중국 주석 전통 속에서 본 천태 오중현의(五重玄義)

Abstract

After Buddhism came to China for the first time and the Buddhist canon (Tripitaka, 三藏) was subsequently translated into Chinese, a tradition was soon established that one should begin any scripture with a simple bibliographical introduction 經題釋, followed by the exegetical commentary on the scripture itself 隨文釋. Such a style of analyzing Buddhist scriptures results from adapting Indian Buddhist scriptures to a Chinese audience during the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Despite the seemingly modest name of interpreting a scripture’s title 經題釋, this bibliographical introduction contains an in-depth analysis of how to interpret and understand the whole scripture, going beyond a simple bibliographical note. At the time of Tiantai 天台 Zhiyi (智顗, 538-597), there was a great transformation in commentaries on Chinese Buddhism scriptures. Following the traditional method, Zhiyi’s commentaries first contained a comprehensive analysis 玄義 of the scripture in question, followed by a line-by-line interpretation 文句. However Zhiyi separated these two components, so that they functioned in essence as an introductory overview of the exegete’s thesis, followed by the detailed exegesis itself. He also developed the five major categories that must be included in a comprehensive analysis 玄義, and so established the “five-sectioned interpretation” or “five chapters.” This “five-sectioned interpretation” consists of Shiming 釋名, Bianti 辨體, Mingzong 明宗, Lunyong 論用, and Panjiao 判敎. These are “differentiating substance”, “disclosing essence”, “discussing function,” and “classifying scriptures.”These five categories became an important methodological framework for analyzing Buddhist texts for numerous successive exegetes. This paper focuses on Zhiyi’s “five-sectioned interpretation” and the patterns found in common in the introductory bibliographical analyses 經題釋 of various Chinese commentaries in respect to the "five chapters."I examined commentaries in CBETA and analyzed their literary structure by studying the textual diagram and indexed analyses of Buddhist Textual Organization (科文, Gwamun). I was able to clearly observe that the principle of “five-sectioned interpretation” was widely adopted and used in commentaries in the following generations after Zhiyi. That the principle of “five-sectioned interpretation” is employed in every scripture, big or small, or even regardless of its scope attests to its important generality. This study therefore demonstrated the significant contributions made by Zhiyi in the Chinese Buddhist commentarial tradition and highlighted his scholarly brilliance as an exegete.