『해심밀경』에 나타난 3성설의 해석과 후대 인도-티벳 전통에 끼친 영향 = Three Nature Theory in Samdhinirmocanasutra and its Influence on Indian and Tibetan Traditions

국문 초록 (Abstract)

유식파의 3성설에서는 언어적-개념적 파악과 언설을 떠난 궁극적 실재성의 관계가 핵심 주제로 다루어지는데, 이를 최초로 체계화시킨 것이 『해심밀경『이다. 본고에서는 『해심밀경『에서 다루어진 두 개의 비유를 중심으로 3상의 설명이 ‘중추적 모델’나 ‘발전적 모델’의 어디에 속하는 것인지 아니면 다른 측면을 가졌는지를 살펴보았다. 그리고 『해심밀경『의 3상설이 가진 의미를 다양한 형태의 3성설 내에서 정확히 이해하기 위해서 MAVT에서 상세히 설명한 네 가지 종류의 3성 해석을 파악하기 위해 먼저 번역을 제시하고 상세히 그 의미를 논의함으로써 이 경의 3상설이 가진 특색을 보여주고자 했다. 또한 『해심밀경『의 3상설이 티벳불교에 준 영향을 선언적으로 보여주는 쫑카파의 『선설의 핵심『에서 다루어지는 해석을 통해 티벳불교에서의 『해심밀경『의 영향을 보고자 했다. 쫑카파의 해석의 특징은 ‘중추적 해석’을 정통설로 간주하는 위에서, 『해심밀경『을 해석하는 점이다. 쫑카파의 해석이 가진 체계성과는 별도로, 그의 해석을 따른다면 특히 ‘의타기상의 소멸’이라는 경전 자체의 설명이 이해되기 힘들다고 보인다. 이 문제는 궁극적인 것에 대한 조낭파(Jo nang pa)의 ‘他空’ 해석과도 관련되는데, 3성설의 관점에서 유식 문헌과의 상관성을 함축적으로 제시했다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The aim of the present paper is to investigate the Trisvabhavatheory in Samdhinirmocanasutra(=SNS). Scholars in the field can now agree that SNS is the first text which gives the systematic explanation about the Trisvabhava theory among the Buddhist texts. But its way of explaining this theory is somewhat different from the explanation in other texts, for example, MSg or MSA, which can be described accordingly as belonging to the so called “pivotal model” and “progressive model” to use the terminology of Sponberg [1993]. Sponberg’s division of the various theories found in Yogacara texts into two models is based on the role of the dependent nature( paratantra- svabhava). If the dependent nature has the existence of its own, then it must be existent in its own right from the ultimate viewpoint( paramarthatah). This theory is thus regarded as the pivotal model, The progressive model shows the tendency that the first two natures are given up because, in the former, its existence is wholly negated, and in the latter its existence is only permitted as it appears to be, but not as it really is. In this model, only the perfected nature( parinispanna-svabhava) exists paramarthatah. It seems that these two models can’t go parallel with each other. In my previous studies on the Trisvabhava theory of Paramartha(499-569), I tried to show that his theory can be reduced to Indian origins, that there were various types of theory which tried to systematize the relation between words, referent objects and phenomenal existents in order to find out the reality itself free from mental construction( vikalpa). Confronted with such various formulations, I cannot but think that though Sponberg’s suggestion of two models is an useful one, in the sense that these two models represent accordingly logical system( rigs lugs) and practical system( sgom lugs) to adopt the terminology from the Tibetan Buddhism, it does not reflect the variety of Trisvabhava theories found in texts. As far as I can judge, the Trisvabhava theory in SNS has another characteristics which resists on attributing its peculiarities to the one of two models. For this purpose, I choose the long passages in Sthiramati’s MAVT which gives four alternative interpretations on Trisvabhava theory, and examine their meaning in Ch. 4 after translating them into Korean. Lastly, I focuss on Tsong kha pa’s Legs bshad snying po to examine the case influence of SNS onTibetan Buddhism. Apart from his intention to synthesize various interpretation of the Trisvabhavatheories in Yogacara texts, my examination in this paper focuses on two points: firstly, on Tsong kha pa’s standpoint that the dependent nature has to be existent in its own right( svabhavatah). I point out that his reference can be reduced to Sthiramati’s first interpretation dealt in Ch. 3 of the present paper, and that this does not have the final orthodoxy in the interpretations of the Trisvabhava theory. Secondly, on his critics that to regard all the dharmas as samvrtisat is not correct. His critics is directed toward the Jo nang pa, who insist on the emptiness of other facts only, in contrast to the emptiness of its own nature represented by the Madhyamikas. It is interesting to note that some Yogacara texts speak in favour of Jo nang pas.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 안성두, "티베트 불교에서의 여래장 해석__ 自空說과 他空說의 차이를 중심으로" 인도철학회 (18) : 103-129, 2005
• 2 정호영, "초기유식 삼성설의 두 형태와 불가분리성" 한국불교연구원 (34) : 9-49, 2011
• 3 다카하시 고이치, "초기 유가행파 사상-유가사지론을중심으로 , 유식과 유가행" 씨아이알 2015
• 4 안성두, "인도불교사상" 씨아이알 2011
• 5 안성두, "유식문헌에서의 三性說의 유형과 그 해석" 인도철학회 (19) : 61-90, 2005
• 6 世親, "辯中邊論T31, No.1600"
• 7 世親, "轉識論T31, No.1587"
• 8 高崎直道, "講座大乘佛敎 8 唯識思想" 1982
• 9 "解深密經T15, No.676"
• 10 안성두, "眞諦의『三無性論』에 나타난 삼성설 해석의 특색 _인도유식문헌과 관련하여 (I)_" 인도철학회 (41) : 327-364, 2014
• 11 안성두, "眞諦의 삼성설 해석과 阿摩羅識" 한국불교연구원 (42) : 101-150, 2015
• 12 船山徹編, "眞諦三藏硏究論集" 京都大學人文科學硏究所 2012
• 13 大竹晋, "眞諦三藏硏究論集" 2012
• 14 宇井伯壽, "瑜伽論研究" 1958
• 15 "新編續藏經 vol. 21" 1979
• 16 高橋晃一, "攝決擇分中菩薩地への思想展開" 2005
• 17 世親, "攝大乘論釋T31, No.1597"
• 18 世親, "攝大乘論釋T31, No.1595"
• 19 長尾雅人, "攝大乘論和譯と註釋 上" 1982
• 20 玄奘, "攝大乘論T31, No.1594"
• 21 眞諦, "攝大乘論T31, No.1593"
• 22 北野新太郞, "安慧の三性説理解について" 48 (48): 2000
• 23 大竹晋, "唯識説を中心とした初期華厳敎学の硏究: 智儼ㆍ義湘から法藏へ" 2007
• 24 竹村牧男, "唯識三性說の硏究" 1995
• 25 袴谷憲昭, "唯識の解釋學" 1994
• 26 宇井伯壽, "印度哲學研究第六" 1965
• 27 高橋晃一, "分別[vikalpa]から生じるvastu の解釈の展開について" 2001
• 28 池田道浩, "依他起性は實在するか" 27 : 1996
• 29 長尾雅人, "中觀と唯識" 1978
• 30 眞諦, "三無性論T31, No.1617"
• 31 北野新太郞, "三性説の変遷における世親の位置: 上田ㆍ長尾論爭をめぐって" 2 : 2000
• 32 池田道浩, "三性說の構造的變化[I]" 29 : 1996
• 33 荒井裕明, "ツォンカパの他空說批判" 33 : 1992
• 34 김재권, "『중변분별론』에 있어서 삼성설의 구조적 특징" 인도철학회 (25) : 101-119, 2008
• 35 Schmithausen, Lambert, "Ālayavijñāna: On the Origin and Early Development of a Central Concept of a Yogācāra Philosophy, Part I+II" The International Institute for Buddhist Studies 1987
• 36 "gNod ’joms ’Phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tuphyin pa ’bum pa dang nyi khri lnga stong pa dang khri brgyad stong pa’i rgya cher bsdad pa (P 5206; D 3808). (=Bṛhaṭ-ṭīkā)"
• 37 Bhattacharya, "YBh Yogācārabhūmi of Ācārya Asaṅga" 1957
• 38 Schmithausen, Lambert, "Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: the Buddhist studies legacy of Gadjin" University of Hawaii’ Press 2000
• 39 Aramaki, Noritoshi, "Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: the Buddhist studies legacy" 2000
• 40 Kapstein, Matthew T., "We are all Gzhan stong pas" 7 : 105-125, 2000
• 41 S. Levi, "Vś Viṃśatikā Vijñaptimatratāsiddhi =Viṃśikāvṛtti (Vasubandhu)" 1925
• 42 Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, "Unterscheidung der Gegebenheiten von ihrem wahren Wesen" 1996
• 43 Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, "Tāranātha‘s Presentation of trisvabhāva in the gŹan stoṅ sñiṅ po" 23 (23): 2000
• 44 Hartmut Buescher, "TrBh Triṃśikā-bhāșya" 2007
• 45 D'Amato, M., "Three Natures, Three Stages: An Interpretation of the Yogācāra Trisvabhāva-Theory" 33 : 2005
• 46 Sponberg, Alan, "The Trisvabhāva Doctrine in India & China" 22 : 1983
• 47 Keenan, John, "The Scripture on the Explication of underlying Meaning" 2000
• 48 Radich, Michael, "The Doctrine of *Amalavijñāna in Paramārtha(499-569) and Later Authors to Approximately 800 C.E." 41 : 2008
• 49 Waldron, Williams S., "The Buddhist Unconscious: The Ālaya-vijñāna in the Context of Indian Buddhist Thought" 2003
• 50 Hookham, S. K., "The Buddha within" SUNY 1991
• 51 Stearns, C., "The Buddha from Dolpo" 2002
• 52 "T 大正新修大藏經"
• 53 E. Lamotte, "SNS Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra"
• 54 J. Hopkins, "Reflections on Reality" 2002
• 55 E. H. Johnston, "RGV Ratnagotravibhāga"
• 56 Conze, Edward, "Melanges d’Indienisme a la memoire de Louis Renou" 1968
• 57 Nagao, Gajin, "Mahāyāna Buddhist Meditation" 1878
• 58 "MSgU Theg pa chen po bsdus pa'i bshad pa [Mahāyāna-saṃgraha-Upanibandhana]"
• 59 "MSgBh Theg pa chen po bsdus pa'i 'grel pa (Mahāyāna-Saṃgraha-Bhāṣya)"
• 60 "MSg 攝大乘論上[長尾雅人]" 1982
• 61 S. Lévi, "MSA Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra"
• 62 "MMK Mūlamadhyamakakārika"
• 63 S. Yamaguchi, "MAVT Madhyāntavibhāga-Ṭīkā"
• 64 G. Nagao, "MAVBh Madhyānta-vibhāga-Bhāṣya"
• 65 J. Hopkins, "LSNP Drang ba dang Nges pa’i don rnam par shes phye ba’i bstan bcos Legs bshad snying po (= 선설의 핵심)" 1999
• 66 Kramer, Jowita, "Kategorien der Wirklichkeit im frühen Yogācāra" 2005
• 67 Brunnhölzl, Karl, "Indian "gZhan stong pas", And the Beginning of Tibetan gzhan stong" 2011
• 68 J. Hopkins, "Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism" 1999
• 69 望月海慧, "Dol po paの 二諦說理解について" 48 : 2006
• 70 Sakuma, S. Hidenori, "Die Āśrayaparivṛtti-Theorie in der Yogācārabhūmi" 1990
• 71 K-D Mathes, "DhDhV Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti"
• 72 Nalinaksha Dutt, "BoBh Bodhisattvabhūmi"
• 73 Frauwallner, Erich, "Beiträge zur indischen Philologie und Altertumskunde" 637-648) 637-648, 1982
• 74 P. Pradhan, "AS Abhidharmasamccaya"
• 75 안성두, "<삼무성론>에 나타난 진제의 삼성설 해석의 특징 (II) ＿유식문헌의 인용과 그 해석상의 차이를 중심으로＿" 인도철학회 (42) : 261-299, 2014