『금강경』의 현대적 재해석

Abstract

During the last few decades there have been enormous developments in science and technology which have practically changed the face of the earth. But in spite of the great achievements in science and technology, we find that there prevails a certain chaos and confusion at all levels ― individual, social, moral, religious, political, national and international. We find people going from bad to worse everyday. There is confusion and anarchy at all levels of human existence. In the face of these circumstances the need of the hour is the spiritual regeneration of human society. There is no doubt that the ethical ideals laid down by Indian sages thousands years ago are universal standards that can be followed at all times, and are a lasting cure for evils which have crept into modern society. This is true because these ideals were never regarded as mere theories of morality, but as modes of spiritual life by adopting which the individual and society could develop in a reconcilable manner. This need can be met only when the Diamond Sūtra's recognition and practice as a Principle of Reconciliation is carried out. The title, Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā, is usual, following Max Müller, to render Vajracchedikā Sūtra as “Diamond Sutra”. This Sūtra is the most primitive and fundamental of all those dealing with the idea of Emptiness which developed out of the causation theory in Primitive Buddhism. Arranged as a dialogue between Subhūti and the Buddha, the Sūtra is confined to a few topics only. The first conception in the Diamond Sūtra is that of the Bodhisattva. In Hīnayāna the followers of the Buddha were taught to become not Boddhisattvas but Arhats, but the Mah󰐀y󰐀nists wanted to make every being like Śakyamuni; they wanted to remove all the barriers that were supposed to lie between Buddhahood and common humanity. The great difference between the Arhat and the Bodhisattva is that the former is intend upon his own enlightenment and liberation, while the Bodhisattva wishes to help all creatures and bring them to full enlightenment. In order to do this, although qualified for Nirvāṇa, he voluntarily renounces it in order to remain in the world to help all creatures, men and animals. The Diamond Sūtra gives a fine description of the mentality of a Bodhisattva: The Lord said: Here, Subhuti, someone who has set out in the vehicle of a Bodhisattva should produce a thought in this manner: ‘As many beings as there are in the universe of beings, comprehended under the term “beings” ― egg-born, born from a womb, moisture-born, or miraculously born; with or without form; with perception, without perception, and with neither perception nor non-perception, ― as far as any conceivable form of beings is conceived: all these I must lead to Nirvana, into that Realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind. And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana’no being at all has been led to Nirvāṇa.' And why? If in a Bodhisattva the notion of a ‘being’should take place, he could not be called a ‘Bodhi-being’. ‘And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being, in whom the notion of a self or of a being should take place, or the notion of a living soul or of a person.’ We shall now present the major difference between the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna. Hīnayāna has often been criticized by Mahāyāna for its narrow conception of the Arhat as one who seeks Nirvāṇa for himself without any concern for his followmen. Such a single-minded concern of the Arhat for his own salvation, no matter how sublime and elevated it may be, is regarded by Mahāyāna as selfish, ignoble, unworthy, falling short of the ideal of the liberated man as one of both enlightenment and unbounded compassion (mahākaruṇa) for all sentient beings. Thus Mahāyāna replaces the concept of Arhat by that of the Bodhisattva. As to the Arhat, the Mahāyānists maintained that he had not completely shaken off all attachment to ‘I’and ‘mine’. He set out to obtain Nirvāṇa for himself, and he won Nirvāṇa for himself, but others were left out of it. In this way, the Arhat could be said to make a difference between himself and others, and thereby to retain, by implication, some notion of himself as different from others ― thus showing his inability to realize the truth of Not-self to the full. The Bodhisattva would be a man who does not only set himself free, but who is also skilful in devising means for bringing out and maturing the latent seeds of enlightenment in others. The innovation of the Diamond Sūtra is that it elaborated this idea into an ideal valid for all.