인도불교에서 중관학파 공사상의 철학적 의미에 대한 연구 - 유가행파와의 논쟁을 중심으로 -

• 영문명: A Study on the Philosophical Meaning of Śūnyatāvāda of Mādhyamika in Indian Buddhism - Centering around the Disputation with Yogācāra -
• 발행기관: 보조사상연구원
• 저자명: 남수영(Nam Soo-Young)
• 간행물 정보: 『보조사상』보조사상 제21집, 167~206쪽, 전체 40쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 불교학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2004.02.01

영문 초록

The two school Madhyamika and Yogacara act as a representative of Mahayana Buddhism in India. But the two school disputed with each other insisting sunyata-vada and vijnaptimatravada separately. To introduce the disputation shortly is as follow. The early Madhyamika Nagarjuna(150-250), succeeding to sunyatavada of Prajnaparamita-sutra, did not admited the existence of all dharma, insisting all dharma is neither being nor nonbeing, and he said also that all dharma occurd by cause and condition is prajnapti, nihsvabhava, sunya, madhyamapratipad. But Yogacara, admiting the existence of vijnapti and sunyata according to vijnaptimatravada, did not admited the sunyatavada of Prajnaparamita-sutra and Nagarjuna as ultimate truth. So Samdhinirmocana-sutra and the commentary of Yogacarabhumi said that the sunyatavada of Prajnaparamita-sutra and Nagarjuna have a hidden meaning, and Yogacarabhumi criticized on sunyatavada of Prajnaparamita-sutra and Nagarjuna, saying that to insist upon all dharma is prajnapti is an extreme Nihilism, and to deny to the existence of sunyata is a misunderstanding on the sunyata. On this critique, the middle Madhyamika Bhaviveka(490-570) refute again saying that to insist on the existence of vijnapti in ultimate truth goes wrong with pratityasamutpada, and to insist on the existence of sunyata in ultamate truth indeed is Nihilism. Present writer understand this disputation of the two school as ontological confrontation of denial of existence according to sunyatavada with affirmation of existence according to vijnaptimatravada, and practical confrontation as according to the ontological confrontation. So present writer examined the philosophical meaning or the ontological meaning and practical meaning of the sunyatavada of Madhyamika through examination on the disputation of the two school. So present writer think of the philosophical meaning of sunyatavada of Madhyamika is as follow. Madhyamika deny the existence of all dharma according to pratityasamutpada of dependent co-origination, though Yogacara affirmed the existence of vijnapti and sunyata according to vijnaptimatravada. Because the pratityasamutpada of dependent co-origination throughly negate ultimate thing or a thing which have svabhava, though the ultimate thing only can be regarded as being or the thing which have svabhava. Therefore it is known that the Madhyamika built up peculiar form of ontology, which deny to the existence of all dharma, based upon pratityasamutpada of dependent co-origination. But the sunyatavada of Madhyamika can not be said of Nihilism, since the sunyatavada of Madhyamika deny to the insistence of all dharma is nonbeing, as well as all dharma is being. Also the moksa of Madhyamika is not recovery of original condition of vijnapti which is pure in itself as Yogacara saying, as well as obtaining a thing which is dravya-sat as Sarvastivadin saying. The moksa of Madhyamika means a condition of liberated from karma and pains through extinction of prapanca and discrimination by realizing the real aspect of all dharma which is said by pratityasamutpada, prajnapti, nihsvabhava, sunya, madhyamapratipad. Thus, in Madhyamika, to realize the real aspect of all dharma said by pratityasamutpada, prajnapti, nihsvabhava, sunya, madhyamapratipad is the first requisite for moksa. If so, it can be said that ontology and practice is an inseparable relation in Madhyamika, since to realize of the real aspect of all dharma is the most important groundof moksa. Ultimately, it can be said that Madhyamika insist the practice of perfect non-attachment which do not attach even on moksa based on ontological belief which all dharma is pratityasamutpada, prajnapti, nihsvabhava, sunya, madhyamapratipad.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 중관학파의 공사상과 존재의 부정

Ⅲ. 유가행파의 중관 공사상 비판

Ⅳ. 중관학파의 답변과 반박

Ⅴ. 결론

Abstract