Korean | English

pISSN : 1975-2660

2020 KCI Impact Factor : 0.17
Home > Explore Content > All Issues > Article List

2014, Vol., No.15

  • 1.

    A Collection of Fragments from the Dilun School

    大竹 晉 | 2014, (15) | pp.9~209 | number of Cited : 3
    Abstract PDF
    This is the first comprehensive collection of fragments from the Dilun 地論 school. Each fragment is accompanied by a Japanese translation and footnotes. Part 1, entitled “Lost Works”, contains fragments of such lost Dilun works as the following: (1) Huiguang’s 慧光 (469-538) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra. (2) Fashang’s 法上 (495-580) Zeng yishu fa 增一數法, Zhujing zaji 諸經雜集, Dasheng yizhang 大乘義章 and so forth. (3) Huiyuan’s 慧遠 (523-592) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra. (4) Sengfan’s 僧範 (476-555) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra. (5) Tanyan’s 曇衍 (503-581) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsaka sūtra. (6) Lingyu’s 靈裕 (518-605) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra and the Zongchan shi’e jiwen 總懺十惡偈文. (7) Beitai Yi’s 北臺意 (sixth century) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra. (8) Zhiju’s 智炬 (sixth century) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra. (9) Daoying’s 道英 (550-639) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra. (10) Zhizheng’s 智正 (559-639) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra. (11) Lingbian’s 靈辨 (584-663) Commentary on the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra. (12) Lin’s 懍 (circa sixth to seventh centuries) Commentary on the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. (13) Jing’s 憬 (circa sixth to seventh centuries) Commentary on the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra. Part II, entitled “Doctrines”, contains Dilun doctrines as referred to by such monks as Jizang 吉藏 (549-623), Huijun 慧均 (sixth to seventh centuries), Zhiyi 智顗 (538‐597), Guanding 灌頂 (561-632), Dunnyun 遁倫 (seventh to eighth centuries), and Fazang 法藏 (643-712).
  • 2.

    Sthavira Śrīlāta, Asaṅga, Saṃghabhadra, and Vasubandhu

    Kwon Oh Min | 2014, (15) | pp.211~259 | number of Cited : 8
    Abstract PDF
    Abhidharmakośaśāstra, Nyāyānusāraśāstra, or early Yogācāra’s text and commentaries all of which understood Sthavira as Sautrāntika has to be denied. Moreover it’s impossible to restore the history of Buddhist thought regarding Sautrāntika. The theory that ‘Vasubandhu is Sautrāntika’ is actually the knowledge without decisive grounds, apocryphal. The reason why Vasubandhu was called Sautrāntika or a follower(pākṣika) of Sautrāntika was because of familiar with Sthavira. Then on one day, Sautrāntika of Sthavira Śrīlāta was disappeared in Buddhist history. He became thoroughly forgotten. He hasn't been researched in modern Buddhology also, and Vasubandhu took his place. This is mysterious. But, this is why all the imaginations and speculative hypotheses of Sautrāntika have been rampant. Sthavira Śrīlāta of Sautrāntika was in the same area(Ayodhyā), same era (4-5C.) with Saṃghabhadra and Asaṅga, a representative of Sarvāstivādin and Yogācāra. Interestingly Vasubandhu was in a inseparable relationship with these three. Sthavira was strong critic against Sarvāstivādin and Yogācāra, and they also criticised the Sautrāntika’s theory such as the theory of seeds(bīja) using almost same reasons. So their relationship and conflicts are reflected in their texts in anyway. We can read the tension of Asaṅga and the others in the early Yogācāra’s texts. We also can read the irony or dilemma of Vasubandhu which he has to criticize his own early theories using almost same reasons of what Saṃghabhadra used after his conversion to Yogācāra. Now we should reflect on all knowledge hypotheses related to Sautrāntika, through Sthavira Śrīlāta. He will surely renew our understanding on Buddhism. Following these, we might have to establish a new category in Buddhology.
  • 3.

    On sañcita, its sāmānya, and svalakṣ̣aṇ̣a of indriya-pratyakṣa

    Park Ki Yeal | 2014, (15) | pp.261~296 | number of Cited : 3
    Abstract PDF
    The object of cognition by five sense organs in Dignāga’s PSV would be metaphorically expressed as the appearance reflected on the mirror in the camera inasmuch as the exterior substance is different from the object of cognition. Because cognition by the sense organs is limited to all conditions surrounding the object which we try to be aware so that we can only perceive a part of all aspects of the object. The appearance reflected on the mirror of the camera is being before understanding through combining with languages in our mind. Dignāga describes on the object of perception by sense organs as ‘blue, itself’, but ‘this is blue’ having been defined and categorized by means of words and the exclusion of different objects. On the other hand, all people under the same conditions to perceive the object should get a common result of cognition to the object, that is ‘blue itself’, although the object is for the direct perception by sense organs(indriya-pratyakṣa) called svalakṣaṇa. This common aspect of svalakṣaṇa could be understood Dignāga’s common property (sāmānya) of the aggregate (sañcita) made of a lot of atoms, is grasped as the whole in the cognition sphere (āyatana). In this paper, the three terminologies; sañcita, its sāmānya, and svalakṣaṇa, are compared to verify the relationship among them on the base of Dignāga’s PSV, Jinendrabuddhi’s PSṬ, and Dharmakīrti’s PV. Sañcita is said that it has the ability to cause knowledge (jñāna). In this case, the knowledge could be supposed to be not only indriya- pratyakṣa as the result of cognition, but also svalakṣaṇa which is one of knowledge as the object aspect in the two aspects (dvirūpatā) of knowledge. In the latter, as sañcita is located out of the cognition sphere and svalakṣaṇa is in the cognition sphere, sāmānya is acceptable as a style(rūpa), how the aspect(ākāra) to move from outside to inside the cognition sphere. Thus, sāmānya would be said to play a role in a link to connect between sañcita and svalakṣaṇa. Unlike Dignāga basically describes on the object of cognition under the condition that sañcita is one, Dharmakīrti assumes the object of cognition under multi-conditions that plural aggregates (sañcita) bring out one knowledge in one cognition sphere at the same time. Therefore, if Dignāga’s sañcita theory is said to be plain like ‘blue itself’ becomes svalakṣaṇa, Dharmakīrti’s sañcita has multiple layers like ‘blue itself' and 'yellow itself’ become one svalakṣaṇa simultaneously.