|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
『필삭기(筆削記)』와 이후 『기신론(起信論)』 주석서의 『종밀소(宗密疏)』 수용 - 『기신론(起信論)』「립의분(立義分)」에 대한 『필삭기(筆削記)』·『사기(私記)Ⅰ』·『사기(私記)Ⅱ』의 해석을 중심으로=The Embracement of 『宗密疏』 in 『筆削記』 and the Latter Annotation Book of 『起信論』 - Centered on the Interpretation of 『筆削記』·『私記I』·『私記II』 of 『起信論』「立義分」 |
|
|
|
| Author |
김혜원 (著)=Kim, Hae-won (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
불교철학=Journal for the Study Buddhist Philosophy=佛教哲學
|
|---|
| Volume | v.6 n.0 |
|---|
| Date | 2020.04 |
|---|
| Pages | 143 - 165 |
|---|
| Publisher | 동국대학교 세계불교학연구소=Institution for World Buddhist Studies |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.duwbsi.or.kr
|
|---|
| Location | Seoul, Korea [首爾, 韓國] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 韓文=Korean |
|---|
| Note | 저자정보: 동국대학교 불교학술원 일반연구원
|
|---|
| Keyword | Qixinlun-sijiⅡ=起信論私記Ⅱ=기신론사기ⅠⅠ; Qixinlun-sijiⅠ=기신론사기Ⅰ =起信論私記Ⅰ; Zongmishu=종밀소=宗密疏; Zhangshui-Zixuan=장수자선=長水子璿; Bixueji=필삭기=筆削記 |
|---|
| Abstract | 본 논문에서는 『宗密疏』이후의 『起信論』 주석서들인 長水子璿의 『筆削記』와 『起信論私記Ⅰ』(이하 『私記Ⅰ』)·『起信論私記Ⅱ』(이하 『私記Ⅱ』) 각각의 문헌에서 『宗密疏』를 수용한 부분을 『起信論』 「立義分」 해석을 중심으로 찾아보았다. 『筆削記』에서는 『宗密疏』가 세 측면에서 영향을 끼쳤다고 추정한다. 첫째, 『宗密疏』에서 『法藏疏』가 아닌 『元曉疏』의 부분을 의도적으로 차용한 것을 『筆削記』가 그대로 가져온 부분이 있다. 둘째, 『法藏疏』와 다른 『宗密疏』의 부분에 대해서 『筆削記』에서 보충설명을 한 부분이 있다. 셋째, 『法藏疏』의 단어를 『宗密疏』에서 생략한 것을 『筆削記』에서 다시 풀이한 부분이 있는데, 이후 德淸의 『疏略』에도 나온다. 『會編』을 중심으로 만든 주석서인 『私記Ⅰ』·『私記Ⅱ』에서 는 두 부분에서 『宗密疏』와 『筆削記』의 상관관계를 발견하였다. 첫째, 『私記Ⅰ』이 『宗密疏』를 『起信論』 구문과 연결시켜 이해하려했던 『筆削記』를 재분석한다는 측면에서, 『宗密疏』가 『私記Ⅰ』의 주요한 주석 텍스트 가운데 하나였음을 추정할 수 있다. 둘째, 『私記Ⅰ』·『私記Ⅱ』에서는 『筆削記』의 설명을 보완하거나 혹은 『筆削記』에서 누락된 해석을 보충해가는 방식으로 『宗密疏』를 분석하였음을 알 수 있다.
This paper will examine how each passage of 長水子璿’s 『筆削記』, 『起信論私記Ⅰ』(hereafter, 『私記Ⅰ』), and 『起信論私記Ⅱ』(hereafter 『私記Ⅱ』), which are the Annotation Books of 『起信論』, have embraced 宗密疏 in each passage based on the interpretation of 『起信論』「立義分」. First of all, in the 『宗密疏』, 『筆削記』 has exact parts that have intentionally quoted parts of 『元曉疏』 instead of 『法藏疏』. Second, regarding the parts of 『宗密疏』, which is different from 『法藏疏』, there are supplementary explanations in 『筆削記』. Third, there is a re-interpretation of 『法藏疏』’s lexicon in 『筆削記』 that have been previously omitted in 『宗密疏』, and later, it reappears in 德淸’s 『疏略』. The Annotation Books 『私記I』 and 『私記I』, which have been drafted centered on 『會編』, have discovered the relationship between 『宗密疏』 and 『筆削記』 in two parts. First, in the aspect of re-analyzing in order to understand 『筆削記』, 『私記』 has connected 『宗密疏』 with 『起信論』’s sentence structure. Through this, we can deduce that 『宗密疏』 was one of the major annotation text of 私記. Second, both the 『私記I』 and 『私記II』 have analyzed 『宗密疏』 by supplementing 『筆削記』’s explanation or complementing omitted interpretations in 『筆削記』. Third, there is a re-interpretation of 『法藏疏』’s lexicon in 『筆削記』 that have been previously omitted in 『宗密疏』, and later, it reappears in 德淸’s 『疏略』. The Annotation Books 『私記I』 and 『私記I』, which have been drafted centered on 『會編』, have discovered the relationship between 『宗密疏』 and 『筆削記』 in two parts. First, in the aspect of re-analyzing in order to understand 『筆削記』, 『私記』 has connected 『宗密疏』 with 『起信論』’s sentence structure. Through this, we can deduce that 『宗密疏』 was one of the major annotation text of 私記. Second, both the 『私記I』 and 『私記II』 have analyzed 『宗密疏』 by supplementing 『筆削記』’s explanation or complementing omitted interpretations in 『筆削記』. |
|---|
| Table of contents | Ⅰ. 서론 144
Ⅱ. 본론 146
Ⅲ. 결론 161 |
|---|
| ISSN | 25863843 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 31 |
|---|
| Created date | 2024.01.07 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2024.01.07 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
