승랑과 승조 - 생애와 사상, 영향과 극복에 대한 재조명 - (Seung-Rang(僧朗) and Sēng-Zhào(僧肇))

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 동국대학교 불교문화연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 불교학보 / 61호 / 9 ~ 37페이지
· 저자명 : 김성철

초록

구마라습이 전한 인도의 중관학은 중국의 전통적 형이상학인 현학(玄學)과 만나서 ‘동아시아적 중관학’인 삼론학이 창출되었다. 세월이 흐르면서 삼론학의 가르침은 불교교학의 뒷전으로 밀려나기 시작했다. 하북에서는 아비달마, 강남에서는 『성실론』이 불교교학의 중심에 있었다. 승랑은 구마라습 사후 잊혀지고 왜곡되던 삼론의 가르침을 강남의 불교계에서 부흥한 인물이며 승랑을 기점으로 그 이전의 삼론학을 고삼론, 이후의 삼론학을 신삼론이라고 부른다. 승랑과 승조. 승랑은 신삼론의 시조이고 승조는 고삼론의 대표적 저술가인데, 그 성향은 상반되었다. 승조는 후진의 황실과도 가까이 지냈고, 적극적으로 저술 활동을 했으며, 그 전기도 『고승전』에 실려 있는 반면, 승랑은 양무제의 초청을 거절하고 섭산에 은둔하면서 수행과 교화에 전념하였고, 『화엄의소』를 지었다는 기록은 있지만 단 하나의 저술도 남아 있지 않으며, 독립된 전기도 전하지 않는다. 승조가 구체적인 역사 속 인물이라면 승랑은 전설의 인물이었다. 승조의 논문 모음집인 『조론』 가운데, 「물불천론」에서는 ‘동(動)과 정(靜)의 상즉’, 「부진공론」에서는 ‘유와 무의 상즉’, 「반야무지론」에서는 ‘지(知)와 무지(無知)의 상즉’, 「열반무명론」에서는 ‘세간과 열반의 상즉’을 논변한다. 승조의 사상은 한 마디로 ‘상즉의 비판론’이었다. 상즉이란 “A이면서 not-A이다.”라는 명제로 표현되기에 중관학의 4구판단 가운데 제3구에 해당한다. 인도 중관학의 경우 제1구와 제2구를 비판할 때 제4구를 사용하였는데, 승조는 제3구를 사용하였다는 점에서 독특하였다. 승조의 사상 가운데 많은 내용이 승랑에 의해서 발전적으로 계승되었다. 승랑의 사상은 ‘이원적(二元的) 범주론’, ‘상즉의 실상론’, ‘방편적 교화론’, ‘무득(無得)의 오도론(悟道論)’의 네 가지로 정리되는데 그 가운데 ‘상즉의 실상론’이 승조의 사상에 근거한다. 현학에서는 명교(名敎)를 ‘유’, 자연을 ‘무’로 보았는데, 승조는 ‘유’와 ‘무’를 모두 명교로 격하시키고, ‘비유비무’를 진제(眞諦)라고 불렀다. 명교는 이제(二諦) 가운데 속제에 해당한다. 그러나 승랑은 명교와 진제 모두를 ‘속제’인 교법으로 격하시키면서 속(俗)도 아니고 진(眞)도 아닌 ‘비진비속’을 이법(理法)으로 제시하였다. 아울러 중가(中假), 체용(體用) 등의 이원적 범주들을 새롭게 도입하고 변증법적으로 직조함으로써 무득(無得)의 정신에 투철하였다.

영어초록

Seung-rang(circa 450～530C.E.) was the Patriarch of New Sān-Lùn(三論) sect and Sēng-Zhào(384～414) was a representative figure among Old Sān-Lùn monks. Sēng-Zhào was a disciple of the great translator Kumarājīva(344～413). His treatises on Universal flux, Śūnyatā, Prajñā and Nirvāṇa are compiled as a book Zhào-Lùn(肇論). He made a commentary on Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra and wrote introductions on some Buddhist scriptures. We can read his biography in Gāo-Sēng-Chuán(高僧傳). It is not so difficult for us to know his life and understand his thoughts. He was familiar with Yáo-Xīng(姚興) an Emperor of Hòu-Qín(後秦). Sēng-Zhào was a concrete historical character and a monk of engagement.
On the contrary Seung-rang's life is obscure and his philosophy has not been identified clearly. He is a man of legend. If we want to reconstruct the life story and philosophy of Seung-rang, we should gather all the sentences that describe Seung-Rang in the historical materials. There are so many names that indicate the masters of Sān-Lùn. To investigate objectively on the life and thoughts of Seung-Rang, first of all we should confirm those names that indicate only Seung-Rang. Some scholars insisted that Do-rang(道朗) is the real name of Seung-Rang. But Do-rang(道朗) is guessed to be a misreading of Dae-Rang(大朗) written in grass hand style. In the year 512, Wǔ-Dì(武帝) of Liáng(梁) Dynasty invited Seung-Rang to his palace, but Seung-Rang refused the invitation because he preferred a life as a recluse.
When Sēng-Zhào was young, he earned money by copying scriptures. He was interested especially in Lăo-Zǐ(老子). But he was not satisfied with the teaching of Lăo-Zǐ. One day, Sēng-Zhào read the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra and said “At last I know where I should be!” In Sēng-Zhào's treatises we can find the influences of Xuán-Xué(玄學) which is a metaphysics based on the teachings of Lăo-Zǐ, Zhuāng-Zǐ and Yì-Jīng(易經). There is a legend that tells the reason of Sēng-Zhào's death. Sēng-Zhào made Yáo-Xīng(姚興) angry and was executed. Before the time of death Sēng-Zhào wrote a poem as follows. “Originally, there is no owner in the ‘Four elements of the body’ and all the ‘Five Skandhas’ are empty. The white blade of a sword is now ready to cut my neck. But it seems like an event of cutting a spring wind.”We can reconstruct Seung-Rang's chronology through critical analysis of historical materials regarding him. It is as follows.


450C.E. circa: born in Yo-Dong(遼東) of Go-Gu-Ryeo(高句麗).
470C.E. circa: received the full precepts to be a monk in Yo-Dong.
After 476C.E. circa: left for China.
476～479C.E. circa: perhaps visited Dùn-Huáng(燉煌), Chăng-Ān(長安) and Pīng-Chéng(平城) and learned Sān-Lùn philosophy.
479C.E.: came to Jiàn-Kāng(健康) area in the southern part of China and taught Zhōu-Yóng(周顒) and made him write a treatise Sān-Zōng-Lùn(三宗論).
479～482C.E. circa: met Gāo-Dì(高帝) the first Emperor of Qí(齊) Dynasty, had a lecture on Avataṃsaka Sūtra and wrote 8 volumes of commentary on Avataṃsaka Sūtra.
immediately after 482C.E. circa: had a lecture in a Dharma meeting, held by the King Jìng-Líng(竟陵) at Wŭ-Shān-Sì(五山寺) in Shè-Shān(攝山).
after 482C.E. circa: went to Shān-Yīn(山陰) of Huì-Jì(會稽) with Zhōu-Yóng who had been appointed to the governor of Shān-Yīn before a few years ago.
494～498C.E.: After Zhōu-Yóng's death, Seung-Rang returned to Shè-Shān(攝山) and stayed in Zhĭ-Guăn-Sì(止觀寺).
512C.E.: Wǔ-Dì(武帝) the first Emperor of Liáng(梁) Dynasty sent 10 monks to Seung-Rang. After the lecture to the 10 monks, Seung-Rang moved to Qī-Xiá-Sì(棲霞寺) and stayed there.
530C.E. circa: died and buried in Shè-Shān(攝山).
Sēng-Zhào's philosophy is well documented in his representative 4 treatises. In the essay “Things do not shift(物不遷論)” he demonstrates the coincidence between movement and rest. In the paper “Emptiness, a negation of absoluteness(不眞空論)” he argues the overlapping between being and non-being in every dharma. The essay “Prajñā is not a knowledge(般若無知論)” is devoted to prove the paradoxical truth that the knowledge of Prajñā is not a knowledge. His arguments in the treatise “Nirvāṇa has no name(涅槃無名論)” are based on the 19th and 20th poem of Nirvāṇa-parīkṣā Prakaraṇam of Madhyamaka Kārikā. There, Nāgārjuna declares the sameness between Nirvāṇa and Secular World, so we can summarize Sēng-Zhào's philosophy as ‘Criticism based on coincidence arguments’ or ‘Coincidental Criticism’. Sēng-Zhào's philosophy was transmitted to Seung-Rang. Seung-Rang taught it to lay Buddhist Zhōu-Yóng. Zhōu-Yóng wrote a treatise Sān-Zōng-Lùn, where we can find a theory of Jĭa-Míng-Gōng(假名空) that means the coincidence between Conventional Name(Jĭa-Míng) and Emptiness(Gōng).
Nāgārjuna's Madhamaka philosophy has developed differently in India, Tibet and East Asia. In India, many commentaries were composed on Madhyamaka literatures. Tibetan Madhyamaka can be called as a kind of Scholastic Genealogy. In Chinese Madhyamaka Sān-Lùn, a pair of critical terms Yŏu(有) and Wù(無), which came from the traditional philosophy Xuán-Xué(玄學), were used to explain the real meaning of Satya-dvaya(二諦) and Śūnyatā(空性). Not only Sēng-Zhào but also Seung-Rang frequently used the concepts of Yŏu(有) and Wù(無) to express Sān-Lùn philosophies, but their thoughts showed dialectical development. In Xuán-Xué philosophy, the concept Yŏu is a term to express the sphere of ‘Name and Teaching(名敎)’ and Wù is of ‘Natural Suchness(自然)’. The former is compared to Conventionality and the latter is a kind of Reality.
However in Sēng-Zhào's treatises, both of Yŏu and Wù are degraded to the realm of ‘Name and Teaching(名敎)’ and the negation of both, in other word Fēi-Yŏu-Fēi-Wù(非有非無) is presented as the Real, and Buddhist term Paramārtha Satya(眞諦) is used to express the Real.
In contrast, Seung-Rang degraded even Paramārtha Satya to the realm of ‘Teaching(敎)’. Seung-Rang used new terms to express the Real. They are Principle(理), Middle(中) or Substance(體) and so on. Seung-Rang learned and accepted Sēng-Zhào's philosophy of ‘Coincidental Criticism’ but surpassed his limits. Seung-Rang devised many deliberate Sān-Lùn theories as follows. “Satya- dvaya is not a Principle of Nature but only a Teaching of Buddha(二諦是敎論).” “The foundation of Satya-dvaya is Middle Path(中道爲體).” “The concepts of ‘Middle(中) and Convention(假)’ and ‘Substance(體) and Function(用)’ are used to classify the types of Preaching(中假體用論).” “Buddhahood is not any other than Middle Path(中道佛性論).” “Satya-dvaya teaching is always in the realm of Principle(理內二諦說).” “Don't debate to educate Buddhism(無諍敎化).” “Teach Buddhism skillfully and hypothetically according to the status of the listener(對緣假說).”

참고자료

· 없음