남북조 시기 이하논쟁의 쟁점 고찰 -장생불사에 대한 비판을 중심으로

Abstract

In his work Yixialun (夷夏論 About the Barbarian and the Chinese [Religions]), Daoist scholar Gu Huan (顧歡, fl. 420-479) of the Southern Qi Dynasty (南齊, 479-502) contends that Daoism and Buddhism share fundamental similarities, yet asserts the superiority of native Chinese Daoism over foreign Buddhism. Gu Huan's argument, while seeking to equate Buddhism with Daoism, ultimately adopts an exclusionary stance towards Buddhism, framing Chinese Daoism as capable of encompassing Buddhism within its framework. This perspective illustrates the escalating ideological rivalry between Buddhism and Daoism as distinct religious entities, marking their doctrinal confrontation from the Eastern Jin (東晉, 317-420) to the Liu Song (劉宋) dynasty. Gu Huan's critique of Buddhism sparked significant controversy and was vigorously debated by prominent Buddhist commentators, including Ming Sengshao (明僧紹), Xie Zhenzhi (謝鎭之), Zhu Zhaozhi (朱昭之), as well as monastics Huitong (惠通) and Sengmin (僧敏). In Yixialun, Gu Huan aligns Buddhism and Daoism under the concepts of "no birth (無生) and no death (無死)", advocating for their doctrinal equivalence with nihuan (泥洹, nirvana) and xianhua (仙化, transformation into an immortal). This juxtaposition serves as a direct comparison of their respective doctrines, reflecting prevalent theological interpretations of Buddhism and Daoism during his era. The rebuttals from Buddhist polemicists concerning no birth and no death primarily aim to elucidate doctrinal discrepancies between Buddhism and Daoism and distinguish between the two traditions. This scholarly pursuit towards doctrinal precision fosters debates centered on philosophical dichotomies acknowledged by both schools at the time, such as the contrast between "Dependent Origination (因緣)" and "Nature (自然)".