자심분별에 대한 원효의 입장‒ 『대승기신론소』⋅『별기』를 중심으로 ‒

Abstract

“When the mind is born, all kinds of dharma are created, and when the mind disappears, all kinds of dharma disappear.” In the Daeseunggisillon (大 乘起信論) and the commentaries of Wonhyo (元曉), the thought of mind only (唯心, cittamātra) is presented like this as the root of the Great Vehicle. In addition, all kinds of dharma are derived from the mind, and all kinds of discernments are said to discriminate the self-mind. This implicitly implies self-cognition (自證, svasaṃvedana), which is recognized by the Yogacāra. If so, can the mind see the mind itself? Wonhyo’s view on this issue would be considered as the viewpoint of Mādhyamaka, which took a critical position on self-awareness. Therefore, in the interpretation of Wonhyo who intends to reconcile both sides of the Yogacāra and the Mādhyamaka, we can find his logical position in the synthesis of both sides. Wonhyo explains the self-discernment through the dual structure of the unfolding of manas (意), namely the subtle consciousness and the rough discrimination. Manas is considered to include consciousness, and it is emphasized to grasp not only the appearance of the six dusts (六塵) but also the appearance of the subtle original consciousness (本識). This position is supported by his understanding that “The mental faculty of the Great Vehicle is the manas (末那).” Therefore, although he cites the proposition that “all mind and mental activities are self-awareness” in the Pramāṇasamuccaya of Dignāga, the problem of mind and mental activities is just one function among the transformations of manas. According to Wonhyo, the claim that all kinds of discernment are to discriminate the self-mind indicates that there is no seeing and there is nothing to be seen outside the mind, so that there is only the mind. The claim that the mind can not see the mind shows also that the two aspects of the mind are nothing to gain, so that there is only the mind. Such an explanation may represent the position of the Daeseunggisillon, but we can confirm the true nature of the Buddhist thought of Wonhyo in his reconciliation between the old position and the new position on this problem. He says that there is nothing unacceptable in the self awareness (自證分) as a metaphorical existence (假有) or a metaphorical non-existence (假無). Moreover, the logic of circulation is being developed from the level of secular to the level of ultimate, and from the level of ultimate to the level of secular. We can say that it is a representative case that shows his logical position by solving all the conflicting divisions, including existence and non-existence, and saying that the nature of the emptiness is also empty.