바수반두=Vasubandhu=世親; Vādavidhāna; 논쟁=vāda; 쟁론=jalpa; 언쟁=vitaṇḍā; 바차야나=Vātsyāyana; 이야기함=kathā; 지는 대목=nigrahasthāna
摘要
In a fragment from Vādavidhāna we can find Vasubandhu's rejection of the three kinds of debate, i.e. vāda, jalpa and vitaṇḍā, which we can find in Nyāyasūtra 1.2.1-1.2.3 as a typical example or in Carakasaṃhitā Vi. 8.28. Although there were many different views over the debate (vāda) and related topics, such three-division of debate had been accepted in board circle of the early debate tradition in India. Through the analysis of further fragments I demonstrated that Vasubandhu used the term, vāda in such a neutral way that both positive and negative kinds of debate can be understood by it. On the basis of a thinking experiment one can see that an unintended occurrence of an argumentative failure does not make a large difference to an intended use of an incorrect argument in a real debate. This practical inapplicability of such a differentiation was, I believe, the reason for Vasubandhu's rejection of the three kinds of debate. In this way we can understand the view Vasubandhu's that there is only one way of the discourse(kathāmārga). Apparently this refusal of three kinds of debate came from the analysis of the actual debate process. These three kinds of debate were probably delivered from the ritualistic tradition and accepted as a practical guideline assistance for the debaters in the days of Vasubandhu in India.
目次
I. 들어가는 말 II. 논쟁을 세 가지로 나누어 보는 견해들 III. Vādavidhāna에 제시된 바수반두의 논쟁에 대한 설명 IV. 실제 논쟁 상황을 전제로 한 고려와 그 함축 V. 바수반두의 ‘논쟁(Vāda)’에 대한 태도 VI. 논쟁을 세 가지로 나누는 것의 어려움 VII. 논쟁을 세 가지로 나누는 것의 의미 약호
