아난의 출가문제 고찰

Abstract

Along with Śāriputra who was the leading disciple of Buddha, Ānanda is the most important figure in early Buddhism. Despite this, in the record related with Ānanda’s pravrajyā there are some problems that can be reckoned as Ānanda’s own peculiarity. The problems related with Ānanda’s pravrajyā are as follows: ① Despite Ānanda having left his family with others when there was the group pravrajyā of the Sakya tribe during Buddha’s visit home to Kapila-vastu, Ānanda’s upādhyāya was mentioned as peculiarly different. ② There is a possibility that Ānanda was not Buddha’s direct disciple but his secondgeneration disciple. ③ It is necessary to search who was the most plausible as Ānanda’s upādhyāya. The fact that, even though Ānanda was one of the most influential persons in early Buddhism, there is confusion in these basic records means that some special factor is working in the Ānanda’s pravrajyā. In this paper, the cause of this speciality is first reviewed in relation with the bad effect by the negative image of Devadatta, his elder brother and its validity is searched. Then, this paper deals with the aspect that Ānanda was relatively young at that time. In this approach, by using the distorted tendency that can be found in the Ānanda-related records, it was tried to establish the validity. The special feature related with Ānanda’s pravrajyā can be said to have been caused by the fact that Ānanda, even if he was a second-generation disciple, achieved a very important position, and exerted a huge influence in the early Buddhist sect. Ānanda’s position as a secondary disciple rather than a direct disciple is inferred from the fact that there was a flexible and wide mentor-monk relationship during Buddha’s time and Ānanda left his family at a relatively young age. In relation with Ānanda’s upādhyāya, 4 persons were recorded in total. Among them, the most probable one is Daśabala-kāśyapa, who acquires the plausible persuasion in that Daśabala-kāśyapa was one of 5 monks, a noble one from the Sakya tribe, and had respectful characteristics. That is, the special feature in Ānanda’s pravrajyā can be said that it was not just a simple confusion of record but a distortion which appeared while the concerned parties who wanted to change the historical aspects had influence on the historical facts.