남악혜사의『 법화경안락행의』와『 제법무쟁삼매법문』의 저술시기 연구 ―사상적 맥락의 차이를 중심으로
A Study on the Writing Periods of Nam-Yüeh Hui-Ssu’s Works Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i and Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men : With Emphasis on the Differences of Thoughts
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this paper, I tried to prove that Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men (諸法無諍三昧法門) was written later than Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i (法 華經安樂行義) by comparing their contents. At first, I compared his interpretation of an-lo-hsing (安樂行) in Fahua- ching an-lo-hsing-i with that of ch’an-po-lo-mi (禪波羅密) in Chufa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. Nam-Yüeh Hui-Ssu (南岳慧思) presented san-jen (三忍) to explain the meaning of an-lo-hsing. San-jen are chungsheng- jen (衆生忍), fa-hsing-jen (法性忍) and fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ungjen (法界海神通忍). He interpreted chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsingjen among them as having three meanings. Those three meanings of chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsing-jen correspond to san-chih (三智) of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. San-chih are tao-chih (道智), chung-chih (道種智) and i-ch’ieh-chung-chih (一切種智). But fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ung-jen was not interpreted in terms of the three meanings. This is an example that he had not yet establish his viewpoint in Fahua- ching an-lo-hsing-i. Secondly, I compared his interpretations of ssu-nien-ch’u (四念處) in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i and in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. In Fahua- ching an-lo-hsing-i, Nam-Yüeh Hui-Ssu interpreted ssu-nien-ch’ u as ssu-mo (四魔). But in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men he presented more sophisticated interpretation of ssu-nien-ch’u as san-chih. Therefore I think that ssu-nien-ch’u of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men was more advanced than that in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i.
Abstract
In this paper, I tried to prove that Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men (諸法無諍三昧法門) was written later than Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i (法 華經安樂行義) by comparing their contents. At first, I compared his interpretation of an-lo-hsing (安樂行) in Fahua- ching an-lo-hsing-i with that of ch’an-po-lo-mi (禪波羅密) in Chufa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. Nam-Yüeh Hui-Ssu (南岳慧思) presented san-jen (三忍) to explain the meaning of an-lo-hsing. San-jen are chungsheng- jen (衆生忍), fa-hsing-jen (法性忍) and fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ungjen (法界海神通忍). He interpreted chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsingjen among them as having three meanings. Those three meanings of chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsing-jen correspond to san-chih (三智) of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. San-chih are tao-chih (道智), chung-chih (道種智) and i-ch’ieh-chung-chih (一切種智). But fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ung-jen was not interpreted in terms of the three meanings. This is an example that he had not yet establish his viewpoint in Fahua- ching an-lo-hsing-i. Secondly, I compared his interpretations of ssu-nien-ch’u (四念處) in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i and in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. In Fahua- ching an-lo-hsing-i, Nam-Yüeh Hui-Ssu interpreted ssu-nien-ch’ u as ssu-mo (四魔). But in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men he presented more sophisticated interpretation of ssu-nien-ch’u as san-chih. Therefore I think that ssu-nien-ch’u of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men was more advanced than that in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i.
참고문헌 (20)
- 佐藤哲英, "續·天台大師の硏究" (1981), 百華苑
- 오지연, "천태지관이란 무엇인가" (1999), 연기사
- 大野榮人, "天台止觀成立史の硏究", pp.68~ (1994), 法藏館
- 오지연, "남악혜사의 법화삼매연구", 석사, pp.1991
- 安藤俊雄, "天台學" (1969), 平樂寺書店
- 新田雅章, "慧思における禪定思想の展開", 印度學佛敎學硏究, 31(2) (1973)
- "『 法華經安樂行義』『( 大正藏』 46, 700a)", ~
- 김영길, "慧思의 末法說과 末世行爲論", 불교학보, 24 (1987), 동국대학교 불교문화 연구소
- 玉城康四郞, "心把捉の展開", pp.146~ (1961), 山喜房佛書林
- 김영길, "남악혜사의 말법사상에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.1987
- "『 法華經安樂行義』, 700b", ~
- 김영길, "慧思의 末法說과 末世行爲論", pp.18~19
- "『 法華經安樂行義』, 701b", ~
- "『 法華經安樂行義』, 702b", ~
- "『 諸法無諍三昧法門』 상권 『( 大正藏』 46, 628a): “智有無量, 說有三. 一者 道智, 二者 道 種智, 三者 一切種智. 慧亦有三, 一者 道慧, 二者 道種慧, 三者 一切種慧.”", ~
- 이병욱, "남악혜사의 「제법무쟁삼매법문」의 논리구조- 道智·道種智·一切種智를 중심으로 -", 불교학연구, 4(4), pp.3~88 (2002), 불교학연구회
- "『 諸法無諍三昧法門』 상권, 627c", ~
- "『 法華經安樂行義』, 701a", ~
- 이병욱, "남악혜사의『 제법무쟁삼매법문』의 논리구조", ~
- "『 諸法無諍三昧法門』 하권 『( 大正藏』 46, 634c)", ~
