說一切有部의 得과 非得에 관한 硏究 = A Study on Sarvastivadin's theory of possession and non-possession

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aims to examine the concept and functions of
'possession(prāpti)' and 'non-possession(aprāpti)' in the Sarvāstivādin's theory. Possession and non-possession, which belong to 14 factors of ‘conditioned forces dissociated from thought(cittaviprayuktasaṃskārā)’, are technical terms which means attaining or non-attaining of the various factors.
Generally we understand the teaching of Sarvāstivādin through one of his later treatises Abhidharmakośabhāṣya(AKBh). Although it's evident that AKBh is a treatise that represents Sarvāstivādin's teaching, it is hard to say that is the pure doctrine of Sarvāstivādin. That's because AKBh
stated by Vasubandhu(世親) the author of AKBh includes some part that corresponds to the doctrine of Sautrāntika. Keeping that in mind, this study intends to understand the doctrine of Sarvāstivādin on the concept of possession and non-possession through his treatises.
The Abhidharma texts of Sarvāstivādin, given their large amounts, can and non-possession. The classification constitutes Ṣaṭpādaśāstra (six treatises of the Sarvāstivāda school) and Jñānaprasthāna in the early period, Mahāvibhāṣā in the middle period, and AKBh and Nyāyānusāra in the late period.
Possession is a technical term that originated from the words ‘attainment’ or ‘acquire’ frequently used from the sūtra, indicating he process or result of practicing meditation. In the early treaties, the words were used to refer to acquiring the noble factors, just like in the early
scriptures. Then in the treaty titled Mahāvibhāṣā in the middle period, the concept of possession is divided into ‘acquisition(pratilambha)’ and ‘accompaniment(samanvāgama)’, suggesting differentiation of these two
concepts.
In the Saṅgītiparyāya, an explicit definition of the gain(lābha) and loss(alābha) of ‘eight worldly conditions(Skt. aṣṭalokadharmāḥ; Pāli aṭṭhalokadhammā)’ are written along with a definition of the possession of four stages of enlightenment. Prakaraṇapāda also defines the ‘possession of all the variety of things.’ Scholars, such as Sakurabe hajime(櫻部建), argue that the concept of possession had been limited to acquiring noble factors until AKBh, which then expanded into the acquisition of factors in general. According to the research work in this
study, it is suggested that possession indicated acquisition of doctrines in general from early seven Abhidharma canonical texts.
Non-possession appears in Saṅgītiparyāya out of necessity but does not appear in Ṣaṭpāda-śāstra and Jñānaprasthāna, which indicates that it was included in the Conditioned forces dissociated from thought(cittaviprayuktasaṃskāra) for the first time in Mahāvibhāṣā. On the contrary, seven treaties actively discuss the concept of the nature of thought(cittaviprayuktasaṃskāra) for the first time in Mahāvibhāṣā. On the contrary, seven treaties actively discuss the concept of the nature of
an ordinary person(pṛthagjanatva, 異生性) which refers to non-possession.
The nature of an ordinary person is non-possession of noble factors(āryadharma, 聖法), and pṛthagjanatva can be divided into pṛthagjana-dharma which indicates pṛthagjana itself and the nature of pṛthagjana.
Pṛthagjana-sabhāgatā, a synonym of the nature of pṛthagjana, is the opposite concept of Ārya-sabhāgatā, specifying that the concept is discarded when pṛthagjana enters the stage in which the eventual attainment of enlightenment is assured (niyāmāvakrānti, 離生位)170). A
similar discussion was made in the concept of possession by using the concepts of elements(dhātupratilambha, 依得), aggregates(skandhaprāpti, 事得), and sense spheres(adhisthānaprāpti, 處得). Just like pṛthagjana-sabhāgatā, these concepts of possession contain the concept of
homogeneous charcter(sabhāgatā, 同分), which means the distinctiveness of pṛthagjana that are under an ordinary person's universality or diverse classes.
Possession and non-possession exist as real entities(dravya) in the three time periods. Sarvāstivādin asked back how bodhisattva and pṛthagjana could be discriminated if these doctrines did not exist, calling the act of discrimination as vyavasthā-hetu(建立因). He distinguished between bodhisattva and pṛthagjana by employing the concept of accompaniment (samanvāgama) which indicates that the buddhahood that were acquired long ago have lived until now. For bodhisattva, accompaniment of buddhahood exist, while for an ordinary person non-accompaniment of buddhahood really exist.
In the Nyāyānusāra by Saṅghabhadra(衆賢), functions of avipraṇāśa(不失因) and jñāna-cihna(智幖幟) were added to the original function of vyavasthā-hetu. The two added functions can be said that the discussion of vyavasthā-hetu the were expanded and developed. Avipraṇāśa is the supplementary function of the meaning of possession that was expanded into the possession of all the variety of things, which means that the function of not losing the doctrines that had been acquired long ago is contained in the possession. It can be said that jñāna-cihna, which means the marker of the knowledge that ‘this’ belongs to ‘that’, is the function suggested in the epistemic aspect. The function of jñāna-cihna is to acknolwedge that the noble factors were accompanied (samanvāgama) to bodhisattva and were not accompanied (asamanvāgama) to ordinary person.
Such a discussion is one aspect of Sarvāstivādin's spiritual cultivation theory that was intended not to define bodhisattva as saints forever and ordinary person as common, but to help people understand the non-possession of noble factors, thereby emphasizing incessant devotion to practice for acquiring noble factors. This was proved through that the possession of noble factors incurs the possession of doctrines that destroy samanvāgama of non-noble factors (e.g. defilements(kleśa)), and the possession of the asamanvāgama of non-noble factors.
Regarding the term contradicts the meaning of possession and non-possession written in AKBh, this paper suggests that possession refers to the possession of all the variety of things, while non-possession indicates non-possession of noble factors only. Therefore, it cannot be said that these two concepts have the contradictory relations in the aspect of acquisition(upalambha). In addition, the concept of possession and non-possession was more likely to set for spiritual cultivation theory, while in the philosophy of sarvāstivādin where ordinary people and bodhisattva are strictly divided, these concepts can be considered as a doctrine suggested as a method to link between the bodhisattva and ordinary person.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 1
• 1. 연구 목적과 문제 제기 1
• 2. 연구 방법과 범위 2
• 3. 선행 연구 검토 4
• Ⅱ. 心不相應行法의 정의 6
• 1. 주요 관련 논서 6
• 2. 心不相應行法의 성립 13
• 3. 心不相應行法의 전개 16
• Ⅲ. ‘得’의 개념과 기능 21
• 1. 六足論의 ‘得’ 21
• 1) ‘得’의 기원 21
• 2)『集異門足論』과『品類足論』의 ‘得’ 24
• 2.『大毘婆沙論』의 ‘獲’과 ‘成就’ 30
• 1) ‘獲’과 ‘成就’의 차별 30
• 2) 차별의 유형 32
• 3) ‘成就’의 기능 35
• 3. ‘得’의 전개 41
• 1)『俱舍論』의 ‘得’ 41
• 2)『順正理論』의 ‘得’ 48
• Ⅳ. ‘非得’의 개념과 기능 54
• 1. ‘非得’과 ‘異生性’ 54
• 1) ‘異生性’의 정의 54
• 2) ‘異生性’의 實有 60
• 2. ‘異生性’의 類義語 64
• 1) ‘異生性’과 ‘異生法’ 65
• 2) ‘異生性’과 ‘異生同分’ 68
• 3. ‘不獲’과 ‘不成就’ 72
• Ⅴ. 결론 75
• 참고문헌 79
• ABSTRACT 85