|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
眞諦의『三無性論』에 나타난 삼성설 해석의 특색 - 인도유식문헌과 관련하여 (I)=Characteristics of Paramārtha's Trisvabhāva Theory: in San wu hsing lun |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
안성두 (著)=Ahn, Sung-doo (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
인도철학=印度哲學=Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.41 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2014 |
|---|
| ページ | 327 - 364 |
|---|
| 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: 서울대학교 철학과 교수. |
|---|
| キーワード | 진제; 삼무성론; 삼성설; 분별성; 의타성; 진실성; 난(미란); Paramārtha; naturelessness(niḥsvabhāva); Paramārtha; naturelessness(niḥsvabhāva); three Natures(trisvabhāva); parikalpita-svabhāva; paratantra; pariniṣpanna; pivotal and progressive model; representation-only |
|---|
| 抄録 | 진제 번역은 고래 사상사적으로 많은 논란을 야기했다. 특히 그의 창안으로 평가되는 아말라식 개념 외에 그의 독특한 삼성설 해석이 과연 진제의 해설인지 아니면 제자들의 재구성인지, 아니면 인도 찬술문헌에서 유래한 것인지의 여부였다. 이를 위해 그의 역서 중에서 『삼무성론』 및 이와 관련된 『전식론』 등 소위 그의 해설문헌을 주로 다루었다. 본고에서는 그의 삼성설 해석에서 가장 중요한 역할을 하는 분별성과 의타성의 정의를 중점적으로 논의하면서, 양자의 非一非異의 문제를 중심으로 그의 삼성 해석이 어떤 점에서 인도의 유식문헌의 해독으로 환원될 수 있으며 또 해석상의 차이는 어디에 있는가를 논의했다.
Paramārtha(眞諦, CE. 499～569), one of the great Indian Translator in the 6th Century China, has played a significant role in establishing the Early Yogācāra philosophy in China. Through his translation of various Indian Yogācāra works into Chinese the so-called Mahāyānasaṃgraha School(攝論宗) was founded based on his translation on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and its commentaries. But, as to his translation on Indian Yogācāra works, it has been raised the questions whether it represents his own ideas or his pupils. And, in former case, it has been criticized that his unique concept like *Amalavijñāna(阿摩羅識), which is found in some of his translations only, can not be regarded as representing real Indian ideas. In this regard, it was also mentioned that his theory of "Three-Natures"(trisvabhāva) is very different from that of the Dharmalakṣaṇa school, traditionally taken to be the orthodox interpretation. This paper deals with some aspects of his Three-Natures-theory particularly found üin the works like San wu hsing lun(三無性論, T 1617), Chuan shih lun(轉識論, T 1587) and Shih-pa k’ung lun(十八空論, T 1616) etc. These works were, as Hakuju Ui showed. another translation of, or commentary on the Indian originals: San wu hsing lun is a parallel version of Hsüan-tsang's Translation of *Niḥsvabhāvasiddhi-Chapter(成無性品) of Hsien-yang(顯揚聖敎論), Shih-pa k’ung lun is a parallel translation of some parts of Madhyāntavibhāga, and Chuan shih lun a commentary on Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā. Because of their parallels with the extant versions on the one hand and abundant explanation of Paramārtha himself on the other hand, we can understand Paramārtha's own view on the Three-Nature more concretely than other texts, which have more "translative" character of Indian Originals. The present paper focuses particularly on the first part of San wu hsig lun, namely on the definition(立名) of the "Three-Natures", which shows Paramārtha's viewpoint very clearly. His interpretation of the "Three-Natures" in this part can be summarized like follows:(i) Paramārtha's Theory of Three-Naures is well attested in the additional sentences, which was added to by Paramārtha himself or his Indian precursors. There, the parikalpita-svabhāva is explained as "the part of the vijñāna, which appears as an object(似塵識分", and the paratantra-svabhāva as "the part of the vijñāna which [appears] as bhrānti(亂識分).” The pariniṣpanna-svabhāva is explained to be "Thusness(tathatā) which is free from two former svabhāvas." In this paper an attempts is made to show the meaning of these concepts. (ii) In Paramārtha's interpretation, it is to be noted that the parikalpita-svabhāva refers to the cognized object, the paratantra-svabhāva to the cognizing aspect, and the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva to the non-existence of two former svabhāvas. These two svabhāvas, namely the cognized and cognizing aspects are so closely related that one can only describe their relation as "neither-same-nor-different", through which the theory of “Representation Only(vijñaptimātra)” can be verified. I suggest in this regard some further points why the changeability of these two Natures constitutes the characteristics of Paramārtha's trisvabhāva theory. The pariniṣpanna-svabhāva is characterized by the absence of these two Natures, but its existence is not to be negated on the ground that though two Natures do not exist, the non-existence of two Natures must be accepted to be exist. (iii) In these explanations, the distinction between the former two Natures and the last one is contrasted sharply, what is difficult to regard it as stating the similar meaning in the famous definition in Triṃśikā 21cd(nișpann |
|---|
| 目次 | I 들어가는 말. 327
II 삼성설 연구와 관련해 『三無性論』 연구의 필요성. 329
III 『三無性論』에 나타난 진제의 삼성설의 전체적 특색. 336
IV 끝맺는 말. 355 |
|---|
| ISSN | 12263230 (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 41 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2023.10.21 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2023.10.21 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
