불국사 석가탑에서 발견된 무구정광대다라니경의 간년과 간지에 대한 소고

Abstract

This is to examine the discrepancy in the recent paper of Professor Heo Heung Soo presented in the History Society of China, which is one of the opinions of some Chinese scholars that Mukujungkwangtaedaranikyung of Bulkuksa temple, Gyung-ju, Korea is originated from China. The summary of the study is as follows.Firstly, among the letters of the title, Mukujungkwangtaedaranikyung of Donwhang and that of Bulkuksa temple, two letters, Mu and Da are different; Mu(无) and Da(陀) in Donwhang's and Mu (無) and Da () in Bulkuksa temple's.Secondly, the Donwhang copy is consisted of many handwritten manuscripts with many different writing styles and having various different length between the lines of the contents. Furthermore, the copy of Donwhang is made of papers from hemps, and that the Bulkuksa temples is made of papers from mulberry.Thirdly, The Donwhang copy is a handwritten manuscripts while the Pulkuksa temple copy is a printed one from the wooden blocks.Fourthly, because of the four letters Ji 地, Jeung 證, Cho 初, Soo 授 of Mujooshincha they insist Bulkuksa temple copy is a Chinese origin. But their opinion is not persuasible because of the 14 letters of Mujooshincha as seen in the Taebangkwangbulwhaumkyung. Therefore, when seeing with many inconsistencies in various aspects between two copies, the opinion that the Donwhang copy is a orginal one translated into Chinese from Sanskrit and the Bulkuksa temple copy was printed based upon the Donwhang's is obviously incompatible.