요가 철학에서 비판한 불교의 실체 : 요가주 제3장을 중심으로

Abstract

In the case of the third chapter of Yogabhāṣya, it is revealed that the designated Buddhism kept in mind as a target of criticism by the commentators of Yogabhāṣya is divided into Sarvāstivādin and Yogācāra evidently. Furthermore, in this case we can find a fact deserves attention. In other words, when the commentators mention Buddhism, on the whole they use different terms according to the intended target. For instance, they indicate mainly Sarvāstivādin by the expression bauddha(Buddhist), and Yogācāra by the expression vaināśika(who believes in complete annihilation). The instance as above is applied to almost all the cases of the first and the fourth chapter of Yogabhāṣya similarly. In particular, the term vaināśika is mentioned frequently in the fourth chapter and occasionally in the first chapter. But the intended target by the term corresponds mostly to the case of the third chapter examined here. Thus discriminative aspects of the terms mentioned by commentators are revealed explicitly in the case of third chapter of Yogabhāṣya. So this led me to examine the third chapter first of all. The conclusion as above shows us the main opponents which the commentators of Yogabhāṣya took precautions against. Those opponents were Yogācara and Sarvāstivādin. The first maintains the theory of consciousness-only, and the latter maintains the theory of establishing the reality of past, present and future. This conclusion is found to be intimately associated with two bases, namely ontology and practice. That is, the commentators of Yoga philosophy turned their attention towards the doctrine of Sarvāstivādin with respect to ontology, on the other hand they turned their attention towards the doctrine of Yogācara with respect to practice. In short, they intended to exclude Buddhist ideas similar to theirs as part of establishing their superiority over Buddhism.