『중론』 제9장의 논적(論敵) 연구__Sarvagatātman을 둘러싼 주석을 중심으로__

Abstract

The Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā (MMK) chp.9, “Examination of Clinger and the Objects of Cling” criticizes A preceding subject existing prior to whole sense organs and for whom whole sense organs belong. The MMK focuses on constructing criticism logic after describing concept of A preceding subject briefly. The Prajñāpradīpa(PP), Prasannapāda(PSP), important commentaries of MMK, in comparison, identifies A preceding subject specifically as the Pudgala of the Pudgalavādin(Vātsīputrīya or Sāṃmitīya) claims to be. It is a comment on the same contents of the MMK chp.9, however the PP cites the annotations of the Buddhapālita-mūlamadhyamaka-vṛtti(BP) that preceded the PP, then interprets the object of criticism of the BP as the Sāṃkhya, and criticizes the contents of the BP for errors. In contrast, the later PSP criticizes PP claiming that object of criticism of the BP is the Pudgala. The problem becomes more complicated. In other words, the Prajñāpradīpa-ṭīkā(PPṬ) annotates the BP, which defines its criticism to the Sāṃkhya, and describes both the possibility that the critic might be the Pudgalavādin and the possibility of being the Sāṃkhya. Introduction of the PP to the Sāṃkhya, which defines object of criticism of the BP as the Sāṃkhya, is so accurate that the explanation of the PP(Ṭ) can not be easily overlooked. However, I can not easily ‘ignore’ comments of the PSP, which commented on the same contents of the BP and regarded the critic as the Pudgalavādin. As such, there are large differences in interpretation among commentaries. Therefore, I would like to suggest that one methodology of interpretation of the MMK, that is the main object of criticism of the MMK chp.,9 which could not be easily determined as the Pudgalavādin.