『金剛三昧經』의 성립과 유통에 대한 재고

Abstract

This paper purports, examining critically the existing results of research on the composition of the Vajrasamadhi sutra, to propose the writer’s argument on it focusing upon problems having been overlooked there. Since Gogen Mizuno(弘元 水野) had proposed the apocryphalness of the work, most discussions on the composition of it had been progressed, in relationship with the history of early Ch’an(禪) in China, around the theory of er‐ru si‐xing(二入四行), with the accompanying result that even the possibility of its composition in Silla(新羅) had been discussed within that boundary. In 1992, Sanghyeon Kim questioned its composition in Silla. In 1995 and 1998, Dongshin Nam proposed to approach it rather from a new perspective of the conflicts between the New Translation[新譯] trend and the Old Translation[舊譯] trend or between the Sunyata[空] school and the Being[有] school. In 1998, Kosei Ishi(石井公成) argued that this apocryphon does not belong to the direct line of the Tung‐shan fa‐men(東山法門) since the source of its thought nearly provoking laymen not to respect ordained persons can be ascribed to Fu ta‐shih(傅大師). Gyutahk Shin proposed that it might be rather a manual of practice belonging to the Hua‐yen school. On the other hand, most of the other scholars have supported that it was composed in relationship with the Tung‐shan fa‐men by Someone around Wonhyo(元曉) in China or Silla, while there are some who do not yet have any clear view. According to the observation of the writer on the existing discussions, some questions might be raised about the credibility of the biography of Wonhyo within the Song Gao‐seng‐chuan(宋高僧傳) as the only extant recording about the composition of the Vajrasamadhi sutra, the lack of distinction between the thoughts of the Vajrasamadhi sutra and Wonhyo’s commentary on it as if they are one and the same, and whether the Vajarasamadhi sutra within the K’ai‐yuan shih‐chiao‐lu(開元釋敎錄) was transmitted from Silla to China after the composition of Wonhyo’s commentary on it, all of which have been overlooked until recently. This paper purports to raise the following propositions based upon the existing achievements and the above observation. Firstly, the Vajrasamadhi sutra does not belong to the direct line of the Tung‐shan fa‐men(東山法門) since it does not propose the theory of er‐ru si‐xing(二入四行), which is related to the Tung‐shan fa‐men, as the ultimate. Secondly, in this work, we can look up most of the thoughts having been circulated in China, especially in Chang’an, during the middle period of the 7th century. Thirdly, while Wonyo’s commentary interprets its teaching as belonging to the Period of the Adopted Dharma, this work intends clearly to belong to the Period of the Last Dharma. Fourthly, the Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva, as the Bodhisattva with the teaching for the Period of the Last Dharma and the mission of maturing sentient beings in the evil world of five corruptions[五濁惡世], is set in this work as the questioner in its chapter on Dharani, as the possessor of the Dharani of it in the dimension of its textual significance, and as the protector of its practioners. Fifthly, in this work, we find some thoughts belonging to the Hua‐yen school that circulated at the Mt. Zhong nan(終南山) during the period from 650~670, in addition to some phrases that are very similar to the Five Skillful Means of Mahayana[大乘五方便] belonging to the Northern Ch’an school. Sixthly, as Kosei Ishi and Dongshin Nam point out, the ideal figure in this work is neither monk nor layman, respecting every existent being and receiving respect even from monks. Seventhly, in this work, we find some terms peculiar to the school of San‐chieh‐chiao[三階敎, the teaching of the third tier], such as rulaizangfu[如來藏佛] and xingxiangfu[形像佛], and the thought of pujing[普敬, general respect] that is also peculiar to the school. Based upon the above apprehension, the writer calls attention to the school of San‐chieh‐chiao as the editor group since their characteristics are found in their comprehensive appropriation of the existing diverse thoughts of Buddhism having been circulated in the later middle period of the 7th century, their emphasis on the ideal figure who is neither monk nor layman, respecting every existent being and receiving respect even from monks, and their focus on the faith in the Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva based upon strong consciousness on the Period of the Last Dharma. In the middle period of the 7th century, the school of San‐chieh‐chiao was expanding their influence around the Mt. Zhong nan and Chang’an. This school did not select any sutra as its single canon, even causing some critique from the Pure Land school. About Xinxing(信行 540~594), the founder of this school who “labored himself after abandoning his own monkship, held masses at the field of compassion and respect, and adored everybody without the distinction between monk and layman, there then arose a strong movement of faith in him as the Bodhisattva of Ekayana(一乘) who delivers the dharma instead of the Buddha in the Period of the Last Dharma. The early thoughts of Ch’an and Hua‐yen schools appropriated within the Vajrasamadhi sutra could be said to have been appropriated easily into the school of San‐chieh‐chiao since their activity areas were overlapping largely around the Mt. Zhong nan and Chang’an. Especially we can call attention to the fact that the Xugaosengzhuan(續高僧傳), which contains the first recording of the theory of of er‐ru si‐xing, was also composed at the Jingyesi temple(淨業寺) of Mt. Zhong nan, facilitating its appropriation by the editing group of the Vajrasamadhi sutra. The four time prohibition of the school of San‐chieh‐chiao in China in 695, 699, 721, 725 can explain the reason why the Vajrasamadhi sutra was circulated in Silla earlier than in China. Based upon the above points, the writer proposes that the Vajrasamadhi sutra might have been composed by the school of San‐chieh‐chiao around the Mt. Zhong nan and Chang’an by the later middle period of 7th century who wanted to establish the validity of its thought and faith and support its ideal figure since Xinxing, who is neither monk nor layman, respecting every existent being and receiving respect even from monks, based upon the authority of a scripture.