http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp 동국대학교 불교학술원 2023 International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Cultur Vol.33 No.1
Two incomplete manuscripts, one only slightly and the other much more so, of Karṇakagomin's (fl. 9th-10th) Pramāṇavārttikavṛttiṭīkā (hereafter PVVṬ) were discovered in Sa skya monastery, Central Tibet, in the early 1930s. The PVVṬ is a study of the Pramāṇavārttikasvavṛtti (hereafter PVSV), Dharmakīrti's (early 7th c.) auto-commentary on the first chapter of his Pramāṇavārttika (hereafter PV), the one that deals with inference. No Tibetan translation of this work is known ever to have been prepared. In the late thirteenth century, an indication of a work by someone whose name is given as either Ka lu ka or Ka lu ka mi tra surfaces in the relevant Tibetan literature. This man is said to have been the author of an exegesis of the PVSV. The name Ka lu ka resurfaces in several fifteenth century Tibetan literary sources as having been the author of a substantial commentary on the PVSV. To my knowledge, Btsun pa Ston gzhon's study of Dharmakīrti's PV of most probably 1297 is so far the only Tibetan work in which a certain Ka lu ka go mi is cited. The citation occurs in his comments on PV, IV: 191c-192, the contents of which Dharmakīrti prefigured in PVSV ad PV, I: 1, and in PV, IV: 37-39. Remarkably, the relevant passage in Karṇakagomin's PVVṬ ad PVSV ad PV, I: 1 is identical with the wording in Arcaṭa's (8th cen.) Hetubinduṭīkā (hereafter HBṬ) ad Dharmakīrti's Hetubindu (hereafter HB) 2.2-4. However, it is quite at odds with the quotation Btsun pa Ston gzhon attributed to Ka lu ka go mi! Hence, I therefore strongly suspect that Ka lu ka go mi and Karṇakagomin are not the same person. The question that now remains is who was this Ka lu ka or Ka lu ka go mi/mi tra?