|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
붓다고사의 색법 분류=Buddhaghosa's classification of matters(rūpa) |
|
|
|
| Author |
이영진 (著)=Lee, Young-jin (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
보조사상=普照思想=Journal of Bojo Jinul's Thought
|
|---|
| Volume | v.20 n.0 |
|---|
| Date | 2003.08 |
|---|
| Pages | 169 - 209 |
|---|
| Publisher | 普照思想研究院 |
|---|
| Location | Korea [韓國] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 韓文=Korean |
|---|
| Note | 저자정보: 동국대 인도철학과 |
|---|
| Keyword | 붓다고사; 색법; 경량부; 법처; 인도불교 |
|---|
| Abstract | The topic of this article is Buddhaghosa's classification of matters(rūpa). According to Buddhaghosa, there is 18 kinds of perfect(nipphana) matters and 10 kinds of imperfect matters. And this classification which was not found in the Dhammasangani and Vibhanga(previous abhidhamma-śastra) is similliar with that of Sautrāntika school. In this point, we could think that Buddhaghosa is affected by Sautrāntika in the classification of matters. Actually it is a famous opinion of Kalupahana, even though he did not mention the matters. (he concentrated his attention to doctinre of momenrariness) Definitely, the kalāpa of Theravādin is very much simmiliar to samghatā paramānu of Sautrāntika. And the Buddhist's notion of atoms(paramānu) is not inherent in Theravādins. It borrowsd into Sarvāstivādin(the opponent of Sautrāntika) from Vaiśesika school etc. So we colud imagine that the kalāpa was affectd from Sautrāntika by Buddhagosha. But I think that it is too simple conclusion. Because in Theravāda, the āhāra of kālapa does not appear in the samghatā paramānu and the apodhātu(water element) belongs to dhammāyatana which is not seen and obstructed. In regarding to the other matters, I disagreed with Kalupahana from 5 points. First, the motivation of denying forms(santhānas) is not apprear by Buddhagosha, even though the manner of excluding forms from the rūpāyatana is same to Sautrāntika. Second, Sautrāntikas, including the ākaśa and nirvāna, regard all asamskrtas as prajñapti which is just nominal. But Buddhagosha regards only ākāsa as paññati(=prajñapti) and not nibbāna. Third, differing from Sautrāntikas, Buddhagosha follows the traditional Theravādin thought which devided life faculty(jīvitindriya) into non-material and material. Fourth, Buddhaghosa follows peculiar Theravādin thought which is hadayavatthu. Fifth, Buddhagosha classifies the 5 kinds of matter(faculty of woman and man and life, hadaya-vatthu, āhāro) into dhammāyatana. But Sautrāntikas does not allow dhammāyatana. From these points I concluded that Kalupahana has too simple and hasty opinion. But we should not neglect that Theravādin had interchange with Indian Buddhist's thought. |
|---|
| Table of contents | I. 서론 3
II. 남‧북전 아비달마의 색법분류 4
III. 경량부와의 유사상 10
IV. 남전 전통의 계승 21
V. 결론 25
|
|---|
| ISSN | 12297968 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 80 |
|---|
| Created date | 2023.02.28 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2023.02.28 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
