the consensus of a community, the conformity of the discourse at stake with universal laws such as coherence, or appeal to faith or extramundane knowledge. This paper analyzes the development of critical strategies employed by Jain thinkers to establish the authority of the Jain corpus by refuting theses pro-moted by competitors from outside of the community. To trace this development, I focus on the Ā ptam ī m ā ṃ s ā ( Investigation on Authority ; Ā M ī ), composed by Samantabhadra (530 – 590). This text provides an illustrative case study for my analysis because it marks a transition from a conception in which the reliability criterion of an authoritative discourse is the authoritative character of the speaker, to a conception in which the validity and soundness of the discourse itself are foremost. The text ’ s authorship is also significant, since Samantabhadra is one of the first Jain authors to attempt to logically prove the omniscience of the Jain teachers, and the first one to link this doctrine to the celebrated Jain theory of “ non-one-sidedness ” ( anek ā ntav ā da ). for the sake of easy understanding, discerning, reasoning, and the operation of consciousness. subject matter they deal with); they are persons who seek to establish something that is contradicted by what is seen to be the case.\",\"PeriodicalId\":282337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Framing Intellectual and Lived Spaces in Early South Asia\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Framing Intellectual and Lived Spaces in Early South Asia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110557176-007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Framing Intellectual and Lived Spaces in Early South Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110557176-007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
耆那教的权威理论(ā ptatva)可以被有效地解读为对一个基本哲学问题的反应——也就是说,在两种相互矛盾的话语共存的情况下,两种话语都被不同的传统认为是权威的,有什么方法可以区分它们?为解决这一矛盾问题而提出的一些解决方案包括与实践的一致性,社区的共识,利害攸关的话语与普遍规律(如连贯性)的一致性,或诉诸信仰或超然知识。本文分析了耆那教思想家为确立耆那教文集的权威而采用的批判策略的发展,反驳了耆那教以外的竞争者所提出的论点。为了追溯这一发展,我将重点放在Ā ptam Ā m Ā s Ā(权威调查;Ā M Ā),由Samantabhadra(530 - 590)组成。这篇文章为我的分析提供了一个说明性的案例研究,因为它标志着一个概念的转变,在这个概念中,权威话语的可靠性标准是说话者的权威特征,在这个概念中,话语本身的有效性和可靠性是最重要的。该文本的作者也很重要,因为萨曼塔巴德拉是第一个试图从逻辑上证明耆那教老师的全知的耆那教作者之一,也是第一个将这一教义与著名的耆那教“非片面性”(anek ā ntav ā da)理论联系起来的人。为了便于理解、辨别、推理和意识的运作。他们处理的主题);他们是那些试图建立与所看到的情况相矛盾的东西的人。
6. The Legitimation of an Authoritative Discourse in Jainism
Jain theories of authority ( ā ptatva ) can be productively read as reactions to a fundamental philosophical issue – namely, in the situation of the coexistence of two contradictory discourses, both recognized as authoritative by different traditions, what are the means available to distinguish between them? Some of the solutions posed to address this problem of contradiction include consistency with practice, the consensus of a community, the conformity of the discourse at stake with universal laws such as coherence, or appeal to faith or extramundane knowledge. This paper analyzes the development of critical strategies employed by Jain thinkers to establish the authority of the Jain corpus by refuting theses pro-moted by competitors from outside of the community. To trace this development, I focus on the Ā ptam ī m ā ṃ s ā ( Investigation on Authority ; Ā M ī ), composed by Samantabhadra (530 – 590). This text provides an illustrative case study for my analysis because it marks a transition from a conception in which the reliability criterion of an authoritative discourse is the authoritative character of the speaker, to a conception in which the validity and soundness of the discourse itself are foremost. The text ’ s authorship is also significant, since Samantabhadra is one of the first Jain authors to attempt to logically prove the omniscience of the Jain teachers, and the first one to link this doctrine to the celebrated Jain theory of “ non-one-sidedness ” ( anek ā ntav ā da ). for the sake of easy understanding, discerning, reasoning, and the operation of consciousness. subject matter they deal with); they are persons who seek to establish something that is contradicted by what is seen to be the case.