In this paper, I tried to prove that Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men (諸法無諍三昧法門) was written later than Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i (法 華經安樂行義) by comparing their contents. At first, I compared his interpretation of an-lo-hsing (安樂行) in Fahua- ching an-lo-hsing-i with that of ch’an-po-lo-mi (禪波羅密) in Chufa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. Nam-Yüeh Hui-Ssu (南岳慧思) presented san-jen (三忍) to explain the meaning of an-lo-hsing. San-jen are chungsheng- jen (衆生忍), fa-hsing-jen (法性忍) and fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ungjen (法界海神通忍). He interpreted chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsingjen among them as having three meanings. Those three meanings of chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsing-jen correspond to san-chih (三智) of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. San-chih are tao-chih (道智), taochung- chih (道種智) and i-ch’ieh-chung-chih (一切種智). But fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ung-jen was not interpreted in terms of the three meanings. This is an example that he had not yet establish his viewpoint in Fahua- ching an-lo-hsing-i. Secondly, I compared his interpretations of ssu-nien-ch’u (四念處) in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i and in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. In Fahua- ching an-lo-hsing-i, Nam-Yüeh Hui-Ssu interpreted ssu-nien-ch’ u as ssu-mo (四魔). But in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men he presented more sophisticated interpretation of ssu-nien-ch’u as san-chih. Therefore I think that ssu-nien-ch’u of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men was more advanced than that in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i.
目次
I. 서론 225 II. 『법화경안락행의』안락행과 『제법무쟁삼매법문』의 선바라밀의 비교 229 1. 『법화경안락행의』의 안락행(安樂行) 231 2. 『제법무쟁삼매법문』의 선바라밀 239 III. 『법화경안락행의』와 『제법무쟁삼매법문』에 나타난 사념처 비교 242 1. 『법화경안락행의』에 나타난 사념처 243 2. 『제법무쟁삼매법문』에 나타난 사념처 247 IV. 결론 251
