투고논문

June 2020. pp. 37∼62
Abstract
This paper critically reviews Helmut Krasser’s argument (“Bhāviveka, Dharmakīrti and Kuārila,” 2012) that Bhāviveka’s works presuppose Kumārila’s, and thus, the latter’s floruit needs to be moved to the middle of the sixth century. It points out the difficulties and contradictions immanent in the grounds that Krasser adduces for his argument and notes that some of the opinions, which Krasser regards as Kumārila’s being quoted in Bhāviveka’s Madhyamakahṛdaya, were already known in the Buddhist tradition as attested in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (大智度論) and *Daśabhūmikaśāstra (十住毘婆沙論) translated by Kumārajīva (344-413 CE) and attributed to Nāgārjuna (150-250 CE). To undermine Krasser’s assumption that Kumārila was the first Mīmāṃsaka who problematized the existence of an omniscient being, it then quotes the concordant remarks of the three commentators on Kumārila’s Ślokavārttika that testify the existence of a certain Mīmāṃsaka(s) who first broached the topic of omniscience before Kumārila but after Śabara. This paper finally discusses one Mīmāṃsaka opinion introduced in Bhāviveka’s Madhyamakahṛdaya but explicitly disregarded by Kumārila as a forced interpretation of Śabara’s statement. Based on the materials collected here, it concludes that Bhāviveka’s Mīmāṃsaka opponent(s) is, most probably, an unknown pre-Kumārila (and post-Śabara) figure who nevertheless left dim traces in the textual sources at our disposal.

헬무트 크라서(Helmut Krasser)는 2012년도 “Bhāviveka, Dharmakīrti and Kumārila”라는 제목의 논문을 통해 7세기에 활동한 것으로 알려진 다르마끼르띠(Dharmakīrti)와 꾸마릴라(Kumārila)의 연대를 6세기로 옮길 것을 제안한다. 그의 주된 논거는 6세기에 활동한 것으로 여겨지는 바비베까(Bhāviveka)의 저작에 소개된 몇몇 주장들을 다르마끼르띠와 꾸마릴라의 의견으로 읽을 수 있기 때문이라는 것이다. 이와 같은 현재 학계의 상식에 반하는 크라서의 주장 가운데 바비베까와 다르마끼르띠의 동시대성과 관련한 주장에 대해서는 최근 엘리 프랑코(Eli Franco)의 논문이 비판적으로 검토한 바 있다. 하지만 크라서의 주장의 또 다른 한 축인 바비베까와 꾸마릴라의 동시대성에 대해서는 여전히 학계의 검토가 필요한 상황이다. 본 논문에서는 그에 대한 크라서의 논거를 검증해봄과 동시에 바비베까와 꾸마릴라의 관계 설정과 관련한 새로운 전거들을 제시하여 크라서의 주장을 비판한다.

본고는 우선 크라서가 제시하고 있는 논거들에 내재한 문제점과 모순점들을 지적하고, 그가 꾸마릴라의 의견이라고 지적한 몇몇 견해들은 바비베까의 『중관심론』(Madhyamakahṛdaya) 이전부터 『大智度論』과 『十住毘婆沙論』 등의 불교문헌에 등장했던 것임을 밝힌다. 이에 더해 크라서가 미망사(Mīmāṃsā) 전통에서 꾸마릴라가 처음으로 거론했다고 간주하는 일체지자(sarvajña)의 존재문제가 꾸마릴라 이전의 미망사학파에서 이미 논의되었다는 사실을 밝혀 바비베까의 미망사학파 논적이 꾸마릴라가 아닐 수 있는 가능성을 확보한다. 이후 본고는 바비베까의 저작 속에 소개된 미망사학파의 한 주장이 꾸마릴라에 의해 비판되고 있는 사례를 보고하여 바비베까의 논적은 꾸마릴라 이전에 활동하였던 그 저작이 남아있지 않은 무명의 논사일 가능성을 제기한다.

References

    ◆ 약호 및 일차 문헌 ABBREVIATIONS AND PRIMARY SOURCES

  1. Kāśikā ŚĀSTRĪ, K. Sāmbaśiva ed. 1926-1929. The Mīmāṃsāślokavārtika with the Commentary Kāśikā of Sucaritamiśra (Part I and II). Trivandrum: The Government of Her Highness the Maharani Regent of Travancore.
  2. Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā KAWASAKI, Shinjo (川崎 信定). 1992. 『一切智思想の研究』 [A Study of the Omniscient Being (sarvajña) in Buddhism], Tokyo: Shunjusha (春秋社), 407-471.
  3. Mīmāṃsāsūtra Śābarabhāṣya를 참조.
  4. Nyāyaratnākara ŚĀSTRĪ, Svāmī Dvārikādāsa ed. 1978. Ślokavārttika of Śrī Kumārila Bhaṭṭa with the Commentary Nyāyaratnākara of Śrī Pārthasārathi Miśra. Varanasi: Tara Publications.
  5. Śābarabhāṣya Mīmāṃsāsūtra 1.1.1-5부분은 FRAUWALLNER, Erich. 1968. Materialien zur ältesten Erkenntnislehre der Karmamīmāṃsā. Wien/Graz/Köln: Böhlau in Kommission을 참조; Mīmāṃsāsūtra 1.1.6-23부분은 KATAOKA, Kei. 2007. “A Critical Edition of Śābarabhāṣya ad 1.1.6–23: Śabdanityatvādhikaraņa,” 『東洋文化研究所紀要』 [The Memoirs of the Institute of Oriental Culture], vol. 152, 530-580을 참조.
  6. Ślokavārttika Mīmāṃsāsūtra 1.1.2(codanā)부분은 KATAOKA 2011, vol. 1을 참조. 다른 부분에 대한 텍스트는 ŚĀSTRĪ 1926-1929, ŚĀSTRĪ 1971을 참조.
  7. Tantravārttika SHASTRI, Dwarikadas ed. 1968. Tattvasaṅgrahaḥ of Ācārya Śāntarakṣita with the Commentary Pañjikā of Śrī Kamalaśīla. Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati.
  8. Tarkajvālā (Dbu ma'i snying po'i 'grel pa rtog ge 'bar ba) D 3856, Dza 40b7-329b4.
  9. Tātparyaṭīkā ŚĀSTRĪ, S.K. Rāmanātha ed. and revised by RAJA, Kunjunni and THANGASWAMY, R. 1971. Ślokavārttikavyākhyā Tātparyaṭīkā of Uṃveka Bhaṭṭa. Madras: University of Madras.
  10. 『大智度論』 T1509.
  11. 『十住毘婆沙論』 T1521.
  12. ◆ 이차 문헌 SECONDARY LITERATURE

  13. ELTSCHINGER, Vincent. 2013. “Buddhist Esoterism and Epistemology: Two Sixth-Century Innovations as Buddhist Responses to Social and Religio-Political Transformation,” in Periodization and Historiography of Indian Philosophy, ed. by Eli Franco, Wien: Institut für Südasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde der Universität Wien, 171-273.
  14. ______. 2014. Buddhist Epistemology as Apologetics: Studies on the History, Self-understanding and Dogmatic Foundations of Late Indian Buddhist Philosophy, Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
  15. FRANCO, Eli. 2015-2018. “Xuanzang’s Silence and Dharmakīrti’s Dates,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, Bd. 56-57, 117-141.10.1553/wzks2015-2018s117
  16. FRAUWALLNER, Erich. 1961. “Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens und Archiv für indische Philosophie, Bd. 5, 125-148.
  17. HAM, Hyoung Seok. 2016. Buddhist Critiques of the Veda and Vedic Sacrifice: A Study of Bhāviveka’s Mīmāṃsā Chapter of the Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā and Tarkajvālā, University of Michigan(Unpublished Dissertation).
  18. JHA, Ganganatha tr. Śābara-bhāṣya, Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1933.
  19. KAJIYAMA, Yuichi. 1968-1969. “Bhāvaviveka, Sthiramati and Dharmapāla,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens und Archiv für indische Philosophie, Bd. 12-13, 193-203.
  20. KANG, Hyongchol (강형철). 2016. 「고전기 이전 상키야 철학에 대한 Yuktidīpikā 저자의 역사인식」 [“The Historical Perspective of Yuktidīpikā-Kāra about Pre-classical Sāṃkhya System”], 『인도철학』 (Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy), vol. 47, 73-103.10.32761/kjip.2016..47.003
  21. KATAOKA, Kei. 2000. “Reconstructing the *Dharma-abhivyakti-vāda in the Mīmāṃsā Tradition,” in The Way to Liberation: Indological Studies in Japan, edited by Sengaku Mayeda, New Delhi: Manohar, 167-181.
  22. KATAOKA, Kei. 2011. Kumārila on Truth, Omniscience, and Killing, 2 vols., Wien: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
  23. KRASSER, Helmut. 2012. “Bhāviveka, Dharmakīrti and Kumārila,” in Devadattīyam Johannes Bronkhorst felicitation volume, edited by François Voegeli, Vincent Eltschinger, Danielle Feller, Bogdan Diaconescu and Malhar Kulkarni, Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 535-594.
  24. YOSHIMIZU, Kiyotaka. 2015. “Kumārila's Criticism of Buddhism as a Religious Movement in His Views on the Source of Dharma,” Acta Asiatica 108, 43-62.
Information
  • Publisher :Korean Association of Buddhist Studies
  • Publisher(Ko) :불교학연구회
  • Journal Title :Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies
  • Journal Title(Ko) :불교학연구
  • Volume : 63
  • No :0
  • Pages :37∼62