초기유식 삼성설의 두 형태와 불가분리성

Abstract

The Trisvabhāva theory, which named as parikalpita -svabhāva, paratantra-svabhāva and pariniṣpanna-svabhāva, is a key point to understand the early Vijñaptimātra school in India. The fact that Madhyāntavibhāga calls the trisvabhāva theory as the basic truth and Mahāyānasaṃgraha regards it as the object of study reflects this situation. However, various recent studies regard as if the trisvabhāva theories in these two texts are in contradiction. The typological understanding such as pivotal vs. ontological model, ontological vs. soteriological model, realistic vs. mind-only trisvabhāva theory and so on are examples of such over-simplified differentiation. However, we can find that the two forms of trisvabhāva theory coexist in each of the two texts when we look into them cautiously. If their two forms are cposites and coexist in the same text, it should be logically self contradictory. This contradiction would be solved either by ad cting a special form from a text as the typologist did r by rejecting some parts of the text as some scholars have done. But this way of solving the problem cannot be proper. It can be easily found that the process of the arguments in Madhyāntavibhāga is in parallel with that of Mahāyāna saṃgraha, though there are differences especially in the amount of the words of explanation. And at the same time, each of them has the theoretical completion in the respect that they include all the fields such as ontological, epistemological and practical investigations. It is these different debate fields where the different forms of the trisvabhāva theory appear, when they coexist in the same text. Therefore, the coexistence of the two different forms is not a kind of contradiction to be abandoned, but a representation of the completeness or multiplicity of a thought to be complimented in a certain respect. In spite of the parallelism between the two texts, there are some significant differences. About the location of the grāhaka-grāhya or subject-object relation, Madhyāntavibhāga puts it in parikalpita-svabhāva, and Mahāyānasaṃgraha in paratantra-svabhāva. As a result, when abhūtaparikalpa is recognized as paratantra-svabhāva, though it is common in both texts, paratantra-svabhāva should be extinct in Madhyāntavibhāga, because abhūtaparikalpa works as a subject to the grāhaka-grāhya, and accordingly comes to extinction when grāhaka-grāhya turned out to be unreal. On the other hand, in Mahāyānasaṃgraha it is only in paratantra-svabhāva whether grāhaka-grāhya is unfolded or it is to be extinct. At this time, we must keep in mind that the trisvabhāva theory in Madhyāntavibhāga is not a gradualism aginst our generally accepted notion. On the contrary, it is Mahāyānasaṃgraha which establishes epistemological and as a result ontological stages in the field of practice. In Madhyāntavibhāga, pariniṣpanna-svabhāva is nothing but the extinction of paratantra-svabhāva, and in Mahāyānasaṃgraha the attainment of the pariniṣpanna- svabhāva is wholly other experience or the object of such experience.