『섭대승론』의 삼신설(三身說) (The Trikāya Doctrine in Mahāyānasaṃgraha)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국불교연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 불교연구 / 33호 / 99 ~ 129페이지
· 저자명 : 정호영

초록

대승의 불타관이 삼신설에서 이론적으로 완성되었음은 이론의 여지가 없다. 미륵의 『대승장엄경론』에서 처음 제기된 삼신설이 그 안에서 이미 완결적 모습을 보이고, 그럼으로써 후대의 삼신에 관한 논의에서 일종의 전범이 되었기 때문이다. 무착의 『섭대승론』도 그 삼신에 관한 논의에서 『대승장엄경론』의 절대적 영향 아래에 있다. 그러나 『섭대승론』은 『대승장엄경론』을 단지 답습하지 않는다. 중요한 차이․발전이 있는 것이다.
그 차이의 출발점은 『대승장엄경론』이 삼신을 깨달음 그 자체인 법계의 전개로 파악하였음에 대해, 『섭대승론』은 이를 무분별지의 인격적 구현으로서 법신의 문제로 이해한 점이다. 이에 따라 『대승장엄경론』의 경우 삼신설의 논의를 구체적 ‘불신론’으로 접근할 때, ‘자성→수용→변화’의 논리적 순서가 아니라 ‘종교적 경험의 대상[초세간적인 제불, 수용신]→제불이 향유하는 진리[법계 그 자체, 자성신]→진리의 다양한 전개[제불의 화작/석가모니불, 변화신]’이라는 형태를 취하게 된다.
이에 대해 『섭대승론』은 불신의 문제를 무분별지의 결과로 이해함으로써, 삼신의 내적 관계에 무분별지의 구조가 반영된다. 구체적으로 무분별지는 『섭대승론』에서 ‘가행지→근본지→후득지’로 분석되는데, 가행지가 근본지에 이르는 예비적 단계라면 핵심은 뒤의 두 무분별지에 있다. 이에 따라 삼신은 ‘근본지가 구현된 인격[법신, 자성신]→근본지에 근거한 후득지[법신의 등류, 초세간적 수용신]→동일한 후득지의 다른 모습[법신의 변화, 세간의 변화신․석가모니불]’의 의미를 갖는다.
이러한 차이는 『대승장엄경론』의 삼신이 수용신을 중심으로 구성된 것임에 반해, 『섭대승론』의 삼신은 법신으로서의 자성신이 기반이 되어 조직된 것, 보다 포괄적으로는 법신 일원론의 토대가 『섭대승론』에서 제시되고 있음을 보여준다.

영어초록

It does not need to empahasize the importance of the buddhakāya doctrine or buddhology in Buddhist tradition especially after Buddha Śākyamuni's entering to the nirvāṇa. And it is well known that the buddhakāya doctrine has been developed to or culminated in the trikāya doctrine which has appeared firstly in Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra(MSA), and has been inherited to Mahāyānasaṃgraha(MS). On the other hand, it is not so ascertained whether MS simply follows MSA or MS shows any kind of progressive differences in comparison with MSA. The main object of this essay lies in confirming this problem.
To speak the result in advance, MS, especially in the problem of trikāya doctrine, has not duplicated that of MSA, though there are so many similarities between them. The basic difference between them can be said as follow; MSA has regarded trikāya as the threefold embodiment of dharmadhātu, and on the contrary MA as the three aspects of dharmakāya which is the result of nirvikalpajñāna. To say more exactly, the trikāyas in MSA are closely related with the fact that MSA has analyzed the vṛttis or the functions of dharmadhātu into svabhāva, saṃbhoga and nirmāṇa in kārikā Ⅹ.59. And after making these words into secondary derivatives which denote adjective forms as svābhāvika, sāṃbhogika, nairmāṇika, MSA in kārikā Ⅹ.60 has made them to modify kāya, which results threefold embodiment of the Buddhas in essence, in communal enjoyment and in manifestation respectively. Although it would be very logical to arrange the sequence as 'svābhāvikakāya→sāṃbhogikakāya→nairmāṇikakāya' in that respect, MSA starts the argument from the sāṃbhogikakāya and continues to the svābhāvikakāya and the nairmāṇikakāya in succession. This order of argument may be understood as follows; (1)MSA starts from the encounter with the objects of religious experience: the Buddhas in supernatural world who enjoying various mahāyāna dharmas and buddha lands, (2)then excavates the inner natures or the truths which make them as such Buddhas: dharmadhātu itself, (3)finally finds the various manifestations of the dharmadhātu: diverse creatures and the Buddha Śākyamuni in this world.
On the contrary, because of the MS's understanding of the trikāya doctrine as the three aspects of dharmakāya which is the result of nirvikalpajñāna as mentioned above, the structure of the nirvikalpajñāna, which shows the three stages of procedure, has permeated into the trikāya doctrine. Among the three stages of nirvikalpajñāna which are named as the accumulative, the fundamental and the subsequent, the last two non-discriminative knowledges are interrelated deeply with the trikāya doctrine. The result is as follows; (1)svābhāvikakāya is the personal embodiment of the fundamental non-discriminative knowledge and it is recognised as dharmakāya which functions as a basis for the other two kāyas, (2)sāṃbhogikakāya is the embodiment of the subsequent pure knowledge which is resulted from the fundamental non-discriminative knowledge, and it is personified as various other worldly Buddhas, (3)nairmāṇikakāya is also the embodiment of the same subsequent pure knowledge but it is personified only as Buddha Śākyamuni in this world.
To sum up these discussions, (1)svābhāvikakāya in MSA denotes　the dharma realm, the impersonal basis of sāṃbhogikakāya, though its nature is thought to be an enlightenment; on the other hand, that of MS is considered as the personal dharmakāya which is the result of the fundamental knowledge and the basis for two other kāyas at the same time. (2)Sāṃbhogikakāya in MSA is self-interested as is written explicitly in the text; but that of MS can be regarded as other-interested or altruistic according to the context. (3)Nairmāṇikakāya in MSA embraces many different figures such as Indra, devas and animals including the Buddha Śākyamuni; but in MS it is confined only to the historical Buddha Śākyamuni.
These differences show the fact that trikāya doctrine has developed to the direction of unification of the three aspects of the Buddhas by the notion of dharmakāya. And according to this respect, it can be said that MS could prepare an important moment in the course of progressive development to the monism of dharmakāya.

참고자료

· 없음