요가학파의 무명관 - 불교와 관련하여 -

Abstract

This thesis is a study on the ignorance of the Yoga Philosophy. The word ignorance (avidyā, avijjā) is derived from a root meaning “to know” and means ignorance. In Indian philosophy, ignorance does not simply mean intellectual absence, but is understood as the source of the phenomenal world and the cause of human reincarnation. In previous studies, the ignorance of the Yoga philosophy was defined as a really existing object(vastu-satattva). Through this, it could be confirmed that the ignorance of the Yoga philosophy took the mixed form of Vaibhāsika(說一切有部) and Sautrāntika(經量部). First, Sautrāntika viewed ignorance as an inverted (viparyaya), false perception (mithyā-jñāna), that is, an error [錯誤], which is consistent with the text of the HYogasūtraH. Also, in the relationship between ignorance and hindrances, since there is no such thing as hindrances beyond ignorance, which is a false perception, the Yoga philosophy called ignorance as the field (kṣetra) of all hindrances. Sautrāntika also grasps inverted cognition as the cause of the hindrances. However, √vid, the root of ignorance (avidyā), can be etymologically interpreted in two ways: ‘unknown’ and ‘non-existence’. Here, Sautrāntika understands ignorance as the ‘absence of right knowledge’ as non-existence. On the other hand, Vaibhāsika criticizes this view of them and regards ignorance as an ‘unknown thing’ as an individual entity[別體]. The Yoga philosophy also understands ignorance as a really existing object(vastu-satattva), and an important argument for this is the commentary on Vyāsa’s HYogasūtra-BhāṣyaH 2.5. He clarifies that the indefinite compound word ignorance (avidyā) is not a ‘right knowledge’ or ‘absence of right knowledge’, but a positive existent(實有) of a different kind, contrary to both of them. This is the same as the argumentation method in which the married couple criticizes the Sautrāntika. In the HYogasūtraH, Sautrāntika is dominantly revealed. Therefore, it can be said that there is a lot of room for interpretation of the essence of ignorance as non-existence. However, if ignorance, the source of world creation and reincarnation, is called illusion, it is fundamentally contrary to their metaphysical system. This is because the world is based on the real, not the unreal, due to the transformation of the fundamental substance(Prakṛti). Therefore, in order to achieve doctrinal coherence, I think that Vyāsa must have defined the essence of ignorance as a substance through a separate commentary. As for the method of argument to support his opinion, it would have been possible to more clearly deny the ignorance of unreality and establish reality by adopting the argument against the Sautrāntika by Vaibhāsika. Thereby, through his note, Ignorance was able to secure a coherence that was fully in line with their theoretical system.