 |
|
| 구사론주(kośakāra) 세친(Vasubandhu)과 『능가경』(Laṅkāvatārasūtra)=Kośakāra Vasubandhu and the Laṅkāvatārasūtra | ||
| 作者 | 박창환 (著)=Park, Chang-hwan (au.) |
|---|---|
| 出處題名 | 인도철학=印度哲學=Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy |
| 卷期 | n.32 |
| 出版日期 | 2011 |
| 頁次 | 251 - 293 |
| 出版者 | 印度哲學會 |
| 出版者網址 | http://krindology.com/ |
| 出版地 | Korea [韓國] |
| 資料類型 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
| 使用語言 | 韓文=Korean |
| 附註項 | 저자정보: 금강대학교 불교/복지학부 교수 |
| 關鍵詞 | 세친= vasubandhu; 능가경; 석궤론; 유식삼십론= laGkAvatArasUtra; 슈미트하우젠= schmithausen; vyAkhyAyukti; triMzikA |
| 摘要 | 슈미트하우젠(Schmithausen 1992)은 『능가경』의 편찬자가 세친의 『유식삼십론』을 인용한다고 말함으로써 경과 논의 관계에 대한 기존의 통념을 뛰어넘는 획기적인 주장을 한다. 그런데 세친의 『석궤론』에는 『능가경』으로 추정되는 익명의 대승경이 인용되는데, 이것이 만일 『능가경』임이 판명된다면 슈미트하우젠이 주장하는 것과는 반대로 오히려 세친이 『능가경』을 학습하였으며 대승 전환 이후의 그의 유식사상의 전개 과정에 『능가경』의 영향력이 있었음을 추정할 수 있게 된다. 따라서 본고는 세친과 『능가경』의 연대적 선후문제를 확정할 수 있는 문헌적 전거로 세친 『석궤론』의 『능가경』 관련 구절을 지목하고 그 인용 원칙과 내용을 기존의 『능가경』판본들과 비교·분석한다. 그리고 세친이 「게송품」(Sagāthakam)을 포함한 위역(魏譯) 이래의 판본과 유사한 『능가경』을 활용했을 것이라는 결론에 도달한다. The relation of Vasubandhu and the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (LAS) has long been a controversial issue among scholars, which has resulted in nothing definite so far. It is well-known that the LAS contains two particularly close parallels to Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā (Tr). Based upon these parallels, Lambert Schmithausen claimed in his article entitled “A Note on Vasubandhu and the Laṅkāvatārasūtra(1992) that “LAS draws, after all, upon Tr, and merely pretends to quote from a Sūtra because as a Sūtra LAS cannot of course quote a Śāstra.” This entails that the LAS postdates Vasubandhu, which confirms the hypothesis of such Japanese scholars as Ui Hakuju. The present paper aims to provide counter-examples to this position, arguing that it is probably Vasubandhu who quotes from LAS and utilizes its cittamātra ideas in his post-Abhidharmakośa Yogācāra treatises. In order to prove this, what I do first is to critically examine Schmithausen’s arguments with reference to the two parallels between LAS and Tr, which leads to the conclusion that Schmitausen’s arguments are not definitive to prove the dependency of LAS upon Tr. Then I go on to examine a more substantial piece of evidence culled from the Vyākhyāyukti where Vasubandhu quotes two sets of verses (gāthā) from an anonymous Mahāyānasūtra as an explicit meaning (nītārtha) of Mahāyāna Buddhism, a sūtra which in fact has been identified as LAS by scholars such as Yamaguchi Susumu. Vasubandhu treats this anonymous sūtra as a sūtra of an explicit meaning (nītārthasūtra) in parallel to the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra. So this paper tries to substantiate whether this sūtra is really LAS by comparing it with currently available Chinese translations and Sanskrit recension. This analysis leads to the conclusion that in the Vyākhyāyukti Vasubandhu quotes from a Sanskrit version of LAS close to the currently available Wei-translation, which contains both the main body of the sūtra that consists of prose and verse parts and the verse portion (Sagāthakam) that solely consists of verses (gāthā). If this is the case, we have to examine all over again the doctrinal influence of LAS over Vasubandhu’s thoughts on Vijñaptimātra, which seems to have been inspired by the notion of cittamātra in LAS. |
| 目次 | I 들어가는 말 251 II 능가경과 유식삼십론의 유사구절 255 III 석궤론의 능가경 인용과 그 함의 269 IV 나가는 말 285 |
| ISSN | 12263230 (P) |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.32761/kjip.2011..32.009 |
| 點閱次數 | 153 |
| 建檔日期 | 2023.10.12 |
| 更新日期 | 2023.10.12 |
建議您使用 Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) 瀏覽器能獲得較好的檢索效果，IE不支援本檢索系統。
