Vācaspati Miśra는『요가주』를 해설하면서, ‘동시 지각의 필연성’과 함께 소지성(vedyatva)을 거론하여 유식설을 비판했다. 그 중에서 특히 소지성은 유식설에서 통용되는 특정 개념을 요가 철학의 주석자들이 나름대로 이해하여 대체한 개념일 수 있다. Dharmakīrti와 Śāntarakṣita의 고찰에 의하면, ‘인식의 자기인식’은 ‘동시 지각의 필연성’과 불가피하게 연관되어 있다. 주관(인식 주체)과 객관(인식 대상)이 동일하다는 전제에서 성립된 주장이 ‘동시 지각의 필연성’이다. 여기서는 주관과 동일한 객관을 주관이 인식하므로, 결국 주관이 주관(=객관)을 인식한다는 자기인식의 논리가 성립된다. 그런데 자기인식은 유식의 동의어로 간주될 만큼, 유식설은 자기인식의 이론과 밀접하게 연관되어 사상적 발전을 전개했다. 그렇다면 유식설의 반론자에게 가장 대표적인 표적으로 간주된 것은 인식의 자기인식이었을 것이다. 따라서 유식설을 비판하는 Vācaspati Miśra가 ‘동시 지각의 필연성’과 함께 유식론자의 주장으로 전제한 ‘소지성’은 결국 ‘인식의 자기인식’을 대체한 개념일 것으로 판명된다.
Vācaspati Miśra criticizes Yogācāra school in the respect that sahopalambha-niyama(the necessity of being perceived simultaneously) and vedyatva(knowability) are the keywords of Yogācāra doctrine in his comments on Yoga-Sūtra. The two words, however, are rarely found as Yogācāra system’s original terminologies to explain their own doctrine in their texts. If so, it is supposed that the commentators of Yoga-Sūtra tried to understand certain conceptions of Yogācāra’s system as their own terminologies. Especially, in the case of the conception of vedyatva. According to my analysis in this thesis, vedyatva referred by Vācaspati Miśra may clearly turn out to substitute with self-awareness(sva-saṃvedana) in Yogācāra doctrine. Self-awareness to be commented by the great masters of Buddhist epistemology like Dharmakīrti and Śāntarakṣita has inevitable a correlation with the necessity of being perceived simultaneously. The conception of necessity of being perceived simultaneously is proved under the condition of acceptance of the two aspects of cognition; the subjective and the objective, are identified coming from sameness. In the other words, the subjective aspect grapes the objective aspect that must be the same as the subjective, therefore, logically, it is acceptable that the subjective after all figures out its own aspect. Critics against Yogācāra doctrine may consider self-awareness as their main target to denounce. Because Yogācāra school have consistently insisted their original doctrines as developing the thought of self-awareness which is regarded as much as synonymy to vijñapti-mātratā(Consciousness-only). Vācaspati Miśra is deduced that he understood clearly the traditional ideas or views of Yogācāra by considering the fact he was one of opponents against Yogācāra doctrine. Consequently, the meaning of vedyatva in Vācaspati Miśra’s context is undoubted to describe the meaning of Yogācāra’s sva-saṃvedana. It is also indirectly proved through Bāhyārthasiddhi-kārikā of Śubhagupta to criticize the epistemology of both of Sautrāntika and Yogācāra school as deeming the both sects are undifferentiated.
目次
I서론. 160 II소지성의 함의를 시사하는 직접 인용. 163 III소지성과 연관된 부연 설명. 172 IV 결론. 175
