March 2014. pp. 51 ~ 135
Abstract
The doctrine of Dependent Origination (pratītyāsamutpāda) has generally been accepted as one of the central teachings of the Buddha since the inception of Buddhism. The earliest form of Dependent Origination is embodied in the twelve links of dependent origination. Over the course of time, however, an interpretation of the specific workings of each link of the causal chain varied depending on the Buddhist school. Sarvāstivādins came to understand the causal chain as symbolizing the causal sequence of three-time periods (past, present and future) that sentient beings undergo, impelled by their actions (karma). That is to say, they viewed the twelve links of dependent origination as an endless process of causation through which sentient beings, consisting of five aggregates, die, get reborn, grow, and die again. What plays an important role in this process is, in their perspective, the five aggregates which constitute a human being. Within this interpretative scheme of the chain of DependentOrigination, each link such as ignorance (avidyā) was no longerliterally considered as ignorance per se, but as a symbolicrepresentative of the five aggregates that go through the recycleprocess. This Sarvāstivāda interpretation of Dependent Originationis specifically called ‘the theory of a state (avasthā) [of fiveaggregates]’, which means that it is after all the five aggregateswhich undergo the twelve causal chains of dependent origination. In this respect, the Sarvāstivādins interpreted ‘conditioned bykarmic activities (saṃskāra), consciousness (vijñāna) arises’, asrepresenting that ‘conditioned by a given state or stage of fiveaggregates, the main feature of which is karmic activities in therebirth process, there arises another given state of five aggregateswhich feature consciousness.’ This kind of understanding wasled to as a result of this five aggregates-centered interpretation ofDependent Origination. In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh), Vasubandhu providestwo irreconcilable accounts of the causal chain; one is the standardSarvāstivāda interpretation as outlined above and the other is aSautrāntika critique of it. In the Sautrāntika (scripturalist) view, thetheory of Dependent Origination does not represent developmentalstates or stages of a rebirth process that the five aggregates go through, as Sarvāstivādins argue. For them, the meaning ofeach link of the chain should not be interpreted as symbolic, butas literal. Thus, the above example should be reinterpreted as‘conditioned by karmic activities, [the stream of] consciousnessarises [thus effected]’, which emphasizes the actual role of eachlink in the causal chain. This Sautrāntika understanding furtherdeveloped in Vasubandhu’s post-AKBh Yogācāra-leaning textssuch as the Pratītyasamutpādavyākhyā (PSVy), which resultedin his eventual interpretation of Dependent Origination as thetransformation process of ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness). What this essay aims to explore is how Vasubandu’s viewof Dependent Origination changes through his major textssuch as AKBh and PSVy; more specifically, it focuses on theinterpretation of the phrase ‘conditioned by karmic activities,consciousness arises’ (saṃskārapratyayaṃ vijñānam) and showshow Vasubandhu developed a consciousness-based interpretativescheme of Depedent Origination over time. Thereby it attemptsto shed some new light on the transformative character ofVasubandhu’s ideologies epitomized in his AKBh and post-AKBhtexts. This will help us clear up some of the mischaracterizationsof Vasubandhu, either as an originally Mahāyāna Yogācārin asargued by some of the modern scholars, or as a sudden or dramaticconvert to Mahāyāna as depicted by Paramārtha. Having critiquedthese two extreme views, this paper draws a conclusion thatVasubandhu as a thinker underwent several stages of ideologicaldevelopments from Hīnayāna to Mahāyāna, which makes itharder to characterize his identity as a fixed one and also defies itsextreme interpretations, traditional or modern.
세친은『 구사론』 단계에서부터 십이지연기의 식을 結生識으로 이해하는 유부의 입장을 비판한다. 『구사론』에서 세친은 12지연기의 식을 유부처럼 결생식(의식)으로 보지 않고 업행(업의 행위)이 추동하는 힘 때문에 촉발되는 六識의 흐름(vijñānasantati)으로 본다. 여기서 세친이 말하는 ‘육식의 흐름’은 전생을 떠나 중유를 매개로 다음 생까지 연결되는 識相續이기 때문에 중유 단계의 결생식을 포괄하는 것이다. 세친의 이러한 견해는 또한 식의 흐름을 조건으로 현세의 명색에서부터 새로운 생명의 잉태가 시작된다고 본다(식연명색)는 점에서 이미 결생식에서부터 현생이 시작되었다고 보는 유부와 대립한다. 이 경우 식은 유부에서처럼 새로운 생명의 탄생(결생)이 아니라 탄생 직전까지의 업상속을 유지하는 ‘매개자 혹은 원인’ 역할로 이해된다. 식의 역할이 ‘새로운 생과의 결합’(결생)이라는 연기의 결과적 측면에서 새로운 생으로의 연결적 매개자로 변한 것이다. 이는 12지연기에서의 식의 역할과 관련하여 중요한 것을 시사한다. 유부 입장에서 12지연기로 표현되는 생사윤회 과정의 주요 매개체는 오온이다. 오온이 윤회하는 것이다. 따라서 식지의 식은 다만 이 유전 과정의 오온의 상태 즉, 결생온(관용적으로 결생식)을 나타낸다. 반면 구사론주 세친의 종국적인 입장은 윤회의 매개를 오온의 상속(흐름)이 아니라 육식의 상속으로 본다. 세친의 『연기경석』은 “과거업에 의해 훈습된 식”이라는 개념을 통해 기존의 육식설을 이론적으로 한층 강화한다. 본고는 세친의 識說이 『구사론』과 『연기경석』을 통해 어떤 식으로 진화해 나가는지를 세친 사상의 ‘점진적 발전 모델’에 의거해설명한다.
References
Sorry, not available.
Click the PDF button.
Information
  • Publisher :Korean Association of Buddhist Studies
  • Publisher(Ko) :불교학연구회
  • Journal Title :Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies
  • Journal Title(Ko) :불교학연구
  • Volume : 38
  • No :0
  • Pages :51 ~ 135