고려대장경의 編制 및 入藏經의 取捨에 나타난 사유체계 이해 -『開元釋敎錄』과 연계하여-

한명숙 한국불교학회 2011 韓國佛敎學 Vol.59 No.-

지금까지 고려대장경의 편제에 대한 연구는 거의 이루어지지 않았는데그 이유는 다음과 같다. 첫째 고려대장경의 편제는 『개원석교록』에 의거하여 판각된 개보장의 편제를 그대로 따른 것이다. 둘째 『개원석교록』에는종래에 보이는 것과 같은 형태의 종파적인 형태의 교판론이 보이지 않는다. 첫 번째 문제는 개보장의 편제를 수용함에 있어서 고려의 지식인이 보인 태도를 다각적으로 고찰함으로써 해결하였다. 여기에서 무비판적 수용이 아닌 불교 경록사에 대한 정확한 인식을 기반으로 한 주체적 수용이라는 면모를 찾을 수 있었다. 두 번째 문제는 『개원석교록』의 독자적 교판론을 찾아냄으로써 해결하였다. 여기에서 智昇과 守其가 吉藏ㆍ元曉 등으로대표되는 회통적 교판론을 계승하고 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 나아가 『개원석교록』의 편제를 종파적 교판론의 시각에서 고찰한 종래의 연구결과를비판적으로 검토하고 그 부당성을 지적함으로써 고려대장경의 편제의 비종파적인 측면을 거듭 확인할 수 있었다. Few studies on the formation of the Tripitaka Koreana has hitherto been made for the following reasons. First, the formation of the Tripitaka Koreana is exactly following that of the Tripitaka Keybo(開寶藏) engraved on the basis of the K’aiyuanshihchiaolu. Second, the same sectarian type of the doctrinal classification as featured before is not seen in the K’aiyuanshihchiaolu. The firstproblem was solved by considering diversely the attitude of the Korean intellectuals toward accepting the formation of the Tripitaka Keybo. In this part was the aspect of the subjective acceptance found on the basis of the exact recognition for the catalogues of Buddhist texts, not non-critical acceptance. The second problem was solved by finding out the unique theory of doctrinal classification of K’aiyuanshihchiaolu. In this part it was confirmed that Chih-sheng(智昇) and Sugi(守其) were succeeding to the integral thinking typified by Jí-zàng(吉藏) and Wonhyo(元曉). In addition, the aspect of non-religious sect of the formation of the Tripitaka Koreana was confirmed once again by examining critically the former research result considering the formation of the K’aiyuanshihchiaolu in the perspective of sectarian doctrinal classification and by pointing out injustice.

중국․티베트 佛典 目錄들에 있어서 部와 『新編諸宗敎藏總錄』에 있어서 部의 分類體系에 대한 대조 연구

최종남 한국서지학회 2016 서지학연구 Vol.67 No.-

In this thesis, I compared and researched on classifications of the collections and the lists edited in China & Tibet, and in Shinpyeonjejongyojangchongrok, which national teacher Daegak Uicheon collected and edited with annotations written in northen east asian countries, China, Korea, and Japan. Among the Buddhist stura lists edited in China, the Collections of Hwayen and Prajna were recorded in the first part of Lidaisanbaoji, Datangneidianlu, Kaiyuanshijiaolu, and Shinpyeonjejongyojangchongrok. And the Hwayen collection was recorded in the first part like Lidaisanbaoji, Datangneidianlu, and Shinpyeonjejongyojangchongrok, except for Chusanzanggjiji. Therefore the reason why Hwayen collection was situated in the first part of Shinpyeonjejongyojangchongrok was because of Hwayen thought, the central thought of Mahayana thought, and influence by Lidaisanbaoji, Datangneidianlu, and a deep relationship that Uicheon had with Hwayen sect and Hwayen thought as a practitioner for 36 years. From this, I could find out that the name of three sutras, which placed in the first part of each collection of Shinpyeonjejongyojangchongrok, and researches & commentaries(章疏) lists, which situated in the latter part of the name of three sutras, were based on Datangneidianlu, Kaiyuanshijiaolu. In the Buddhist sutra lists of Tibet, the Prajna collection was placed in the first part from the list of lDan kar ma edited in the sNga dar(前傳期). The Esoteric Buddhism collection of Peking print and the Precept collection of sDe dge print were recorded in the first part of the books among Koreana engraved in the Phyi dar(後傳期). The Hwayen collection was situated in the first part of Tibetan lists and Koreana. The record of the Prajna collection in the list of lDan dkar ma situated in the first part was because of the of the Prajna and Madhyamaka though, which developed as the parts of practice and action with doctrine diversely in the sNga dar. And in the Phyi dar, the Esoteric collection and the Precept collection were placed in the first part of the Peking print and sDe dge print engraved in the processes of re-establishment of precept to rebuild Tibetan Buddhist Sangha Cluster disorganized by destruction of Buddhism and the movement of new Esoteric Buddhism to change the religious style accompanied with spell and Bon sect, the folksy religion. Although the collections and Koreanas edited and engraved in China, Korea, and Tibet had different classification systems, the collections of Hwayen and Prajna, the central thoughts of Mahayana Buddhism, were typically recorded in the first part of those books in common. 본 논문에서는 대각 국사 의천이 중국․한국․일본의 동북아시아에서 찬술된 주석서들을 수집․정리하여 편찬한 『新編諸宗敎藏總錄』(이하 『교장총록』)에 있어서 部와 중국․티베트에서 편찬된 목록들에 있어서 부의 분류체계를 서로 대조 연구하였다. 중국에서 편찬된 불전 목록들 중에서 『출삼장기집』을 제외하고 『역대삼보기』, 『대당내전록』, 『개원석교록』, 『교장총록』에서는 화엄부와 반야부가 서두에, 그리고 『역대삼보기』, 『대당내전록』에서는 『교장총록』과 같이 화엄부가 맨 먼저 각각 기록되어 있다. 따라서 『교장총록』 부의 순서에 있어서 화엄부가 맨 앞에 기록된 것은 화엄사상이 대승 사상 중의 중심사상이며, 그리고 『역대삼보기』, 『대당내전록』의 참조와 영향에 의한 것이며, 또한 의천이 36년간 수행자로서 화엄종과 화엄사상과의 깊은 인연 때문이다. 이와 함께 『교장총록』 각 부의 구성에 있어서 삼장명이 앞에 위치하고, 章疏 목록들을 삼장명 뒤에 위치한 것은 『대당내전록』과 『개원석교록』을 참조하여 배열한 것이다. 티베트의 불전 목록들 중에서 前傳期에 편찬된 『댄까르마 목록』의 맨 먼저 반야부가, 그리고 後傳期에 판각된 대장경들 중에서 북경본에는 비밀부(=밀교부)가, 그리고 데게본에는 율부가 맨 먼저 각각 기록되어 있다. 티베트의 목록과 대장경들에는 화엄부가 서두에 각각 기록되고 있다. 『댄까르마 목록』에 반야부가 맨 먼저 기록된 것은 전전기 시대에 반야․중관사상이 다양하게 교학과 실천․수행면으로 전개된 것이 반영된 것이고, 그리고 후전기 시대에는 토속적인 종교인 뵌(Bon)교와 주술이 합한 신앙형태를 바꾸기 위하여 신 밀교의 움직임이 전개되고, 그리고 패불에 의해 와해된 티베트 불교 승단을 재건하기 위하여 계율을 재정비하는 과정에서 판각되어서 북경본과 데게본은 각각 비밀부와 율부가 맨 먼저 기록되어 있다. 이와 같이 중국, 한국, 티베트에서 편찬․판각된 목록들과 대장경들에 있어서 부의 분류체계는 다르지만 대승의 중심사상인 화엄부와 반야부가 서두에 기록되어 있다는 것은 동일하고, 그리고 특징적이라고 할 수 있다.

논문 : 의천(義天)의 《신편제종교장총록(新編諸宗敎藏總錄)》 편찬과 그 의의

임혜경 ( Hye Kyung Lim ) 서울대학교 국사학과 2012 韓國史論 Vol.58 No.-

Sinpyeon-jejong-gyojang-chongrok (新編諸宗敎藏總錄, the newly edited total catalogue of entire Buddhist sects` commentaries on the Tripitaka; shortened as Uicheonrok below) was compiled by Uicheon the Master of Great Enlightenment in A.D. 1090. It is a catalogue of East Asian Buddhist priests` commentaries (章疏) on me Tripitaka (三藏). Uicheonrok consists of three volumes and it as a whole has 4878 commentaries of 1010 kinds in it; 2719 commentaries of 561 kinds on Sutras (經), 467 commentaries of 142 kinds on Vinaya-(律), and 1692 commentaries of 307 kinds on Abhidharma (論). This study concerns the historical background to the publication of Uicheonrok and the intention behind it, and analyzes the compositional structure of Uicheonrok. It aims to elucidate distinct features of Uicheonrok and its historical significance as a catalogue of Buddhist writings. Uicheon was well aware of the significance of Buddhist commentaries for a clear comprehension of the Tripitaka. Therefore, he collected commentaries of various Buddhist sects from Sung Dynasty, Liao Dynasty, and Japan as well as domestic sects. He published thousands of collected commentaries and distributed them in the country. Moreover, he even exported them to Sung and Liao Dynasty. During this process, he compiled Uicheonrok and he noted in the preface that he tried to emulate the spirit of Gaewon-seokgyorok (開元釋敎錄, the catalogue of Buddhist teachings written in the era of Emperor Gaewon of Tang Dynasty). Uicheonrok was compiled on the fundamental spirit of Gaewon-seokgyorok which was written to distinguish between right and wrong, true and false. This means that Uicheonrok differentiates reference-worthy commentaries from unworthy ones so that it could suggest an academic guideline for Buddhist study. However, unlike Gaewon-seokgyorok, Uicheonrok only contain" commentaries and this fundamentally distinguishes it from Gaewon-seokgyorok, Uicheonrok is also the very first catalogue of commentaries whose sources of commentaries are not limited to certain Buddhist sects. And for the fact that Uicheonrok contains commentaries actually distributed at the time, it is also possible to comprehend the appearance of important Buddhist writings in the Buddhist society of Koryeo Dynasty through Uicheonrok. The compositional structure of Uicheonrok can be clearly understood by considering its connection with preceding Buddhist catalogues. It is quite interesting to find that Uicheonrok had adopted compositional merits of Chinese Buddhist catalogues and changed them to make a better structure to contain commentaries in it. Buddhist catalogues in China, since Tang Dynasty period, had put two classification methods together; one is to classify scriptures in chronological order or the order of translators` era; the other is to classify scriptures according to their distinct features. During this process, it had become very important to discriminate the authenticity of scriptures. Uicheonrok classified commentaries according to their features and removed unworthy commentaries from its contents. Through this sorting process, it had embodied the spirit of authenticity discrimination. Uicheonrok had also partially adopted merits of chronological classification method by adding an appendix of biographies of important figures in the history of Buddhism. Though Uicheonrok had emulated the compositional structure of Chinese Buddhist catalogues, its detailed structure and contents still have their own distinct features. While Chinese catalogues categorized scriptures into Mahayana and Hinayana Sections, Uicheonrok had commentaries classified into three sections of the Tripitaka and then added Mahayana and Hinayana categories under each sections. This difference could suggest that Uicheon, who thought that Mahayana Buddhism and Hinayana Buddhism were in a gradational relationship, had compiled this book from the perspective of combined studies (兼學). And a considerable number of commentaries under Hinayana Buddhism category in Abhidharma section were catalogued for the very first time or verified as a solitary existing copy. Thus, the fact that Uicheonrok contains such rare commentaries proves the historical significance it has as a catalogue of Buddhist writings. By examining commentaries in the Lotus Sutra and the Avatamska Sutra categories, where the biggest number of commentaries are contained, this study has discovered that Uicheon made much importance of doctrinal study and practical self-cultivation from the perspective of combined practice of self-cultivation and doctrinal study (敎觀倂修). Commentaries in the Avatamska Sutra category are arranged in order to help people to understand the entire meaning of the sutra and Kwanmun (觀門, the method of practice) first, and then learn more detailed thoughts of the sutra. Uicheon, to put it more specifically, placed commentaries of priests from the Jiron Sect at the top of the list in order to reflect the academic tradition of the Avatamska Sutra which was initiated by the Jiron Sect and then handed down to the Avatamska Sect. The academic relations of doctrinal study among Jieom (智儼), Beopjang (法藏), and Jingkwan (澄觀) can also be verified from it. The fact that Uicheon had highly regarded writings of Jingkwan can be an evidence of his special interests on the Avatamska study of Jingkwan who emphasized the impcll1ance of practical self-cultivation. Commentaries in the Lotus Sutra category are arranged in order to help people to gain basic knowledge of the sutra and then proceed to deal with more detailed teachings as well. There is a big group of commentaries of priests from the Cheontae Sect in the category and this fact suggests that Uicheon had intended to compose the category with the study of Cheontae Sect as the center. He also included commentaries on Shamatha-vipasyana (止觀) in Abhidharma section in order to emphasize practical self-cultivation. Along with these commentaries, Uicheon added the contents of discussions between Sangapa (山家派, the orthodox school of Cheontae Sect) and Sanoepa (山外派, the unorthodox school of Cheontae Sect) to Uicheonrok from a well-balanced perspective on various Buddhist theories. From the information gathered above, it is possible to say that Uicheon, from the perspective of combined practice of self-cultivation and doctrinal study, had compiled Uicheonrok to suggest an encompassing direction in Buddhist Study whid1 embraces various thoughts from the entire Buddhist sects. It has also been verified that Uicheon had systematized Uicheonrok to accord with basic features of Buddhist catalogues and enthusiastically included new commentaries in it, on the basis of his profound knowledge about the developing process of Buddhist catalogues. In this sense, Uicheonrok can be regarded as one of the most important works in the history of Buddhism.

특집논문 : 대장경과 교판

지창규 ( Chang Gyu Ji ) 동국대학교 전자불전문화콘텐츠연구소 2008 전자불전 Vol.10 No.-

본 논문을 통해 대장경과 교 판의 관계를 살펴보았다. 이를 통해 향후 한글대장경 구성 방향은 고려대장경의 구성과 체재를 전반적으로 따르면 대체로 무난할 것이다. 대장경과 교판 의 교 판이 원래는 불타의 경 설을 나름대로 밝히려는 불교방법론이라는 측면에서는 교판 에 대한 종래의 인식도 바꿀 필요는 있다고 생각한다. 그럼에도 오 시설에 대한 현실적인 벽이 높다면 차선책으로 다음과 같은 방법도 강구될 수 있다. 첫째, 한국 대장경으로서의 면모를 갖추기 위해서는 원효대사의 교판 설을 이용하는 것도 좋은 방법이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 그의 저술이 온전하게 남겨져 있지 않고 또 단지 몇 개의 저술을 가지고 그의 교판 설을 재단하기가 쉽지 않으며 또 가장 큰 문제는 일관적인 교판 설이 없다는 것이다. 둘째, 고려 제관법사의 오시팔교설을 이용하는 것이 대장경을 체계적으로 구성할 수 있는 장점을 가지고 있으나 천태종의 교판 이라는 한계를 극복하기가 힘들 것 같다. 셋째, 의천대각국사의 목록을 활용하는 방식이 있다. 고려대장경에 의천 목록이 활용되지 않았지만 오히려 한글대장경이 고려대장경을 모본으로 삼았다고 한다면 의천목록과 같은 경록을 중심으로 章疏를 구성하는 것도 좋은 방법일 수 있다. 그러나 신편제종교장총록 (이하 의천 목록)은 아무래도 諸宗의 敎藏을 모은 것이기에 삼장의 구성에는 기본적으로 문제를 보인다고 할 수 있다. 이렇듯 한글대장경 구성에 원효대사나 제관법사의 교판 설 그리고 의천대각국사의 의천 목록 등을 바로 적용하기에는 적지 않은 문제점을 보이지만, 다소 무리가 따르더라도 우리 스님들의 교판 설을 적극적으로 활용해 보는 것도, 한글대장경이 지는 뜻을 더욱 배가시키고 민족적 자부심을 한껏 고취시키는 계기가 되지 않을까 한다. This study presents an investigation into the relations between the Tripitaka the complete collection of Buddhist Sutras, Laws, and Treatises) and the Classification. The results suggest that there will be no problem if they follow the organization and system of the Goryeo Tripitaka in deciding the directions for Hangul Tripitaka. Given that the original purport of the Tripitaka and Classification was to understand the words of Buddha as part of Buddhist methodology, it`s required to change the existing perception of the Classification. If the realistic wall for the Oshiseol is still high, however, those following alternatives can be pursued: First, it`s a good idea to adopt the doctrine of Classification by Great Buddhist Priest Wonhyo in order to have all the aspects as a Korean Tripitaka. But there are a couple of issues to be taken care of first; his writings are not whole today; it`s not easy to decide his doctrine of Classification based on a few of his writings; and most of all, there is no consistent doctrine of Classification. Secondly, you can organize Tripitaka in a systematic way by using the Oshipalgyoseol by Buddhist Priest Jegwan in Goryeo. However, it will be extremely difficult to overcome the limitations deriving from the Classification of Tien-tai Buddhism. And finally, there is the final option of using the list by the Most Revered Priest Uicheon. Even though the list was not used in the Goryeo Tripitaka, it can be a good approach to organize Jangso around Gyeongrok like the list based on the asstumption that the Hangul Tripitaka is an imitation of the Goryeo Tripitaka. But the Sinpyin chejong kyojang chongnok (or the Uicheon List) is problematic with the Samjang organization as it`s a collection of the Gyojang of Jejong. In short, there are several problems to deal with when applying the doctrine of Classification by Wonhyo or Jegwan and the list by Uicheon right to the organization of the Hangul Tripitaka. However, the active utilization of the doctrine of Classification by our priests can be meaningful in that it can multiply the significance of the Hangul Tripitaka and enhance the pride of the Korean people.

대장경과 교판

지창규 동국대학교 전자불전연구소 2008 전자불전 Vol.10 No.-

디지털 대장경의 미래와 고려대장경의 지위

오윤희 동국대학교 전자불전연구소 2008 전자불전 Vol.10 No.-