『해심밀경』에 나타난 3성설의 해석과 후대 인도-티벳 전통에 끼친 영향 (Three Nature Theory in Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and its Influence on Indian and Tibetan Traditions)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 인도철학회
· 수록지 정보 : 인도철학 / 44호 / 75 ~ 126페이지
· 저자명 : 안성두

초록

유식파의 3성설에서는 언어적-개념적 파악과 언설을 떠난 궁극적 실재성의 관계가 핵심 주제로 다루어지는데, 이를 최초로 체계화시킨 것이 『해심밀경』이다.
본고에서는 『해심밀경』에서 다루어진 두 개의 비유를 중심으로 3상의 설명이 ‘중추적 모델’나 ‘발전적 모델’의 어디에 속하는 것인지 아니면 다른 측면을 가졌는지를 살펴보았다. 그리고 『해심밀경』의 3상설이 가진 의미를 다양한 형태의 3성설 내에서 정확히 이해하기 위해서 MAVT에서 상세히 설명한 네 가지 종류의 3성 해석을 파악하기 위해 먼저 번역을 제시하고 상세히 그 의미를 논의함으로써 이 경의 3상설이 가진 특색을 보여주고자 했다. 또한 『해심밀경』의 3상설이 티벳불교에 준 영향을 선언적으로 보여주는 쫑카파의 『선설의 핵심』에서 다루어지는 해석을 통해 티벳불교에서의 『해심밀경』의 영향을 보고자 했다.
쫑카파의 해석의 특징은 ‘중추적 해석’을 정통설로 간주하는 위에서, 『해심밀경』을 해석하는 점이다. 쫑카파의 해석이 가진 체계성과는 별도로, 그의 해석을 따른다면 특히 ‘의타기상의 소멸’이라는 경전 자체의 설명이 이해되기 힘들다고 보인다. 이 문제는 궁극적인 것에 대한 조낭파(Jo nang pa)의 ‘他空’ 해석과도 관련되는데, 3성설의 관점에서 유식문헌과의 상관성을 함축적으로 제시했다.

영어초록

Three Nature Theory in Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and its Influence on Indian and Tibetan Traditions

Ahn, Sungdoo Seoul National University





The aim of the present paper is to investigate the Trisvabhāva theory in Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra(=SNS). Scholars in the field can now agree that SNS is the first text which gives the systematic explanation about the Trisvabhāva theory among the Buddhist texts. But its way of explaining this theory is somewhat different from the explanation in other texts, for example, MSg or MSA, which can be described accordingly as belonging to the so called “pivotal model” and “progressive model” to use the terminology of Sponberg [1993]. Sponberg’s division of the various theories found in Yogācāra texts into two models is based on the role of the dependent nature(paratantra-svabhāva). If the dependent nature has the existence of its own, then it must be existent in its own right from the ultimate viewpoint(paramārthataḥ). This theory is thus regarded as the pivotal model, The progressive model shows the tendency that the first two natures are given up because, in the former, its existence is wholly negated, and in the latter its existence is only permitted as it appears to be, but not as it really is. In this model, only the perfected nature(pariniṣpanna-svabhāva) exists paramārthataḥ. It seems that these two models can’t go parallel with each other.
In my previous studies on the Trisvabhāva theory of Paramārtha(499-569), I tried to show that his theory can be reduced to Indian origins, that there were various types of theory which tried to systematize the relation between words, referent objects and phenomenal existents in order to find out the reality itself free from mental construction(vikalpa). Confronted with such various formulations, I cannot but think that though Sponberg’s suggestion of two models is an useful one, in the sense that these two models represent accordingly logical system(rigs lugs) and practical system(sgom lugs) to adopt the terminology from the Tibetan Buddhism, it does not reflect the variety of Trisvabhāva theories found in texts. As far as I can judge, the Trisvabhāva theory in SNS has another characteristics which resists on attributing its peculiarities to the one of two models.
For this purpose, I choose the long passages in Sthiramati’s MAVT which gives four alternative interpretations on Trisvabhāva theory, and examine their meaning in Ch. 4 after translating them into Korean. Lastly, I focuss on Tsong kha pa’s Legs bshad snying po to examine the case influence of SNS on Tibetan Buddhism. Apart from his intention to synthesize various interpretation of the Trisvabhāva theories in Yogācāra texts, my examination in this paper focuses on two points: firstly, on Tsong kha pa’s standpoint that the dependent nature has to be existent in its own right(svabhāvataḥ). I point out that his reference can be reduced to Sthiramati’s first interpretation dealt in Ch. 3 of the present paper, and that this does not have the final orthodoxy in the interpretations of the Trisvabhāva theory. Secondly, on his critics that to regard all the dharmas as saṃvṛtisat is not correct. His critics is directed toward the Jo nang pa, who insist on the emptiness of other facts only, in contrast to the emptiness of its own nature represented by the Mādhyamikas. It is interesting to note that some Yogācāra texts speak in favour of Jo nang pas.

참고자료

· 없음