『해심밀경』에 나타난 3성설의 해석과 후대 인도-티벳 전통에 끼친 영향
Three Nature Theory in Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and its Influence on Indian and Tibetan Traditions
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
유식파의 3성설에서는 언어적-개념적 파악과 언설을 떠난 궁극적 실재성의 관계가 핵심 주제로 다루어지는데, 이를 최초로 체계화시킨 것이 『해심밀경』이다. 본고에서는 『해심밀경』에서 다루어진 두 개의 비유를 중심으로 3상의 설명이 ‘중추적 모델’나 ‘발전적 모델’의 어디에 속하는 것인지 아니면 다른 측면을 가졌는지를 살펴보았다. 그리고 『해심밀경』의 3상설이 가진 의미를 다양한 형태의 3성설 내에서 정확히 이해하기 위해서 MAVT에서 상세히 설명한 네 가지 종류의 3성 해석을 파악하기 위해 먼저 번역을 제시하고 상세히 그 의미를 논의함으로써 이 경의 3상설이 가진 특색을 보여주고자 했다. 또한 『해심밀경』의 3상설이 티벳불교에 준 영향을 선언적으로 보여주는 쫑카파의 『선설의 핵심』에서 다루어지는 해석을 통해 티벳불교에서의 『해심밀경』의 영향을 보고자 했다. 쫑카파의 해석의 특징은 ‘중추적 해석’을 정통설로 간주하는 위에서, 『해심밀경』을 해석하는 점이다. 쫑카파의 해석이 가진 체계성과는 별도로, 그의 해석을 따른다면 특히 ‘의타기상의 소멸’이라는 경전 자체의 설명이 이해되기 힘들다고 보인다. 이 문제는 궁극적인 것에 대한 조낭파(Jo nang pa)의 ‘他空’ 해석과도 관련되는데, 3성설의 관점에서 유식문헌과의 상관성을 함축적으로 제시했다.
Abstract
Three Nature Theory in Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and its Influence on Indian and Tibetan Traditions Ahn, Sungdoo Seoul National University The aim of the present paper is to investigate the Trisvabhāva theory in Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra(=SNS). Scholars in the field can now agree that SNS is the first text which gives the systematic explanation about the Trisvabhāva theory among the Buddhist texts. But its way of explaining this theory is somewhat different from the explanation in other texts, for example, MSg or MSA, which can be described accordingly as belonging to the so called “pivotal model” and “progressive model” to use the terminology of Sponberg [1993]. Sponberg’s division of the various theories found in Yogācāra texts into two models is based on the role of the dependent nature(paratantra-svabhāva). If the dependent nature has the existence of its own, then it must be existent in its own right from the ultimate viewpoint(paramārthataḥ). This theory is thus regarded as the pivotal model, The progressive model shows the tendency that the first two natures are given up because, in the former, its existence is wholly negated, and in the latter its existence is only permitted as it appears to be, but not as it really is. In this model, only the perfected nature(pariniṣpanna-svabhāva) exists paramārthataḥ. It seems that these two models can’t go parallel with each other. In my previous studies on the Trisvabhāva theory of Paramārtha(499-569), I tried to show that his theory can be reduced to Indian origins, that there were various types of theory which tried to systematize the relation between words, referent objects and phenomenal existents in order to find out the reality itself free from mental construction(vikalpa). Confronted with such various formulations, I cannot but think that though Sponberg’s suggestion of two models is an useful one, in the sense that these two models represent accordingly logical system(rigs lugs) and practical system(sgom lugs) to adopt the terminology from the Tibetan Buddhism, it does not reflect the variety of Trisvabhāva theories found in texts. As far as I can judge, the Trisvabhāva theory in SNS has another characteristics which resists on attributing its peculiarities to the one of two models. For this purpose, I choose the long passages in Sthiramati’s MAVT which gives four alternative interpretations on Trisvabhāva theory, and examine their meaning in Ch. 4 after translating them into Korean. Lastly, I focuss on Tsong kha pa’s Legs bshad snying po to examine the case influence of SNS on Tibetan Buddhism. Apart from his intention to synthesize various interpretation of the Trisvabhāva theories in Yogācāra texts, my examination in this paper focuses on two points: firstly, on Tsong kha pa’s standpoint that the dependent nature has to be existent in its own right(svabhāvataḥ). I point out that his reference can be reduced to Sthiramati’s first interpretation dealt in Ch. 3 of the present paper, and that this does not have the final orthodoxy in the interpretations of the Trisvabhāva theory. Secondly, on his critics that to regard all the dharmas as saṃvṛtisat is not correct. His critics is directed toward the Jo nang pa, who insist on the emptiness of other facts only, in contrast to the emptiness of its own nature represented by the Mādhyamikas. It is interesting to note that some Yogācāra texts speak in favour of Jo nang pas.
참고문헌 (75)
- P. Pradhan, "AS Abhidharmasamccaya", ~
- Nalinaksha Dutt, "BoBh Bodhisattvabhūmi", Patna, ~ (1978)
- K-D Mathes, "DhDhV Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti", ~ (1996)
- J. Hopkins, "LSNP Drang ba dang Nges pa’i don rnam par shes phye ba’i bstan bcos Legs bshad snying po (= 선설의 핵심)" (1999)
- G. Nagao, "MAVBh Madhyānta-vibhāga-Bhāṣya", ~ (1964)
- S. Yamaguchi, "MAVT Madhyāntavibhāga-Ṭīkā", ~ (1934)
- "MMK Mūlamadhyamakakārika", ~
- S. Lévi, "MSA Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra", ~ (1907)
- (1982)
- "MSgBh Theg pa chen po bsdus pa'i 'grel pa (Mahāyāna-Saṃgraha-Bhāṣya)", 서장대장경, 東北目錄No. 4050, ~
- "서장대장경, 東北目錄No. 4051"
- "gNod ’joms ’Phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tuphyin pa ’bum pa dang nyi khri lnga stong pa dang khri brgyad stong pa’i rgya cher bsdad pa (P 5206; D 3808). (=Bṛhaṭ-ṭīkā)", ~
- E. H. Johnston, "RGV Ratnagotravibhāga", ~ (1950)
- E. Lamotte, "SNS Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra", ~
- "T 大正新修大藏經", ~
- Hartmut Buescher, "TrBh Triṃśikā-bhāșya" (2007)
- S. Levi, "Vś Viṃśatikā Vijñaptimatratāsiddhi =Viṃśikāvṛtti (Vasubandhu)" (1925)
- Bhattacharya, "YBh Yogācārabhūmi of Ācārya Asaṅga" (1957)
- 眞諦, "三無性論T31, No.1617", ~
- 眞諦, "攝大乘論T31, No.1593", ~
- 玄奘, "攝大乘論T31, No.1594", ~
- 世親, "攝大乘論釋T31, No.1595", ~
- 世親, "攝大乘論釋T31, No.1597", ~
- 世親, "辯中邊論T31, No.1600", ~
- 世親, "轉識論T31, No.1587", ~
- "解深密經T15, No.676", ~
- "韓國佛敎全書I"
- 김재권, "『중변분별론』에 있어서 삼성설의 구조적 특징", 인도철학, (25), pp.101~119 (2008), 인도철학회
- 다카하시 고이치, "초기 유가행파 사상-유가사지론을중심으로 , 유식과 유가행" (2015), 씨아이알
- 안성두, "티베트 불교에서의 여래장 해석__ 自空說과 他空說의 차이를 중심으로", 인도철학, (18), pp.103~129 (2005), 인도철학회
- 안성두, "유식문헌에서의 三性說의 유형과 그 해석", 인도철학, (19), pp.61~90 (2005), 인도철학회
- 안성두, "眞諦의『三無性論』에 나타난 삼성설 해석의 특색 _인도유식문헌과 관련하여 (I)_", 인도철학, (41), pp.327~364 (2014), 인도철학회
- 안성두, "<삼무성론>에 나타난 진제의 삼성설 해석의 특징 (II) ＿유식문헌의 인용과 그 해석상의 차이를 중심으로＿", 인도철학, (42), pp.261~299 (2014), 인도철학회
- 안성두, "眞諦의 삼성설 해석과 阿摩羅識", 불교연구, (42), pp.101~150 (2015), 한국불교연구원
- 안성두, "인도불교사상" (2011), 씨아이알
- 정호영, "초기유식 삼성설의 두 형태와 불가분리성", 불교연구, (34), pp.9~49 (2011), 한국불교연구원
- 袴谷憲昭, "唯識の解釋學" (1994)
- 高橋晃一, "から生じるvastu の解釈の展開について" (2001)
- 高橋晃一, "攝決擇分中菩薩地への思想展開" (2005)
- 高崎直道, "講座大乘佛敎 8 唯識思想" (1982)
- 大竹晋, "唯識説を中心とした初期華厳敎学の硏究: 智儼ㆍ義湘から法藏へ" (2007)
- 大竹晋, "眞諦三藏硏究論集" (2012)
- 望月海慧, "Dol po paの 二諦說理解について", 佛敎學, 48 (2006)
- 北野新太郞, "安慧の三性説理解について", 印度學佛敎學硏究, 48(1) (2000)
- 北野新太郞, "三性説の変遷における世親の位置: 上田ㆍ長尾論爭をめぐって", 国際仏敎学大学院大学硏究纪要, 2 (2000)
- 宇井伯壽, "瑜伽論研究" (1958)
- 宇井伯壽, "印度哲學研究第六" (1965)
- 長尾雅人, "中觀と唯識" (1978)
- Nagao, Gajin, "Mahāyāna Buddhist Meditation" (1878)
- 長尾雅人, "攝大乘論和譯と註釋 上" (1982)
- 眞諦三藏硏究論集, "船山徹編", 京都大學人文科學硏究所, ~ (2012)
- 竹村牧男, "唯識三性說の硏究" (1995)
- "駒澤大學大學院 佛敎硏究會年報", 1996, ~
- 池田道浩, "依他起性は實在するか", 駒澤大學佛敎學部論集, 27 (1996)
- 荒井裕明, "ツォンカパの他空說批判", 佛敎學, 33 (1992)
- D'Amato, M., "Three Natures, Three Stages: An Interpretation of the Yogācāra Trisvabhāva-Theory", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 33 (2005)
- Aramaki, Noritoshi, "Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: the Buddhist studies legacy" (2000)
- Brunnhölzl, Karl, "Indian "gZhan stong pas", And the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong" (2011)
- Conze, Edward, "Melanges d’Indienisme a la memoire de Louis Renou" (1968)
- Frauwallner, Erich, "Beiträge zur indischen Philologie und Altertumskunde", pp.637~648 (1982), 637-648)
- Hookham, S. K., "The Buddha within" (1991), SUNY
- J. Hopkins, "Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism" (1999)
- J. Hopkins, "Reflections on Reality" (2002)
- Kapstein, Matthew T., "We are all Gzhan stong pas", Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 7, pp.105~125 (2000)
- Keenan, John, "The Scripture on the Explication of underlying Meaning" (2000)
- Kramer, Jowita, "Kategorien der Wirklichkeit im frühen Yogācāra" (2005)
- Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, "Unterscheidung der Gegebenheiten von ihrem wahren Wesen" (1996)
- Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, "Tāranātha‘s Presentation of trisvabhāva in the gŹan stoṅ sñiṅ po", Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 23(2) (2000)
- Radich, Michael, "The Doctrine of *Amalavijñāna in Paramārtha(499-569) and Later Authors to Approximately 800 C.E.", Zinbun, 41 (2008)
- Sakuma, S. Hidenori, "Die Āśrayaparivṛtti-Theorie in der Yogācārabhūmi" (1990)
- Schmithausen, Lambert, "Ālayavijñāna: On the Origin and Early Development of a Central Concept of a Yogācāra Philosophy, Part I+II" (1987), The International Institute for Buddhist Studies
- Schmithausen, Lambert, "Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: the Buddhist studies legacy of Gadjin" (2000), University of Hawaii’ Press
- Sponberg, Alan, "The Trisvabhāva Doctrine in India & China", 龍谷大學佛敎文化硏究所紀要, 22 (1983)
- Stearns, C., "The Buddha from Dolpo" (2002)
- Waldron, Williams S., "The Buddhist Unconscious: The Ālaya-vijñāna in the Context of Indian Buddhist Thought" (2003)