[0119] Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience - Robert H. Sharf - 1995
书页
書 228（提要首面，）
核查结论
This paper argues that the role of experience in the history of Buddhism has been greatly exaggerated in contemporary scholarship；the privileging of experience may well be traced to certain twentieth-century Asian reform movements, notably those that urge a “return” to zazen or vipassana meditation, and these reforms were profoundly influenced by religious developments in the West；
核查全文
such discourse turns out to function ideologically and performatively—wielded more often than not in the interests of legitimation and institutional authority。卷期页码（Numen 42.3 (1995): 228–283）亦与本著录合。判仍确（前记已言三者只增其厚度，非补其缺）。
按
脚注所记「Sharf 论禅修「经验」叙述的话语建构性」之据。同页提要并作 This paper argues that the role of experience in the history of Buddhism has been greatly exaggerated in contemporary scholarship，及 such discourse turns out to function ideologically and performatively—wielded more often than not in the interests of legitimation and institutional authority。该本系扫描补，错字多，引文已回看版面。
11 页又指出「The term bhavanga occurs in the Paṭṭhāna of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka and in the Milindapañha. However, it is in the Pali Buddhist exegesis that we find a detailed account of it」——有分心的详说出于注释而非本典，脚注作「上座部注释传统」用语准确。
11 页又指出「The term bhavanga occurs in the Paṭṭhāna of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka and in the Milindapañha. However, it is in the Pali Buddhist exegesis that we find a detailed account of it」——有分心的详说出于注释而非本典，脚注作「上座部注释传统」用语准确。
Eckel《Bhāviveka and His Buddhist Opponents》全 516 面。该书实为《中观心论》第四、五两品连《思择焰》注的梵藏文校订、英译与研究（版权页著录：「Chapters 4 and 5 of Bhāviveka's Madhyamakahṛdayakārikāḥ with Tarkajvālā Commentary, Translated and edited with introduction and notes」，Harvard Oriental Series 70，ISBN 9780674032734）。著录宜改一处：该书由哈佛
核查全文
梵文与印度学系出版、哈佛大学出版社发行，扉页作「PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SANSKRIT AND INDIAN STUDIES, HARVARD UNIVERSITY / DISTRIBUTED BY HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS」；径作「Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press」是以发行者为出版者，宜补 Harvard Oriental Series 70 及实际出版单位。脚注所标之物与此书正相当：其第五品即〈Analysis of Reality According to the Yogācāras〉，汉译作《入抉择瑜伽行真实品》，脚注指认无误，且该书即此品之校译本身，非仅「研究与译注」。所论内容亦对：全书 parikalpita 十三见、paratantra 二十二见、pariniṣpanna 四十一见，即三性之名俱在；mind-only 五十九见、external object 七十八见，即唯识无境一系之诤。该书并指出清辨此品之自我定位：其开卷颂及注中谓「other scholars」自无著、世亲以下，自许其道胜于中观，清辨乃起而破之——作者据此驳多罗那他以来「中观瑜伽之诤由清辨所造」之说，谓「Bhāviveka's chapter on the Yogācāras shows that he understood the situation quite differently」。此层可供正文他处取用。
William S. Waldron《The Buddhist Unconscious》（RoutledgeCurzon, 2003）
书页
原书未标版心页码
核查结论
Waldron《The Buddhist Unconscious》(RoutledgeCurzon, 2003) 。「辩护方『佛教无意识』读法」一侧至此可核：该书开宗即言「the “cognitive unconscious” is now widely accepted within cognitive science and philosophy of mind… one of our aims is to introduce this fascinating concept into current Western discussions of unconscious mind」，并以「two-tiered model of mind」概括《摄大乘论》的结构。本行转确。
按
「佛教无意识」读法的出处：该书以「two-tiered model of mind」名阿赖耶识的结构，并自陈欲将此概念引入当代西方关于无意识的讨论。
Gallica 著录「Triṃśikā (La trentaine), avec le commentaire de Sthiramati / original sanscrit publié pour la première fois, d'après des manuscrits rapportés du Népal」。正文书 41 行「安慧的《三十颂释》则有梵本存世」由此担。②「真谛译籍近于安慧一系为学界通说」： Diana Y. Paul《Philosophy of Mind in Sixth-Century China》（Stanford 1984，书目 0389，）书内 1
核查全文
49 页「[Wŏnch'ŭk implies] that there was some doctrinal relationship between Paramartha and Sthiramati, but he does not specify the exact affinity. The Yogācārabhūmi, in Paramārtha's interpretation of portions of it entitled CTTL, is taken to be one of the primary sources for the notion of an affinity between his thought and Sthiramati's」；132 页并记真谛于转依「remains close to the verse itself and to Sthiramati」，而于依他起「diverges significantly from both thinkers」；书末注亦言「At least in this matter Sthiramati and Paramartha share the same doctrinal views」（引佐佐木）。是「近于安慧」确为学界所持之说，惟 Paul 亦记其异处。③「安慧一系判见分相分同属遍计所执」（正文书 41 行）：Paul 书末注引圆测《辩中边论疏》「Dharmapala viewed the dualism as paratantra whereas Sthiramati viewed it as parikalpita（T.1835-44.16b26-28）」，并引 Lévi 本页 40 安慧释第二十一颂「grāhyagrāhakabhāvaḥ parikalpitaḥ」，合。惟霍韬晦《安慧「三十唯識釋」原典譯註》（书目 0870，1980）自序谓「最明顯的，莫如稱安慧為一分家，安慧其實未言」，是「一分家」之名出后世疏家。已更新： 注补 Lévi 丛书项與出版者；「学界通说」一语落实为 Paul 1984 书内 149、132 页（并存其异见）；补霍韬晦「一分家」一说之出处。正文不动。
