有外境論者와 唯識論者의 對論 - 唯識二十論(viMzatikA)의 이해를 위하여=The Argument between the bAhyArthavAdin and the vijJapti-mAtravAdin: For the understanding of the Vasubandhu's viMzatikA
외부대상(境)이 실재하는가 아니면 실재하지 않으면서 단지 境처럼 나타나는 識뿐인가 하는 것은 유식20론에서 논의되는 중심 주제다. 唯識無境을 주장하는 세친은 전통적으로 9難이라고 알려진 有外境論者의 반론들에 답변하고 반박한다. 이 논쟁 과정에서 種子(bja)라든가 식(vijna), 轉變(parima), 人法無我, 分別, 無分別智(nirvikalpaka- jna), 後得淸淨世間智 등 유식학의 기본 개념들이 등장하여 유식20론이 단순히 唯識을 증명하기 위한 건조한 논쟁서에 그치지 않는, 깊은 종교적실천적 의도를 함유하고 있는 논서임을 시사한다.
This paper is an attempt to understand the Vasubandhu's Viṃśatikā-vijñapti-mātratā-siddhi the contents of which is the argument between the Bāhyārthavādin and the Vijñapti-mātravādin. The Bāhyārthavādin represented by the Sarvāstika and Sautrāntika school maintains that the external objects exist separated from the knowing subjects or consciousness(vijñāna). On the other hand, Vijñānavādin supports the view that all the things(artha) within the sphere of tridhātu(traidhātuka) are only the representation of consciousness(vijñapti-mātra) on account of the false appearance(pratibhāsa) of the non-existent objects. The Vijñānavādin is obliged to answer the questions and objections challenged by the Bāhyārthavādin on the various subjects which are traditionally known as the nine difficulties and the Vijñānavādin interprets and explains those questions from the standpoint of vijñānavāda. The meaning of the word 'vijñapti-mātra' has been interpreted by many scholars as the 'Mind-only' or 'Consciousness-only' in the sense of that the Mind(citta) or Conscioussness(Vijñāna) is the only Reality. Accordingly they have denominated the Vijñānavāda Monistic Idealism, Subjective Idealism, Absolute Idealism, Mind-only school or Consciousness-only school and so on. In this paper I pointed out the mistake of such an interpretation. The vijñapti-mātra is the not unconditional and unqualified assertion that the mind is the only Reality. The vijñapti-mātra is a predicative word the grammatical subject of which is the 'traidhātuka', i.e. the saṃsāric realm which is dominated and contaminated by nescience(avidyā), latent karmin force(vāsanā) and passions(kleśa). It is worth to be noted that the 'traidhātuka' which is only the representation of consciousness, is often compared figuratively to dream-experiences. The text proclaims clearly and definitely that the vijñapti-mātra is not the object of logic(tarka-aviṣaya) but the cognitive sphere of the Buddhas(Buddhagocara). As the object of logical discourse, vijñapti-mātra seems to be a form of idealism, but it is only a beginning step and a lower dimention in the full meaning of the vijñapti-mātra. The real intention and final aim of the 'vijñapti-mātra' is to go beyond the duality of external objects(grāhya) and knowing subjects(grāhaka), and realise the ultimate reality, value and truth i.e. Tathatā which transcends both realism and idealism. A mountain seen by nescient human beings is only a representation of their consciousness(vijñapti-mātra) so it is negated not being a mountain. However that is not the full story. When the conceptual construction(vikalpa) of consciousness disappears and vijñāna is transformed to jñāna the mountain as it is, i.e. the tathatā of the mountain is seen. A mountain is a mountain only.
目次
이끄는 말 278 I 유식에 대한 敎證과 理證 (송 1) 281 II 장소・시간의 한정, 心相續의 비한정, 작용에 대한 유식적 해석 (송 2~7) 284 III 12處의 密意性과 二無我에 깨달아 듦 (송 8~10) 288 IV 원자설 비판 (송 11~14) 292 V 대상의 단일성 비판 (송 15) 297 VI 外境實在의 근거로서의 現量(지각)에 대한 비판 (송 16) 298 VII 기억에 근거한 대상의 실재성 비판 (송 17 전반) 301 VIII 꿈과 깬 상태의 다름에 대한 유식적 해석 (송 17 후반) 302 IX 사회적 상호관계와 識의 한정 (송 18 전반) 304 X 꿈과 깬 상태의 業果의 다름에 대한 유식적 해석 (송 18 후반) 305 XI 殺生業과 그 果報에 대한 유식적 해석 (송 19, 20) 306 XII 他心知의 문제 (송 21) 308 맺는 말 (송 22) 309
