Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies ISSN:1598-0642(Print) 불교학연구

Scholars of the Madhyamaka school such as Piṅgala 靑目 andCandrakīrti 月稱 define the middle way 中道 as neither existingnor non-existing 非有非無, while those in the Sanlun school suchas Jízàng 吉藏 define the middle way as neither empty nor existing非空非有. Therefore, I raise the question of why the two schoolsdefine the middle way in different terms. To answer this question,I conduct comparative considerations on the three theories ofdependent origination 緣起說, the middle way 中道說, and twotruths 二諦說 between the two schools. To sum up the answers,they are as follows. The common features in the three theories of the two schoolsare found in that they use the theory of dependent origination as alogical and practical tool for illuminating the truth of the middleway and helping the achievement of Nirvāṇa, and in that theyboth claim the middle way is undiscriminable 無所得 and neither speakable nor thinkable 言忘慮絶, upon a background of absolutenon-attachment. From such common features, it is clear thatthe three theories of the two schools agree at a basic level eventhough they are different in their terms of expression. I believe it islikely that this difference of expression arose from differences ofideological circumstance. The differences in the three theories of the two schools are foundin that although Madhyamaka scholars say that the highest truth勝義諦 is beyond language and knowledge, Sanlun scholars saythe two truths are interdependent 相互依存, and so they are merethe assumed names 假名 and the teachings 言敎. Another is foundin that while the Madhyamaka school states that dependentlyoriginated things are neither same nor different 不一不異, theSanlun school says that they are non-dual 不二 and identical 相卽. Jízàng makes a contradictory claim that although the two truthsare interdependent, and so they are mere the assumed names andthe teachings, nevertheless the highest truth or middle way isundiscriminable and neither speakable nor thinkable. Because theundiscriminable and the neither speakable nor thinkable cannotbe interdependent, so it cannot be the assumed name or theteaching. Yet, this contradiction can be explained in the followingmanner. It is to think that Jízàng regarded all of the various highesttruths and middle ways which other schools assert, are mere theassumed names and the teachings, and so they are interdependent, but the highest truth or middle way of the Sanlun school is theundiscriminable and the neither speakable nor thinkable. I believe that Jízàng's idea that dependently originated thingsare identical created a strong impression on Chinese Buddhismafterwards, but this remains a further area for investigation.