|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
바비베까의 비-채식주의: 고기를 먹는 행위가 살생을 야기하는가, 고기 먹기를 원하는 행위가 살생을 야기하는가?=Bhāviveka’s Non-vegetarianism: Is Killing Caused by the Act of Meat-Eating or of Desiring to Eat Meat? |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
함형석 (著)=Ham, Hyoung-seok (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
인도철학=印度哲學=Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.61 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2021 |
|---|
| ページ | 97 - 120 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 印度哲學會 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://krindology.com/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | Korea [韓國] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 韓文=Korean |
|---|
| ノート | 저자정보: 전남대학교 철학과 조교수 |
|---|
| キーワード | 바비베까= Bhāviveka; 채식주의= vegetarianism; 고행; 중관심론= Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā; 따르까즈왈라= Tarkajvālā; asceticism |
|---|
| 抄録 | 본고는 바비베까(Bhāviveka, 500-570 CE)의 저작 『중관심론』(Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā)과 그에 대한 주석 『이성의 불꽃』(Tarkajvālā)의 아홉 번 째 챕터인 「미망사장」(Mīmāṃsātattvanirṇayāvatāra)에 등장하는 비-채식주의(non-vegetarianism) 논의를 분석한다. 이를 통해 6세기 중관논사인 바비베까가 기본적으로 “세 가지 측면에서 청정한”(trikoṭiśuddha) 고기에 대한 섭취를 허용하는 율장의 육식관련 규정을 전적으로 긍정하고 있음을 확인한다. 바비베까는 또한 육식은 필연적으로 살생을 야기하거나 조장한다는 반론자에 의견을 반박하기 위해 육식과 살생 간의 인과관계를 인정하였을 때 발생하게 되는 불합리한 결론(prasaṅga)들을 나열하여 육식이 아니라 육식을 하고자 하는 욕망이 살생과 연결된다는 점을 보여준다. 하지만 비록 바비베까가 그가 상대하였던 채식주의자들의 주장이 확정적이지 않음을 보여 채식주의를 불교도들의 식사규칙으로 삼을 것에 반대하고는 있지만, 그가 문제 삼지 않는 육식행위는 승려의 탁발행위에 제한되어 있다는 점을 고려할 때, 그의 논의를 육식을 옹호하는 보편적인 논리로 확대하는 것은 불가능한 것으로 보인다.
This paper analyzes Bhāviveka’s (500-570 CE) non-vegetarianism appearing in the ninth Mīmāṃsā chapter of the Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā and its commentary, the Tarkajvālā. Examining the Buddha’s (or rather Siddhārtha’s) thought that he had before deciding to partake a meal offered by Sujātā as contained in the works such as Aśvaghoṣa’s (80-150 CE) Buddhacarita and the Mahāsaccakasutta (the thirty sixth sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya), it first identifies the basic Buddhist attitude toward the act of eating. Against this background, it then introduces Bhāviveka’s counter-arguments toward the opponents, the adherents of the Mahābhārata (rgyas byed), who argue that meat-eating is tantamount to killing animals. By so doing, it confirms that Bhāviveka saw no moral problem in the Buddhist practice of eating meat that is “pure in three aspects” (trikoṭiśuddha) as prescribed in the Vinaya. From a different perspective, what Bhāviveka defended was not the Buddhists’ meat-eating per se, but the Buddhists’ mode of eating, that is, eating one’s alms (bhaikṣānna). In short, Bhāviveka defended the Buddhists’ practice of eating meat fallen onto one’s own begging bowl by chance (yadṛcchāgatabhakta). The paper also considers the so-called “extra Tibetan verses” (Kawasaki 1992b) contained in the Tarkajvālā on the Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā 9.136. Acknowledging the interpretive difficulties in reading those verses, it argues that what Bhāviveka aimed at is not showing the emptiness of karmic consequence (svabhāva) of meat-eating (māṃsabhakṣaṇa). Bhāviveka rather, it argues, attempted to establish the causal relationship between the desire to eat meat and animal slaughter and thereby to assert that the causal relationship between meat-eating and killing supposed by the opponents is wrong. It concludes that Bhāviveka emphasized that eating meat contained in begged food is an non-intentional act, and therefore, is not morally reproachable. Lastly, it is discussed whether Bhāviveka’s anti-vegetarian, or more precisely, non-vegetarian arguments can justify our meat containing meals given that his fault-free meat diet does not only consist of threefoldly pure meat but is also unmotivated by a crave for the flavor of meat. |
|---|
| 目次 | I 서론. 98
II 바비베까 ‘비-채식주의’ 논의의 콘텍스트와 그 내용. 101
III 육식은 살생을 조장하는가? 106
IV 결론. 113
|
|---|
| ISSN | 12263230 (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 78 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2023.10.29 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2023.10.29 |
|---|
 |
Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac)での検索をお勧めします。ＩＥではこの検索システムを表示できません。
|
|
|
