vijñāna에 관한 논변

이종철(Lee Jong-Cheol),우제선, 박인성 불교학연구회 2000 불교학연구 Vol.1 No.-

  In this article, I would like to point out the fact that Vasubandhu not only approached dependent origination from an ontological perspective, but that he also put great importance on its epistemological dimension having to do with the phenomenology of mind and consciousness, taking care to focus in on how the theory may be applied to the arising of consciousness. This article, keeping in mind the above problematik deals with the unfolding of Vasubandhu"s thought in the process of moving from the Abhidharmako?a to the Vy?khy?yukti. This represents an attempt to reconstruct an integral basis for Vasubandhu"s discussion of the process of co-arising consciousness and his theory of epistemology, stretching from the time he wrote the Abhidharmako?a all the way down to his later Yog?c?ra-vij??nav?da inclination period.<BR>  Through various debates with Indian schools such as the S?mkhya, the Vai?e?ika, and the Vaiy?kara?a, we can see that Vasubandhu rejects any belief in the existence of an actual self conceived as the "subject responsible for action" or as the "subject of cognition". According to the basic tenets of Vasubandhu"s theory of consciousness - based on his view that a permanent real self does not exist (an?tman) - in the case of consciousness there does not exist any subject behind it that engages in acts of cognition. There can only be the workings of consciousness which arise constantly dependent on conditions.<BR>  Focusing on the debates between Vasubandhu and Vaiy?kara?a, which are introduced in the Abhidharmako?a and the Vy?khy?yukti(Peking ed. 104b2-106b8), this article deals with the problems which were the object of their discussion. In the Appendix, I have enclosed a critical edition of extant Tibetan translations of the Vy?khy?yukti as they appear in the Peking, Derge, Narthang and Cone editions.

vijñāna에 관한 논변

이종철 불교학연구회 2000 불교학연구 Vol.1 No.-

In this article, I would like to point out the fact that Vasubandhu not only approached dependent origination from an ontological perspective, but that he also put great importance on its episte- mological dimension having to do with the phenomenology of mind and consciousness, taking care to focus in on how the theory may be applied to the arising of consciousness. This article, keeping in mind the above problematik deals with the unfolding of Vasubandhu's thought in the process of moving from the Abhidharmakośa to the Vyākhyāyukti. This represents an attempt to reconstruct an integral basis for Vasubandhu's discussion of the process of co-arising consciousness and his theory of epistemology, stretching from the time he wrote the Abhidharmakośa all the way down to his later Yogācāra-vijñānavāda inclination period. Through various debates with Indian schools such as the Sāṃkhya, the Vaiśeṣika, and the Vaiyākaraṇa, we can see that Vasubandhu rejects any belief in the existence of an actual self conceived as the “subject responsible for action” or as the “subject of cognition”. According to the basic tenets of Vasubandhu's theory of consciousness ― based on his view that a permanent real self does not exist (anātman) ― in the case of consciousness there does not exist any subject behind it that engages in acts of cognition. There can only be the workings of consciousness which arise constantly dependent on conditions. Focusing on the debates between Vasubandhu and Vaiyākaraṇa, which are introduced in the Abhidharmakośa and the Vyākhyāyukti (Peking ed. 104b2-106b8), this article deals with the problems which were the object of their discussion. In the Appendix, I have enclosed a critical edition of extant Tibetan translations of the Vyākhyāyukti as they appear in the Peking, Derge, Narthang and Cone editions.

『현관장엄론』 1-2게송에 대한 하리바드라의 부자연스러운 해석과 경전을 주석하는 방법론

이영진 한국불교학회 2012 韓國佛敎學 Vol.62 No.-

The first two verses of Abhisamayālaṅkāraprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstra are known to be an explanation of commencement of this treatise supposedly by Maitreya(nātha). Haribhadra’s gloss on these verses in which he adopted the methodology of Śāstrārambha established between commentators of Dharmakīrti’s works seems to be a forced interpretation not following the author’s original idea. For example, differently from these verses where two kinds of purpose of this commentary are described respectively, Haribhadra seems to have interpreted the first and the half of second verse (2ab) as telling the final purpose of this treatise together with relation (sambandha) and subject matter (abhidheya), and the remaining half of second verse (2cd) as mentioning the purpose. By doing this, he appears to have changed the object of practice (pratipatti) from ten kinds of action with regard to teachings (daśātmikā dharmacaryā) into the path consisting of the knowledge of all aspects. Moreover, he interpreted the ten kinds of action strangely as ten perfections (pāramitā) based on the resolve to become a Buddha and lowered its status to something that practitioners should memorize. In this modification or forced interpretation, there presumably lies a Haribhadra’s concept of final purpose (prayojanasya prayojana) that must not be too obvious and not be shared with other texts. By changing the object of practice, he seems to have been able to defend that by studying Abhisamayālaṅkāraprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstra, a commentary of Prajñāpāramitāsūtra(s), one can step into the right road to attain Buddhahood. In the second part of this paper, I tried to point out while commenting Prajñāpāramitāsūtra in Abhisamayālaṅkārālokā, Haribhadra has adopted not only the methodology of Śāstrārambha but also the methodology of five aspects of glossing Sūtras designed by Vasubandhu in Vyākhyāyukti. The former consists of relation, subject-matter, purpose, and final purpose, and the latter is composed of purpose (prayojana), overall contents (piṇḍārtha), sense of words (padārtha), sequence (anusandhi), and objections and responses (codyaparihāra). Haribhadra have related the method of Śāstrāmbha to the purpose of Vasubandhu’s method. That is to say, Haribhadra replaced the purpose of Vasubandhu's methology with relation, subject-matter, purpose, and final purpose. But this combination does not seem to be his own idea based on the fact Kamalaśīla, probably his elder colleague, had combined these two methods too. 본 논문은 크게 두 부분으로 구성된다. 첫째는 현관장엄론 제 1과 2게송에 대한 본래 게송의 의도와는 다른 부자연스러운 해석을 하고 있는 하리바드라의 주석을 살펴봄으로써 어떠한 의도 하에 그와 같이 주석하였는가를 밝혔다. 현관장엄론 1과 2의 게송은 각각 하나의 저술목적을 밝히고 있는데 반하여 하리바드라는 1-2ab에서 최종적인 목적을 중심으로 한 관계와 주제를 2cd에서 목적을 기술하고 있다고 주석한다. 이러한 주석의 핵심은 실천해야만 할 대상을 서사, 공양으로 시작하는 ‘가르침에 관한 10종류의 실천(法行)’에서 ‘일체의 측면을 아는 지혜로 구성된 길’로 바꾸는 것이다. 이러한 부자연스러운 해석에는 다른 문헌에서 알려지지 않은 것을 최종적인 목적으로 기술해야만 한다는 하리바드라의 의도가 숨겨져 있다. 두 번째는 하리바드라가 반야경을 주석하면서 사용한 두 가지 방법론에 대하여 지적하였다. 논서를 주석하면서 그 논서의 관계‧주제‧목적‧최종적인 목적에 대한 설명으로 시작하는 것은 다르마끼르띠 이후의 인식논리학의 전통인데, 하리바드라는 이를 반야경이라는 경전의 주석에도 도입하고 있다. 그리고 하리바드라는 이 방법론을 『석궤론』의 경전을 주석하는 다섯 측면, 즉 목적‧ 총체적인 내용‧ 단어들의 의미‧ 결합‧ 힐난과 응답 중 첫 번째 ‘목적’에 배대하여 사용하고 있다. 즉 하리바드라는 논서의 시작과 경전을 주석하는 다섯 측면을 결합하여 반야경을 주석하고 있는 것이다.