바수반두의 찰나멸 논증을 둘러싼 몇 가지 해석상의 문제들 - Yuktidīpikā와의 관련성을 중심으로 -
A Study on Several Probolems in Analysis of Vasubandhu's Proof of Momentariness: with a focus on connection with Yuktidīpikā
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
이 논문에서는 바수반두의 찰나멸 논증을 이해하는 데 있어서 제기되는 문제들을 다룬다. 이에 대한 해결을 위해서 우선적으로 바수반두의 찰나멸 논증을 둘러싼 역사적 전후사정을 다룬다. 첫 번째 문제는 바수반두의 찰나멸 논증이 논리적인 문제를 지니고 있다는 카츠라(桂)의 지적에 관한 것이다. 2장에서는 바수반두의 찰나멸 논증 전반을 논리적으로 분석한다. 이를 위해서 당시의 논리적 배경과 사회적 상식을 활용하는 방법을 취할 것이다. 그것을 통해 카츠라의 해석에 대한 비판적 검토를 진행한다. 또 다른 문제는 바수반두의 찰나멸 논증을 겨냥하고 이에 대한 반론 을 펼친 것으로 보이는 상키야학파의 논서 Yuktidīpikā에서 지엽적인 주제라 할 수 있는 불꽃ㆍ소리ㆍ인식 따위의 비순간성에 대해서 지나치게 집중하고 있다는 점이다. 3장에서는 이에 관한 논리적 배경을 탐색하고자 한다. 이 두 가지 문제는 긴밀한 상호관련이 있으며, 한 쪽 문제가 다른 쪽 문제를 풀어주는 매개 역할을 한다. 최종적으로는 이를 통해서 바수반두의 찰나멸 논증이 지니는 논리학상의 의의에 관해서 다루었다. 바수반두의 논증이 이전의 논증들과 구분되는 점들을 지적하고, 그가 배치하고자 했던 논리적 설정들을 파악한다. 이를 통해서 바수반두가 찰나멸을 논증함에 있어서 취했던 선택과 의도를 추출하고자 한다.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze Vasubandhu's Proof of Momentariness. To start with, this paper seeks to address the following questions: 1. Is the proof of Vasubandhu an error? 2. Why does the writer of Yuktidīpikā deeply attach to dispute on momentariness of flame etc.? The notion ‘All the existence in the real world is impermanent’ underlies the ideas of Indian philosophical schools. However, regarding the signification and application scope of anitya, various interpretations have been raised. Answers to how such impermanent things are able to maintain their appearance widely vary based on the assumption that everything in the world is impermanent. Anitya is a notion that is commonly accepted by Indian philosophical schools, yet an understanding of the phenomenal world varies depending how differently the anitya is viewed varies. Historically, thus, there have been a lot of disputes between schools with different views. Buddhism on the basis of anitya as key doctrine suggested the most strict standards regarding the application scope of anitya. Basically, Buddhism does not accept either immortal gods nor eternal and fundamental cause for the creation of all things. Particularly since Abhidharma doctrines had the system, in the Buddhist schools, the doctrine of momentariness (kṣaṇikavāda) that saw that all things and facts were created and became extinct repetitively every single moment played an important role in explaining anitya theoretically. Disputes on the doctrine of momentariness in Yuktidīpikā proceeds in a different way from rebuttals to it by the Nyāya School or Vātsīputrīya on which many studies have been conducted. Vātsīputrīya and the Nyāya school do not accept the changes every moment claimed by Sarvāstivādin, Sautrāntika, Yogacāra and the Sāṃkhya-Yoga school. To them, things continue to exist with self-identity and are destroyed by external causes only. Thus, in the disputes on the momentariness relating to Vātsīputrīya and the Nyāya School, the changes every moment is the important subject of argument. The theory of momentariness is the core tenets that define anitya in Buddhism. The stance of the Sāṃkhya school on momentariness has undergone transitions through the historial process. The discussion in Yuktidīpikā 10 is placed in the last stage of that historical process. The reason why Sāṃkhya could not accept the momentariness while claiming the changeableness was because the notion of Buddhism and the casual relationship and the notion of the extinction did not correspond with each other, which incurred the big difference in the stance on the significance of the existence between them. This is the reason why both Buddhism and Sāṃkhya explain the flow of time in different ways. Sāṃkhya in the disputes in Yuktidīpikā explains the reason the phenomena in front of our eyes disappear because they are melt into the origin, prakrti. Sāṃkhya claims that the existence perpetually continues through changes, not accepting the extinction of existence. In the disputes of Yuktidīpikā 10, this stance of Ṣāmkhya is identified in various manners.
참고문헌 (45)
- Pradhan, Patna, K.P., "AKBh Abhidharmakoṣabhāṣya(아비달마구사론)" (1967), Jayaswal Researth Institute
- Unrai Wogihara, "AKVy Abhidharmakoṣavyākhyā by Yaśomitra" (1932)
- Ātmarāma Khādilkar, "MBh Mahābhārata, Mahābhārata with Nīlakaṇṭha’s commentary" (1863), Gaṇpat Kṛṣṇaji's Pres
- S. Lévi, "MSA Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra.(대승장엄경론)" (1983)
- "MSABh Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkārabhāṣya. Cf. MSA", ~
- Taranatha Nyaya-Tarkatirtha, "NBh: Nyāyasūtrabhāṣya, Nyāyadarśanam: Vātsyāyana's Bhāṣya, Uddyotakara's Vārttika, Vācaspati Miśra's Tātparyaṭīkā andViśvanātha's Vṛtti" (1985)
- "NS: Nyāyasūtra. Cf. NBh", ~
- "T. 大正新脩大藏經", ~
- Embar Krishnamacharya, "Tattvasaṃgraha. Tattvasaṃgraha of Śāntarakṣita with the commentary of Kamalaśīla" (1984)
- "TS Tattvasaṃgrahapanjika of Kamalaśīla. cf. TSP", ~
- "SK Sāṃkhyakārikā. cf. YD", ~
- Alberecht Wezler, "YD Yuktidīpīkā The Most Significant Commentary on the Sāṃkhyakārikā Vol I" (1998), Franz Steiner Verlag
- 江崎公兒, "ニヤーヤㆍバーシャの刹那滅論批判", 印度學佛敎學硏究, 55(2), pp.825~821 (2007)
- 강형철, "상키야와 불교의 찰나멸에 관한 대론 연구 : Yuktidīpikā를 중심으로", 박사, 인도철학과, pp.2013
- 桂紹隆, "初期仏教からアビダルマへ", pp.259~276 (2002), 平樂寺書店
- 桂紹隆, "Some Cases of Doctrinal Proofs in the Abhidharma-koṣa-bhāṣya", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 31, pp.105~120 (2003)
- 高井觀海, "小乘佛教概論" (1978), 山喜房佛書
- 谷貞志, "무상의 철학 -다르마끼르띠와 찰나멸" (2008), 산지니
- 谷貞志, "刹那滅の研究" (2000), 春秋社
- 那須円照, "アビダルマ研究ノート", インドチベット学研究, 4, pp.103~112 (1999)
- 那須円照, "アビダルマ仏教の研究" (2009), 永田文昌堂
- 木村俊彦, "Vīta and A-", Āvīta Dialectics of the Saṅkhyas, 2004, pp.30, 161~167
- 木村俊彦, "刹那滅論証とウダヤナの反論・承前", 印度学仏教学研究, 57(2), pp.237~234 (2009)
- 森山清徹, "世親、ダルマキールティの滅無因説と中観派", 印度学仏教学研究, 48(1), pp.187~195 (1999)
- 桑月心, "Uddhyotakaraの刹那滅論批判", 龍谷大学大学院紀要, 1, pp.1~15 (1979)
- 阿部真也, "刹那滅について-俱舍論を中心として", 印度學佛敎學硏究, 49(2), pp.298~300 (2002)
- 櫻部建, "俱舍論の研究-界ㆍ根品" (1969), 法藏館
- 御牧克己, "講座大乗仏敎9 認識論と論理学", pp.217~254 (1984), 春秋社
- 早島理, "諸行刹那滅“kṣaṇikaṃ sarvasaṃskṛtam”ー Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra 第XVIII章82ㆍ83偈の解読研究ー", 長崎大学教育学部社会科学論業, 47, pp.27~42
- 早島理, "諸行刹那滅“kṣaṇikaṃ sarvasaṃskṛtam”ー Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra 第XVIII章82ㆍ83偈の解読研究ー(承 前)", 長崎大学教育学部社会科学論業, 48, pp.33~52 (1994)
- 早島理, "諸行刹那滅“kṣaṇikaṃ sarvasaṃskṛtam”ー Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra 第XVIII章82ㆍ83偈の解読研究ー(完 )", 長崎大学教育学部社会科学論業, 49, pp.15~30 (1995)
- 早島理, "刹那滅と輪廻轉生“ādhyātmikakṣaṇikatva”ー Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra 第XVIII章84～88偈の解読研究ー", 長崎大学教育学部社会科学論業, 50, pp.15~54 (1995)
- 早島理, "大乘莊嚴經論 第XVIII章89, 91偈について", 印仏研印度学仏教学研究, 44(1), pp.383~378 (1995)
- 平川彰, "平川彰著作集第二券原始佛敎とアビダルマ佛敎", pp.439~456 (1991)
- Frauwallner, Erich, "Dharmottara's Kṣaṇabhaṅgasiddhiḥ. Text und Überstzuung", WZKM, 42, pp.217~258 (1935)
- Frauwallner, Erich, "Die Erkenntnislehle des Klassischen Sāṃkhya-Systems", WZKSO, 2, pp.84~139 (1958)
- Gupta, Rita, "Essays on Dependent Origination and Momentariness" (1990), Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar
- Mookerjee, Satkari, "The Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux: An Exposition of the Philosophy of Critical Realism as Expounded by the School of Dignāga" (1935), Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
- Kano, Kyo, "“On anyathānupapatti and avīta", āvīta”. In Dharmakīrti's Thought and I ts Impact on \indian and Tibetan Philosophy, 1999, ~
- Kim, Wan Doo, "The Theravādin Doctrine of Momentariness : A Survey of its Origins and Development", Ph.D., pp.1999
- Park, Changhwan, "Vasubandhu, Śrīlāta, and the Sautrāntika Theory of Seeds" (2014), Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistsche Studien Universität Wien
- Poussin, Louis de La Vallé, "Note sur le ‘moment’ ou Kṣaṇa des bouddhistes", Rocznik Orjentalistyczny, 8, pp.1~9 (1934)
- Sako, Toshio, "Textcritical Remarks on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya IVI-12(192-205, I.11", 仏敎文化, 20, pp.1~36 (1988)
- Steinkellner,Ernst, "Die Entwicklung des Kṣaṇikatvānumāna bei Dharmakīrti", WZKSO, 12(13), pp.361~377 (1968)
- Stsherbatsky, Theodore, "Buddhist Logic vol .1" (1930), USSR