阿含 經典에 보이는 部派 所属의 판단 기준으로서의 律的 요소 : 六諍本을 一例로=Vinaya Elements in Āgama Texts as a Criterion of the School Affiliation : Taking the Six vivādamūlas as an Example
동투르키스탄에서 발견된 아함 전적을 전승한 불교인들은 十誦律보다는 오히려 根本説一切有部律과 유사한 율장을 계승하였을 가능성이 있다. 그 율장 또한 같은 지역에서 출토된 아함 전적에 보이는 용어상의 특징을 포함하고 있었을 가능성이 없지 않다. 이처럼 두 종류의 율장이 동투르키스탄에 존재하였음이 입증된 이상 동투르키스탄 출토의 아함 전적과 十誦律을 포함한 소위 説一切有部律 사이의 관계는 재고할 필요가 있다. 十誦律에 포함된 아함 구절이 동투르키스탄에서 발견된 아함 전적과 공통된 근원을 시사하지 않을 뿐 아니라, 후자에 포함된 소수의 율적 요소들도 十誦律과 같은 부파에서 유래한다고 하는 추측을 확증하는 것 같지는 않다. 동투르키스탄 출토의 아함 전적과 소위 説一切有部律이 같은 부파에 속한다고 보는 것은 아직 확정하기 곤란한 상정이다. 논자는 여기서 衆集經 중의 六諍本에 관한 구절의 산스크리트본을 새로 복원하여 이를 滅諍事(Adhikaraṇavastu) 중의 해당 부분과 倂置함으로써 이 문제의 해결에 기여하고자 한다.
Discussions on the Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda works have often focused on the differences in diction between the Sanskrit versions of the Āgama texts, namely those from Eastern Turkestan and those from Gilgit. Thereby the general consensus of opinion seems to have been that the Sanskrit Vinaya texts from Eastern Turkestan, which show congruency with the Shisong-lü, derive from the same Buddhist school as the Āgama texts found in the same region. The Āgama texts from Eastern Turkestan and those contained in the so-called Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya from Gilgit are, apart from differences in diction, by and large congruent, whereas the Vinaya texts differ from each other considerably. This circumstance has led scholars to assume that the two Buddhist schools possessed their own Vinaya traditions, but shared an Āgama tradition. The Za-ahanjing, i.e. the Chinese Saṃyuktāgama, supposedly derives from the same tradition as the so-called Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. This assumption is also supported through a comparative study of the former with the Vinaya texts of different traditions. And so we may safely infer that the Buddhists who passed down the Za-ahanjing were very closely related to, or were the same as, those who passed down the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. On the other hand, a comparison of the sūtras preserved in the Shisong-lü with those in the Za-ahanijing and the Sanskrit parallels from Eastern Turkestan as well as Gilgit seems to suggest that the Shisong-lü derives from a textual tradition different from that of the other three. This view is corroborated through further passages in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra of the Dīrghāgama containing the story of the ‘Cremation of Buddha's Body and Distribution of the Relics'. The story in the Eastern Turkestan version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra finds parallels in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as well as in the Shisong-lü, and is congruent with that preserved in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, but shows considerable differences from the Shisong-lü version. The congruency between the Sanskrit Āgama texts from Eastern Turkestan and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya does not seem to have been confined to the Āgama citations, or to the narrative portions. In the Saṅgīti-sūtra reconstructed on the basis of Sanskrit fragments from Eastern Turkestan there are passages on the six roots of contention(Skt. ṣaḍ vivādamūlāni). These passages show a striking similarity to the corresponding portion in the Adhikaraṇavastu from Gilgit, a degree of similarity which cannot be observed between the Shisong-lü and the so-called Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. From this point of view, it is tempting to assume that the Buddhists who passed down the Āgama tradition found in Eastern Turkestan possessed a Vinaya corpus which rather looked like the Vinaya from Gilgit than the Shisong-lü, possibly with specific features in diction corresponding to those of the Āgama texts. Seeing that the existence of both Vinaya traditions has been proven in Eastern Turkestan, admittedly in unequal frequencies for whatever reason, a reconsideration of the relationship between the Āgama texts from Eastern Turkestan and the so-called Sarvāstivāda Vinaya tradition including the Shisong-lü, appears to be indispensible.
目次
I槪說. 165 II六諍本: 衆集經 중의 해당 부분 복원.169 III 滅諍事(Adhikaraṇavastu) 해당 구절 로마자 표기. 179 IV 倂置. 182
