http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 준도 나가시마 (검색결과 1 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
준도 나가시마 금강대학교 불교문화연구소 2016 불교학 리뷰 Vol.20 No.-
According to Tibetan accounts, Madhyamaka bifurcated into the Svātantrika of Bhāviveka and the Prāsaṅgika of Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti. However, we can hardly find any trace concerning the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction in later Indian sources. This paper attempts to explain why this discrepancy occurred by analysing the works of Candrakīrti, Bhavya and Atiśa. Firstly, I examine what is svatantra anumāna in the Prasannapadā to elucidate the cause of the problem and the point of controversy between Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti. It is a widespread view that the dispute over the use of probative inference in the Prasannapadā resulted in this division of the Svātantrika and the Prāsaṅgika. It is, however, possible to read it in a different way. Then, I focus on Atiśa’s works to show the widespread view was not shared by him, who endorses both Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti. In order to bolster my argument, I look into how Candrakīrti’s position regarding inference was transmitted to him, and point out that Bhavya’s Madhyamakaratnapradīpa played a crucial role in the formation of the later Indian Prāsaṅgika lineage. A close examination of these texts makes it clear that Candrakīrti succeeded in handing down his view by misleading the later Mādhyamikas.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
