구사론 파아품에 나타나는 무아(無我, anattan)의 변용 I － 5가지 사례를 통한 니까야의 무아 유형과 비교

Abstract

This paper compares the interpretations of selflessness (anattan) in the Ātmavādapratiṣedha of Abhidharmakośabhāṣya with the types of selflessness teachings in Early Buddhism. The interpretation of selflessness in the Ātmavādapratiṣedha reflects the discussions that newly emerged after Early Buddhism, and can be classified into the following five cases. Type A: interpretations of selflessness that are consistent with the mainstream trends of Early Buddhism; Type B: interpretations of selflessness that could be connected to the mainstream trends of Early Buddhism but introduce new perspectives and explanatory methods; Type C: interpretations of selflessness that are connected to heterogeneous trends in Early Buddhism; Type D: interpretations of selflessness that could be connected to heterogeneous trends in Early Buddhism but introduce new perspectives and explanatory methods; and Type E: new interpretations of selflessness that cannot be found in Early Buddhist teachings. I divided the entire Ātmavādapratiṣedha into 43 sections, selected five representative sections, and arranged them into the above-mentioned five types. The first section (1) of the introduction and the last section (43) of the concluding part represent the interpretation of selflessness in the Ātmavādapratiṣedha. Section 1) is associated with mainstream trends in Early Buddhism, but it may also be attributed to Type B, introducing new perspectives and explanatory methods. Section (43) presents new perspectives that cannot be found in Early Buddhist teachings. Therefore, it can be classified as Type E. In section (10), the existence of person (satta) is compared to a combination of cart parts, and this belongs to Type C. Section (40) corresponds to Type D in that the self or person as an independent subject beyond a causal relationship cannot be recognized. Finally, section (27) exemplifies the inheritance of mainstream trends in Early Buddhist teachings; the content of this section conflicts with that of the four above-mentioned types, and this section can be classified as Type A. Therefore, it is difficult to say that the Ātmavādapratiṣedha presents a consistent view of selflessness. It can also be claimed that the Ātmavādapratiṣedha is more concerned with introducing and interpreting new perspectives than with adhering to the standpoint of Early Buddhism. It seems that more discussion is needed as to whether these points are distortions of Buddha’s teachings or whether they reflect creative succession or development. To address these points, it is necessary to expand on the remaining sections that were not covered in this study and on the contexts in which perspectives on selflessness have evolved over the course of the history of Buddhist literature. This paper can be said to be an introductory article for such subsequent research.