|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
중기중관파 논쟁에 나타나는 sāvakāśa-vākya와 prasaṅga-vākya의 의미=On the Meaning of the Sāvakāśa-vākya and Prasaṅga-vākya appeared in the Controversy of Middle Mādhyamikas based on the First Chapter of Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā |
|
|
|
Author |
이태승 (著)=Lee, Tae-seung (au.)
|
Source |
인도철학=印度哲學=Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy
|
Volume | n.61 |
Date | 2021 |
Pages | 71 - 95 |
Publisher | 印度哲學會 |
Publisher Url |
http://krindology.com/
|
Location | Korea [韓國] |
Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
Language | 韓文=Korean |
Note | 저자정보: 위덕대학교 불교문화학과 교수 |
Keyword | 중기중관파=Middle Mādhyamika; 자립논증파; 귀류논증파; 여지를 갖는 문장; 쁘라상가=prasaṅga-vākya; 붓다빨리따= Buddhapālita; 바비베까= Bhāviveka; 짠드라끼르띠= Candrakīrti; sāvakāśa-vākya; Prāsaṅgika; Svātanrika |
Abstract | 인도불교사에서 보통 중기중관파 논사들은 자립논증파와 귀류논증파로 구분되며, 이 구분은 짠드라끼르띠가 바비베까를 비판하고 붓다빨리따를 옹호한 데 연유한다. 이 중기중관파의 논쟁관계는 『중송』 제1장 제1게송의 해석과 관련해 명확히 나타나며, 그곳에서 바비베까는 붓다빨리따의 해석을 sāvakāśa-vākya라고 주장하고, 이 sāvakāśa-vākya를 짠드라끼르티는 쁘라상가라고 말하고 있다. sāvakāśa- vākya는 ‘귀류의 여지를 가진 문장’ 또는 ‘비난의 여지를 가진 문장’ 등으로 번역되는 것으로, 제1장 제1게송과 관련해 살펴보면, “존재하는 것은 스스로로부터 생겨나지 않는다”고 하는 경우, 이것이 “다른 것으로부터 생겨난다.” 등의 여지를 갖는 것을 말한다. 이에 대해 짠드라끼르띠가 주장하는 쁘라상가는 “만약 스스로로부터 생겨난다면, 같은 것에서 같은 것이 생겨나고 무한히 같은 것이 생겨나는 오류에 빠진다”는 뜻으로 이해할 수 있다. 따라서 바비베까가 주장하는 sāvakāśa-vākya와 짠드라끼르띠가 말하는 쁘라상가와는 그 의미가 다르다고 생각된다. 티베트에서는 물론 오늘날에 이르기까지 이러한 sāvakāśa-vākya나 쁘라상가에 대한 이해는 한결같지 않고 경우에 따라서는 잘못 이해되기도 하였다고 생각된다. 귀류논증파와 자립논증파에 대한 정확한 이해가 여전히 필요하다고 생각된다.
In the history of Indian Buddhism, the middle Mādhyamikas are usually divided into Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika, and this distinction is attributed to Candrakīrti’s criticism of Bhāviveka and advocating for the Budddhapālita. The controversial relations of this middle Mādhyamikas are clearly shown in relation to the interpretation of the first kārikā of the first chapter of the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā[Mmk], where Bhāviveka insisted that the interpretation of the Buddhapālita was sāvakāśa-vākya and Candrakīrti said that this sāvakāśa-vākya was a same of prasaṅga-vākya. The sāvakāśa-vākya is translated as 'the sentence with room for absurd' or 'the sentence with room for censure'. Looking at this in relation to the first kārikā of the first chapter of Mmk, when it is said that the existences does not arise from itself, this means that the existence is born from another etc.. In this regard, the prasaṅga interpretation of Candrakīrti can be understood that if the existence arises from itself, it falls into the error that the same thing arises out of the same thing and the same thing arises infinitely. Therefore, I think that the meaning of the sāvakāśa-vākya of Bhāviveka is different from the prasaṅga-vākya of Candrakīrti. It is thought that the understanding of sāvakāśa-vākya and prasanga-vākya in Tibet as well as up to the present day is not consistent and has been misunderstood in some cases. It seems that there is still a need for an accurate understanding of the Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika. |
Table of contents | I 서론. 72 II 중기중관파 논쟁의 시말. 74 III sāvakāśa-vākya와 prasaṅga-vākya의 의미. 81 IV 결론.89 |
ISSN | 12263230 (P) |
Hits | 120 |
Created date | 2023.10.29 |
Modified date | 2023.10.29 |
|
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|