Site mapAbout usConsultative CommitteeAsk LibrarianContributionCopyrightCitation GuidelineDonationHome        

CatalogAuthor AuthorityGoogle
Search engineFulltextScripturesLanguage LessonsLinks
 


Extra service
Tools
Export
지각 논의에 내포된 인식론적 토대 : 쿠마릴라와 다르마키르티의 지각론 비교=Epistemological Foundation within Debates on Perception: The Comparison between Dharmakīrti and Kumārila
Author 성청환 (著)=Sung, Chung-whan (au.)
Source 인도철학=印度哲學=Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy
Volumen.34
Date2012
Pages43 - 70
Publisher印度哲學會
Publisher Url http://krindology.com/
LocationKorea [韓國]
Content type期刊論文=Journal Article
Language韓文=Korean
Note저자정보: 동국대학교 BK21 세계화시대 불교학 교육연구단 박사후 연구원
Keyword쿠마릴라; 다르마키르티; 인식; 지각; 비분별적 지각; 분별적 지각; 개별상; 보편상; dharmakIrti; kumArila; Knowledge; Non‐conceptualized Perception; Conceptualized Perception; Yogic perception; Epistemological Foundation
Abstract미망사학파의 쿠마릴라와 불교논사 다르마키르티는 비록 생존 연대의 선후 관계에 대해서는 논란이 있지만 동시대의 인물이다. 각각 미망사와 불교의 철학적 논의의 정점을 이끌었다는 평가를 받고 있는 이들의 사상은 지각의 논의에서도 서로 상반된다. 두 사상가 모두 인식을 무모순성이라고 정의하여 유사성을 보이는 듯하나, 쿠마릴라는 무모순성이 내재적 정당성으로 보증된다고 주장하고, 이는 결국 베다의 영원성을 논증할 수 있게 되는 근거가 된다. 반면 다르마키르티는 인식의 무모순성을 인간의 목적 성취로 규정하여 그 지향점이 다르다. 이를 바탕으로 지각에 대한 정의와 논증에서도 이들은 첨예하게 대립한다. 쿠마릴라는 지각은 다르마를 알 수 없는 것이라고 하고 비분별 지각과 분별적 지각으로 구분한다. 초세간적 능력을 가진 요가행자나 일체지자의 존재를 부정하게 되며, 이는 결국 세간의 경험적 상식적인 수준의 지각을 논의한다. 반면 다르마키르티는 지각의 비분별임을 강조하며 언어와 결합가능성이 배제된 것이라고 정의하며, 개별상만이 지각의 인식대상이라고 한정한다. 그리고 지각을 네 가지로 구분하여, 요가행자의 지각을 인정하며, 일체지자의 존재를 긍정할 수 있는 논리적 근거를 제공한다. 쿠마릴라와 다르마키르티의 지각의 논의는 서로 다른 인식론적 토대 위에서 서로 다른 지향점을 내포하고 있음을 알 수 있다.

Dharmakīrti (ca. 600-660) and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (fl. 7C) were contemporaries, even though there is no agreement about the exact time that both thinkers lived. Kumārila as a Mīmāṃsāka criticizes the doctrine of Dignāga, who is the founder of Buddhist logico-epistemology while Dharmakīrti is the successor of Dignāga and the defender of Buddhist doctrine. The purpose of this article is to compare and contrast the doctrine of perception between Dharmakīrti and Kumārila and examine the foundational meaning behind the discussion of perception. Kumārila and Dharmakīrti both define knowledge as non‐contradictory but the implicated meaning is different. According to Kumārila, knowledge must not be contradictory with other knowledge which is justified with the doctrine of intrinsic validity. Eventually it is to protect the doctrine of eternality on the Veda. In the case of Dharmakīrti, non‐contradictory indicates the satisfaction of human expectations. Given the different meaning on knowledge, Kumārila states that perception is the method of knowing dharma because perception can only be perceived in the present objects appropriately connected with sense‐organs. In contrast to Kumārila, Dharmakīrti advocates that perception is the only reality in the perspective of the ultimate truth, even though he accepts that perception and inference are the method of knowledge. Due to the dichotomy of the objects particularity of the objects is the object of perception and universality is the object of inference. Particularity is the momentary existence and the only reality in terms of ontology. Kumārila categorizes perception as non‐conceptualized perception and a conceptualized one. The latter is followed by the former immediately and perception has both characteristics between particularity and universality on objects. In the case of non‐conceptualized perception there is only the individual without distinction of particularity or universality, which is merely lack of capacity of the perceiver. Thus, perception in Kumārila theory is nothing but common sense in empirical realms. For Kumārila, the Veda is eternal and faultless, which is the only method of knowing dharma. Through the injunction of the Veda, human beings can achieve happiness. Dharmakīrti defines perception as excluding the possibility of conception and classifies perception into four different categorizes. Among four kinds of perceptions, Dharmakīrti’s perception is eventually inclined to yogic perception which can be known beyond sense perception. Yogic perception has double meanings; on one hand it indicates that the Buddha as the omniscience is the foundation of truth, the other is for Buddhists who can be a Buddha with awakening through meditational practice. Therefore, Kumārila and Dharmakīrti have different the epistemological foundations in the discussion of perception.
Table of contentsI 서론. 44
II인식에 대한 규범. 45
III지각의 정의와 특징. 51
IV지각 대상과 단계. 55
V 전제된 믿음. 62
VI 결론. 64
ISSN12263230 (P)
Hits65
Created date2023.10.15
Modified date2023.10.15



Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE

Notice

You are leaving our website for The full text resources provided by the above database or electronic journals may not be displayed due to the domain restrictions or fee-charging download problems.

Record correction

Please delete and correct directly in the form below, and click "Apply" at the bottom.
(When receiving your information, we will check and correct the mistake as soon as possible.)

Serial No.
683996

Search History (Only show 10 bibliography limited)
Search Criteria Field Codes
Search CriteriaBrowse