{"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}
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.
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.