다르마끼르띠의 自證 연구 = A Study on the Svasamvedana of Dharmakirti

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper is an attempt to translate kk.320-367 in Pram？ṇav？rttika Pratyakṣa Chapter with the commentary of Manorathanandin and Devendrabuddhi. It is aimed to analyze how the theory of svasaṃvedana is unfolding in Dharmak？rti. The eulogy 320-367 is composed with the questions and the answers about the problem of object cognition.
What is the cognition of object? In this question Dharmak？rti accepts the opinion of Sautr？ntika and Yog？c？ra. The inquiry about the cognition is connected with the question what is the being and what is the human being. In Buddhism it is explained everything is anitya and an？tman. There is only the succession of arising and disappearing unceasingly. So it is very important how to fulfill the system of epistemology with the truth of Buddhism. It is well known that the Buddhist Pram？ṇa School especially deals with the problem of how to achieve the correct cognition.
From the view point of this, it is mentioned the necessity to inquiry about the object cognition in the first chapter. Dharmak？rti insisted that the essence of cognition is svasaṃvedana.
The second chapter is composed with Dharmak？rti's lifetime and the works. It was examined on the focus : what kind of school he belongs to. This problem is not easy, because in his works we can find evidently so much diverse theory from different school's. The period of his time there were many Buddhist schools namely Sarv？stiv？din, Sautr？ntika, Yog？c？ra and M？dhyamika. And it was a period of formating complex schools such as Sautr？ntika-Yog？c？ra and Yog？c？ra-M？dhyamika. Besides the external factor, Dharmak？rti himself has the internal factor of complexity. His wording is always inclined at the param？rtha, but also takes the way of approving the saṃvṛti. For example he uses frequently the sentence of ？〜although(〜api).？ It could be said the way of description as the conceded manner. I think it corresponds with his view about the two truth, namely param？rtha and saṃvṛti.
The third chapter is composed with the examination of the view about the matter of object cognition in each school. Especially it is focused on the Sarv？stiv？din, Sautr？ntika and Yog？c？ra. It is very important to make clear the commonness and the difference among them. Sautr？ntika and Yog？c？ra insist that the cognition is not from the object itself, on the contrary it is cognized through the ？k？ra in cognition. In this point they share the commonness, but they stand on thoroughly different premise about the existence of the object. Sautr？ntika says that the being of the object is inferred as the cause of cognition. However Yogac？ra does not approve the being of the object.
The forth chapter is composed with the svasaṃvedana theory of Dharmak？rti in Pram？ṇav？rttika. He accepts the epistemology of Sautr？ntika and explains the cognition of object. Moreover he accepts the Yog？c？ra and develops his epistemology further. He came to a conclusion ultimately the cognition of object is not but svasaṃvedana of cognition. The division of subject and object is only made by illusion. They does not exist at all. It is said that the result of cognition is svasaṃvedana whether he stands on Sautr？ntika or Yogac？ra.
The fifth chapter is composed of the relation within prameya-pram？ṇa-pram？ṇaphala. Dharmak？rti establishes the relation according the appearance in the cognition of ordinary man, although they doesn't exist ultimately. If we depend on the Buddhist Pram？ṇa School, these factors are divided into three parts through the conceptual division. They doesn't separate from each other in the meaning of svasaṃvedana.
This theory of svasaṃvedana origins from Dign？ga. Dharmak？rti succeeds on him accepting the opinion of Sautr？ntika and Yog？c？ra without the contradiction on the basis of svasaṃvedana. Consequently it means that the theory of svasaṃvedana plays a roll as a key point of synthesis between Sautr？ntika and Yog？c？ra.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. 서론 = 1
• 1.1. 연구목적 = 1
• 1.2. 연구범위와 방법 = 3
• 1.3. 연구사 검토 = 5
• 2. 다르마끼르띠와 『쁘라마나바르띠까』 = 9
• 2.1. 생애와 저술 = 9
• 2.2. 소속학파의 문제 = 17
• 2.3. 기술방식의 특징 = 20
• 2.4. 인식론의 특징 = 23
• 3. 인식에 관한 제학파의 견해 = 28
• 3.1. 유부: 실재와 그 실재의 인식 = 28
• 3.2. 경량부: 실재와 그 형상의 인식 = 33
• 3.3. 유가행파: 識과 그 자신의 인식 = 37
• 4. 自證의 논증 = 44
• 4.1. 외경인식의 부정 = 45
• 4.2. 知의 自證性 = 51
• 4.3. 知의 二相性 = 59
• 5. 自證=量果의 확립 = 72
• 5.1. 경량부의 경우 = 74
• 5.1.1. 量-量果의 관계 = 74
• 5.1.2. 自證-量果의 관계 = 78
• 5.2. 유가행파의 경우 = 82
• 5.2.1. 3분설 = 83
• 5.2.2. 所量-能量-量果의 관계 = 86
• 6. 결론 = 93
• 참고문헌 = 96
• Abstract = 105
• 부록1 = 113
• 부록2 = 133