인도불교

June 2021. pp. 123-144
Abstract

Whether or not the Buddha really died from eating a rotten pork dish, it appears certain that, during the earliest period of the Buddhist tradition in India, meat was not comprehensively prohibited for ordained monks and nuns. Certain restrictions were applied in their partaking of meat, but the Buddhist canon unambiguously records that the Buddha refused to adopt vegetarianism when it was proposed by his cousin, or the saṅgha-splitter, Devadatta. The most commonly cited permission for meat-eating for the ordained is epitomized in the concept of “pure in three aspects” (trikoṭiśuddha) according to which a Buddhist monk or nun can eat donated meat unless she or he has directly seen, heard, or suspected that an animal was killed specifically for his or her own sake. This conditional allowance of a meat diet came to be completely banned, however, in several Mahāyāna sūtras that appeared in the first half of the first millennium, including most famously, the Laṅkāvatāra.

Nearly all of the Indic materials that record discussions of meat-eating are canonical, that is, believed to have been spoken by the Buddha himself and therefore of a prescriptive nature. The one exception is the anti-vegetarian polemic that consists of seven verses accompanied by auto-commentary in the ninth Mīmāṃsā chapter of the Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā composed by the sixth-century Madhyamaka scholar, Bhāviveka (500-570 CE). This text is noteworthy because it documents an active defense of a Buddhist meat diet against others’ censure. However, while he refutes his non-Buddhist opponent’s claims, Bhāviveka eventually contradicts a pro-vegetarian Mahāyāna sūtra, the Laṅkāvatāra. This paper argues that Bhāviveka’s anti-vegetarian discourse cannot avoid being read as a critique, even though he did not intend for it to be so.

일반적으로 불교의 승단전통은 채식을 식사의 기본적인 원칙으로 하는 것으로 인식되고 있으나, 기존의 연구들이 지적하고 있듯, 채식주의는 최초기의 불교전통에 속하는 것이 아니라 기원후 등장한 몇몇 대승경전에서 처음으로 주장된 것이었다. 불교채식주의와 관련된 선행연구들은 초기불교전통에서 제한적으로 육식을 허용한 배경과 이를 거부하고 육식에 대한 전면적인 금지를 선포하고 있는 대승경전들의 내용을 포괄적으로 잘 정리하고 있으며, 대승불교도들이 전격적으로 채식을 도입한 원인에 대한 설득력 있는 가설을 제시하고 있다.

본 연구는 기존의 연구 성과들을 참조하면서도 그것들이 주목하지 않았던 대승불교 내부의 반-채식주의적 경향성에 대해 조사해본다. 대승불교 전통 내에서 새로이 도입된 채식주의에 대해 전격적으로 반대하는 주장을 펼친 대표적인 예를 6세기에 활동하였던 인도의 중관학파 논사인 바비베까(Bhāviveka, c. 500-570 CE)의 저작 속에서 찾을 수 있다. 바비베까는 그의 대표작 󰡔중관심론󰡕(Madhyamakahṛdaya)에서 채식주의를 불필요한 규칙으로 명확하게 규정하고 이에 대한 자신의 의견을 개진하고 있으며, 해당 부분의 개략적인 내용은 가와사키(川崎信定)가 일찍이 소개한 바 있다. 그러나 가와사키는 텍스트에 대한 초벌 번역 정도만을 제시하고 있을 뿐 구체적인 내용분석을 수행하고 있지 않으며, 바비베까가 비판하고 있는 논적의 정체성을 전혀 고려하지 않은 채 불교전통 내에서만 바비베까의 반-채식주의의 의의를 평가하고 있다. 더 나아가 바비베까의 주장과 󰡔능가경󰡕(Laṅkāvatārasūtra) 제 8장 「비(非)육식에 관한 장」(amāṃsabhakṣaṇa)의 내용이 양립가능하다는 그의 판단은 정당하지 않은 것으로 보인다. 본 연구는 보다 넓은 관점에서 바비베까의 반-채식주의를 고찰하여 바비베까의 논의가 그의 의도와 무관하게 󰡔능가경󰡕에 대한 비판으로 읽힐 수 있는 가능성을 제시한다.

References

    ◆ 일차 문헌 PRIMARY SOURCES

     

  1. sDe dge Tibetan Tripiṭaka bsTan 'gyur.
  2. LAS NANJIO, Bunyiu ed. 1923. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Kyoto: Otani University Press.
  3. LAS443 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經. T 670.
  4. LAS513 入楞伽經. T 671.
  5. LAS700 大乘入楞伽經. T 672.
  6. LAS 8 The eighth chapter (amāṃsabhakṣaṇaparivarta) of LAS
  7. Mahābhārata The Mahābhārata (vol. 17, part II.), the Anuśāsanaparvan, ed. Ramachandra Narayan DANDEKAR, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1966.
  8. MHK Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā of Bhāviveka, See Kawasaki 1992a, 406-471.
  9. T Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經
  10. TJ Tarkajvālā (Dbu ma'i snying po'i 'grel pa rtog ge 'bar ba), D 3856, Dza 40b7-329b4.
  11. ALSDORF, L. trans. by Patil, B. 2010. The History of Vegetarianism and Cow-Veneration in India, London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203859599
  12. DUMONT, L. 1980. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications, University of Chicago Press.
  13. ◆ 이차 문헌 SECONDARY LITERATURE

     

  14. HAM, Hyoung Seok. 2019. "Manipulating the Memory of Meat-Eating: Reading the Laṅkāvatāra's Strategy of Introducing Vegetarianism to Buddhism," Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 47, no. 1, 133-153. 10.1007/s10781-019-09382-5
  15. HOPKINS, E. Washburn. 1906. "The Buddhistic Rule against Eating Meat," Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 27, 455-464. 10.2307/592870
  16. KAWASAKI, Shinjō (川崎 信定). 1985. 「肉食とBhāvaviveka」 ["Flesh-eating and Bhāvaviveka"], 『東方』 (Toho), vol. 1, 174-184 (L).
  17. KAWASAKI, Shinjō (川崎 信定). 1992a. 『一切智思想の研究』 [A Study of the Idea of Omniscience], Tokyo: Shunjūsha.
  18. KAWASAKI, Shinjō (川崎 信定). 1992b. "Discrepancies in the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts of Bhavya's Madhyamaka- hṛdaya-Tarkajvālā (the 9th and 10th Chapters)," In Buddhist Philosophy and Literature: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989, edited by Ihara Shōren and Yamaguchi Zuihō, Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 131-143.
  19. KAWASAKI, Shinjō (川崎 信定). 1993. "Principle of Life According to Bhavya," In Researches in Indian and Buddhist Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Professor Alex Wayman, ed. by Ram Karan SHARMA, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 69-81.
  20. LINDTNER, Christian. 1992. "The Laṅkāvatārasūtra in Early Indian Madhyamaka Literature," In Etudes bouddhiques offertes a Jacques May a l'occasion de son soixante-cinquieme anniversaire, 244-279.
  21. NORMAN, K. R. 2001[1992]. The Group of Discourses (Sutta-nipāta), Oxford: The Pali Text Society.
  22. RUEGG, D. S. 1980. "Ahiṃsā and Vegetarianism in the History of Buddhism," In Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola Rahula. Gordon FRASER, London; Vimamsa, Sri Lanka: The Gordon Fraser Gallery Ltd, 234-241.
  23. SCHMITHAUSEN, Lambert. 2003. "The Case of Vegetarianism - A Buddhist Perspective," The Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 12, no. 1, 309-329.
  24. SCHMITHAUSEN, Lambert. 2005. "Meat-eating and nature: Buddhist perspectives," Supplement to the Bulletin of the Research Institute of Bukkyo University, 183-201.
  25. SCHMITHAUSEN, Lambert. 2020. Fleischverzehr und Vegetarismus im indischen Buddhismus bis ca. zur Mitte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr: Teil 1· Studie und Übersetzungen, Projekt, 2020.
  26. TUCCI, G. 1928. "Notes on the Laṅkāvatāra," Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. 4, 545-556.
Information
  • Publisher :Korean Association of Buddhist Studies
  • Publisher(Ko) :불교학연구회
  • Journal Title :Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies
  • Journal Title(Ko) :불교학연구
  • Volume : 67
  • No :0
  • Pages :123-144