zAstrArambha,; abhisamayAlaGkArAlokA; tattvasaGgrahapaJjikA; haribhadra; kamalazIla; prayojanaprayojana; 삼반다; sambandha; 목적의 목적; 까말라쉴라; 하리바드라; 비판편집본; 논서의 시작
摘要
본 논문은 크게 두 부분으로 구성된다. 우선 첫 번째는 하리바드라의 저작 Abhisamayālaṅkārālokā 중 ‘논서의 시작’에 해당하는 부분을 비판적으로 편집하고 이에 대한 주해가 달린 국문 번역을 추가하였다. 이 비판적 편집본에는 매우 정확한 읽기라고 평가 받는 네와리 사본이외에 아직까지 학계에 보고되지 않았던 데와나가리 사본을 참조하였다. 두 번째는 이 비판적 편집본과 까말라쉴라가 Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā 중 이에 상응하는 부분을 비교하여 그 차이점을 밝혔다. 이미 잘 알려진 대로 하리바드라는 이 ‘논서의 시작’에 관하여 상당부분 까말라쉴라의 설명을 편입하였지만, 다음의 두 가지 중대한 차이점이 존재한다.(1. 목적의 목적을 독립적인 범주로 서술한 점 2. 삼반다(관계)는 간접적으로 설해짐에도 불구하고 이를 마치 직접적으로 서술해야만 항목으로 나열한 점.) 이중 첫 번째는 까말라쉴라가 목적의 목적이라는 범주를 거부한 것이 아니라, 하리바드라가 문헌에 대한 단순한 이해를 넘어선 직접적인 실천 혹은 실현을 강조한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 두 번째는 하리바드라가 삼반다를 직접 설해야한다고 강조한 것이 아니라 반야경과 현관장엄론 모두를 주석하는 Abhisamayālaṅkārālokā의 구조 엄밀하게는 반야경이라는 경전에 논서의 시작을 적용한 구조부터 기인한다고 보여 진다.
This paper consists of two parts. The first part is a critical edition of a section of the Śāstrārambha (the beginning of treaties) in Abhisamayālaṅkārālokā (AAA) by Haribhadra together with its annotated Korean translation. For this edition, I consulted a Newari manuscript that had been evaluated as extremely correct by Tucci and a Devānagarī manuscript that has not been reported yet. The second part is about comparison this section with the section of Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā (TSP) by Kamalaśīla, which Haribhadra is believed to incorporate into his work, i.e., Abhisamayālaṅkārālokā. Haribhadra seems to have followed Kamalaśīla’s explanation generally with a few of modifications. Two of these modifications, I believe, deserve to mention in this abstract: 1.While Kamalaśīla does not tell what is the ultimate purpose of TSP specifically, even though he accepts this concept in TSP, Haribhadra treats the ultimate purpose as a separate category. 2. Even though both distinct scholars agree that the sambandha (relation) must be shown indirectly i.e., from telling the purpose (prayojana), Haribhadra appears to put sambandha into the list that must be mentioned directly(?) With regard to the first modification or difference, I found Kamalaśīla’s explanation why he did not mention the ultimate purpose specifically. According to Kamalaśīla, the ultimate purpose of TSP is too obvious and shared with other Buddhist sect, i.e., Sarvāsativādin, so that it does not need to be mentioned separately. Based on his explanation, we can assume that Haribhadra thought of the ultimate purpose of the texts on which he was glossing as something that he should reveal and is not shared with others. The second modification is likely to be understood when we consider the structure of AAA. That is to say, AAA is a commentary of both Prajñāpāramitāsūtra and its commentary, i.e., Abhisamayālaṅkārakārikāśāstra (AA). In writing this section, he had to elucidate not only the Śāstrāmbha of AA, i.e., sambandha, subject matter, purpose, and ultimate purpose, but also the same items with regard to Prajñāpāramitāsūtra, which combines śāstrārambha with the purpose of the five methods for glossing Sūtras that designed by Vasubandhu in Vyākhyāyukti. For this reason, Haribhadra seems to have put the name of sambandha in the list formally without implying the sambandha must be mentioned directly.
目次
I. 들어가며. 170 II. AAA의 논서의 시작에 대한 비판적 편집과 해석. 172 III AAA의 비판적 편집과 해석. 173 IV TSP의 비판적 편집. 183 V TSP와 AAA의 비교. 186
