초기불전의 緣起法과 『中論』의 因果論의관련성에 대한 연구

Abstract

There is a kind of discrepancy between the doctrine of Dependent Arising preached by the Buddha in the Pali Nikāya and the theory of Cause and Effect formulated in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās. While the doctrine of Dependent Arising is dealing with the arising and cessation of suffering resulting from the repeated process of cause and effect, the theory of Cause and Effect in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās rejects the existence of cause and effect, saying the effect is made neither by cause nor by non-cause. This article is written to clarify this problem, analyzing the Suttas of Pali Nikāya dealing with the teaching of the Dependent Arising and the theory of Cause and Effect formulated in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās. As a result it is confirmed that both the Dependent Arising in the Pali Suttas and the theory of Cause and Effect in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās have in common a strong rejection of the eternalist theory and annihilationist theory which are respectively seeking the existence or non-existence of a thing. Only the teaching of the Suttas stops talking about the existence or non-existence of a thing after confirming the eternalist or annihilationist character of a wrong view by introducing the doctrine of Dependent Arising from the perspective of the Middle Path, while the argument of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās continues in order to clarify the empty character of a thing which is neither being nor non-being. Wrong views concerning about eternalist or annihilationist theory in the Suttas and the Mūlamadhyamakakārikās can be classified into three kinds: Those which are arguing about the existence or non-existence of individual things; those seeking the existence or non-existence of things which are in the reciprocal relation with each other; those which is investigating the existence or non-existence of a cause or an effect consisting of the chain of the Dependent Arising. Our attachment to the existence or non-existence of a thing is so strong that even in the doctrine of Dependent Arising we don’t stop determining the existence or non-existence of each of the factors of the chain of the Dependent Arising, which is originally given to clarify the process of the arising and cessation of suffering. Such being the case, Nāgārjuna rejects the existence of cause and effect arguing the emptiness of their existence which is neither existence nor non-existence. Therefore, his rejection of the cause and effect is a rejection against the intrinsic nature of cause and effect, far from being a rejection of their function which results in the arising and cessation of suffering. Accordingly, it can be said that his rejection of cause and effect is actually a pursuit to draw attention to the real meaning of Dependent Arising, which demands penetration into the arising and cessation of suffering. His theory of emptiness, beyond existence and non-existence, is formulated in accordance with the Dependent Arising preached by the Buddha in its strong rejection of both the eternalist and the annihilationist theory, laying the pivotal foundation of Mahājāna Buddhism as an authentic successor of the original Buddha’s teaching.