본 논문은 『현관장엄론』 서장에 대한 하리바드라의 주석들을 참조함으로써, 하리바드라의 눈을 통해본 『현관장엄론』과 『현관장엄론』 그 자체의 차이점을 지적하고자 하였다. 본격적인 논의에 앞서 ‘Ⅱ. 연구사’에서는 산스끄리뜨 사본으로부터 『현관장엄론』과 주석서들을 편집한 역사와 번역 그리고 중요한 논문들을 소개하여 연구사를 개괄하였다. ‘Ⅲ. 하리바드라의 도입게송을 통해본 AA의 저자 문제’에서는 하리바드라의 눈을 통해서 보면 『현관장엄론』은 미륵이 8,000송 반야경을 주석한 문헌이지만, 실제로는 25,000송을 주석한 작자미상의 문헌이라는 사실과, 이점은 하리바드라가 최초로 『현관장엄론』을 8,000송 반야경과 연결시키려는 시도에 권위를 부여하기 위한 과정에서 일어난 것임을 밝혔다.‘ Ⅳ. AA 1. 17과 관련한 하리바드라의 주석에서는 하리바드라가 법신을 자성신과 독립된 범주로 보아 4신론을 주장하지만, 『현관장엄론』은 이 둘을 동일한 용어로 보아 3신론을 주장한다는 점을 지적하였다. 그리고 이러한 하리바드라의 해석에는 중관학파 입장에 서서 유가행파의 3신론을 비판하고자 하는 의도가 있음을 언급하였다.
This paper has been written for two purposes.： To introduce Abhisamayālaṃkāra(AA)’s commentaries as well as AA itself to the korean scholars and readers who have few information about these texts, and to point out the differences between the contents of AA itself and those of AA through the Haribhadra’s glasses, namely, Āloka and Vivṛti(Sphuṭārtha). In chapter Ⅱ, I have dealt with the brief history of modern research on the AA and its commentaries, including the editions of sanskrit manuscript, their translations and important articles about these commentaries. In chapter Ⅲ, I have treated of the authorship of AA. According to Haribhadra’s verses of homage in Āloka and Vivṛti, AA is ascribed to Maitreyanātha, a mythological bodhisattva. But, considering that Maitreyanātha was never mentioned as the author of AA by his preceding commentators such as Ārya Vimuktisena and Bhadanta Vimuktisena, its ascription to Maitreyanātha could be made by Haribhadra himself. I’ve shown that Haribhadra wanted to give authority to his commentary Āloka, the first commentary which connects AA with 8,000 Prajñāpāramita, through the adoption of the traditionally transmitted(śrūyate) mythology about Maitreyanātha and Asaṅga‧Vasubandhu. In doing so, I suppose, anonymous text AA was ascribed to Maitreyanātha by Haribhadra himself. In chapter Ⅳ, I have checked Haribhadra’s interpretation of AA 1. 17 in Vivṛti. Separating dharmakāya from svābhāvika, he maintained that buddhakāya of AA 1. 17 is classified as fourfold. But based on the grammatical analysis, dharmakāya must be modified by svābhāvika. Therefore buddhakāya of AA 1. 17 needs to be interpreted as threefold. Haribhadra, classifying dharmakāya from svābhāvikakāya, he actually criticize buddhakāya-theory of Yogācāra tradition which asserts that svābhāvikakāya being a synonym of dharmakāya means the ‘non-arising’ essence(śūnyatā) of Buddha’s undefiled qualities. Accoding to Haribhadra, based on the Mādhyamika position, if dharmakāya were identified with svābhāvikakāya, Buddha’s activities for others would become quite impossible. Because in the state of emptiness(śūnyatā) there is no activities of Buddha’s citta‧caittas.
目次
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말 290 Ⅱ. 연구사 292 Ⅲ. 하리바드라의 도입게송을 통해본 AA의 저자 문제 296 Ⅳ. AA 1. 17과 관련한 하리바드라의 주석 302
