Korean | English

pISSN : 1975-2660

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

2015, Vol., No.18

  • 1.

    On Two Sanskrit Manuscripts of Ārya Vimuktiṣeṇa's Commentary on the Abhisamayālaṅkāra

    Youngjin Lee | 2015, (18) | pp.15~48 | number of Cited : 1
    Abstract PDF
    This paper deals with two issues in Ārya Vimuktiṣeṇa’s commentary on the Abhisamayālaṅkāra[kārikā], one being a corrupt sentence in Prakrit and the other relating to the title of the commentary by Ārya Vimuktiṣeṇa. In this research, I have consulted two Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in Nepal and Tibet, which are referred to as ms A and ms B by me as well as a newly identified manuscript, which is scattered into two sets in NGMPP. In the second chapter, I revised a corrupt Prakrit sentence into “tathāgato tti vattavvo ṇo tu vattavvo sammāsaṃbuddhaḥ” (He should be called tathāgata, but not saṃyaksambuddha, a perfectly enlightened one.) in both the manuscripts. This mistranslation was due to the scribes’s limited knowledge of Prakrit. I also tried to figure out why Ārya Vimuktiṣeṇa quotes this Prakrit sentence, in which tathāgata is unusually differentiated from saṃyaksambuddha, especially when we consider that the quotation, presumably from the Mahāsāṃghikas, does not match the description of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, on which Ārya Vimuktiṣeṇa is commenting. The third section mainly deals with confusion relating to the title of Ārya Vimuktiṣeṇa’s commentary. In the colophons of ms A, the text, commonly called Abhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti, is titled, “Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāryaprajñāpāramitopadeśam Abhisamayālaṃkāraśāstraṃ. This is the same title that the manuscript(s) of kārikās has. Moreover, there is a description, “Śrīpañcaviṃśtisāhasrikāyāḥ Prajñāpāyamitāyāḥ ․ ĀryaVimuktisenakṛteyaṃ ṭīkā sunirmalā” on the first recto of the newly identified manuscript of the kārikās. Both of these examples tell us that the kārikās and the commentary were composed by the same person, Ārya Vimuktiṣeṇa. In conclusion of this chapter, I put forward reasons for the confusion and suggest that the title of Ārya Vimuktiṣeṇa’s commentary is to be reconsided.
  • 2.

    The Śākyamunibuddha’s Bodhisattvacaryā in the Sanskrit Version of the Lotus Sutra

    Ha Young Su | 2015, (18) | pp.49~85 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    The Chapter on the Duration of Life of the Tathāgata in the Lotus Sutra(Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra) has been regarded as an important chapter. However, the Sanskrit version of the same chapter includes a passage that states, “I have not accomplished my ancient bodhisattvacaryā (bodhisattva’s practice). This passage is not mentioned in the Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra. The difference between the Sanskrit version and the Chinese translation is what lead me to write this paper. In this paper, I set up several steps in order to review this incongruity. Firstly, I tried to infer an original passage of the Lotus Sutra. Of the original passage, it can be said that there are two types of readings. The first type is found in two versions of the Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra, i.e. Zheng-fa-hua-jing (正法華經) and Miao-fa-lian-hua-jing (妙法蓮華經). The second type is found in the Sanskrit matrials of the Sūtra and Fa-huajing-lun (法華經論). The Sanskrit matrials, which include the critical editions and manuscripts of the Lotus Sutra that I use as references in this paper, can be read in the same way. This is to say that they both include the phrase regarding the ‘Buddha’s bodhisattvacaryā.’ And the passage of Fa-hua-jing-lun is the same as the Sanskrit reading. In this manner, I was able to infer the original passage. Based on the newly understood passage, I tried to also reconstruct the context of the Chapter on the Duration of Life of the Tathāgata. As a result, I can confirm that the passage concerning the Buddha’s bodhisattvacaryā speaks about the Buddha’s saving activities, since enlightenment in the distant past. And the Sanskrit context, which names the Buddha’s saving activities as the Buddha’s bodhisattvacaryā, thus has validity. Next, I examined the background as to why the passage on the Buddha’s bodhisattvacaryā was written. In the Fa-hua-jing-lun, Vasubandhu(世親) explains that this was the original vow of the Buddha and it therefore identifies the core of the matter. However, this belief regarding the Buddha’s bodhisattvacaryā is not the generally accepted view. For this reason, it was necessary to reveal the characteristic of the original vow of the Śākyamuni Buddha by referring to the Lotus of the Compassion Sutra (Karuṇāpuṇḍarīkasūtra). The Buddha’s bodhisattvacaryā implies that the Buddha’s unlimited lifespan is indicative of his endless saving activity. The Buddha’s original vow, which is that he would lead all living beings to perfect enlightenment, could be completed via two paths; one being the revelation of the One Buddha-vehicle and the other being the Buddha’s endless bodhisattvacaryā.
  • 3.

    The Meaning of ‘Mind-made Body’(S. manomaya-kāya, C. yisheng shen 意生身) in Buddhist Cosmological and Soteriological systems

    Sumi Lee | 2015, (18) | pp.87~128 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    The ‘mind-made body’ (S. manomaya-kāya, C. yisheng shen 意生身) is seen as a subtle body attained by a Buddhist adept during meditative practice. Previous research has elucidated this concept as having important doctrinal significance in the Buddhist cosmological system. The Pāli canonical evidence shows that the manomaya-kāya is not merely a spiritual byproduct of meditative training, but also a specific existential mode of being in the system of the three realms. Studies of the manomaya-kāya to date, however, have focused mostly on early Pāli materials, and thus do not encompass theoretical development and soteriological significance of this notion in later tradition. As a beginning step to fill this gap, this article explores the meanings of the manomaya-kāya represented in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra and the two treatises of the Ratnagotravibhāga Śāstra and the Foxing lun, which are doctrinally based on the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra in their discussion of the manomaya-kāya. Through the observation of the manomaya-kāya in these Mahāyāna texts, this article seeks to demonstrate how the concept is used in the broader cosmological and soteriological system of Mahāyāna tradition. For this purpose, I first review the meanings of the manomayakāya in early Buddhist texts and then observe the cosmological and soteriological meaning of the notion by analyzing the theoretical connection between the three Mahāyāna texts.
  • 4.

    A Study of the Xiangji Philosophy of the Two Truths according to the Chengshi School

    Cho, Yoon Kyung | 2015, (18) | pp.129~163 | number of Cited : 5
    Abstract PDF
    “Xiangji” is one of the essential concepts in Chinese philosophy. It was first formed to describe the relationship between the two truths after Buddhism was introduced to China. Although the Xiangji philosophy of the two truths originated from the phrase, “What is form that is emptiness, what is emptiness that is form (色卽是空, 空卽是色)” in the Prajnaparamitas, it became the subject of discussions as an independently founded concept, later around the 5th century. Of the earliest discussions concerning the Xiangji philosophy of the two truths, the most renowned arguments were presented by the Chengshi School. They succeeded in defining the particular meaning of the Xiangji with regard to the two truths through various debates. One of the most valued contributions came from Zhizang(458-522) who interpreted “ji” as “be equal to”, based on the thought that the two truths are completely equal. Sengchuo, however, interpreted “ji” as “inseparable”, thereby claiming that the two truths were ultimately different. Sengmin (467-527) offered a different understanding by confining the meaning of “ji” to “undifferentiated”, and being dependent certain conditions. Ultimately, the Xiangji theory of the Chengshi School became an irreplaceable cornerstone of the Xiangji theory that evolved in later Chinese philosophy.
  • 5.

    Power in Practice: Cosmic Sovereignty Envisioned in Buddhism’s Middle Period

    Daniel M.Stuart | 2015, (18) | pp.165~196 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    The second to fourth-century CE Buddhist Sanskrit text, the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra, allows scholars a glimpse into a largely unstudied early cult of Buddhist meditation practitioners (yogācāra). The text’s theoretical engagement with the path of Buddhist practice reveals an expansive vision of spiritual power founded on ethical mastery and culminating in powerful forms of insight knowledge. I argue that the text represents an explicit and unique attempt to theorize a Buddha’s omniscience and the path leading to such omniscience. Employing specific Buddhist insight practices as foundational for cultivating such knowledge, the regime of practice outlined in the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra allows a Buddhist practitioner to experientially negotiate a variety of epistemological registers, from the ethical to the deconstructive, and to thereby acquire knowledge of the reality that serves as a powerful force in the development of cosmic sovereignty, Buddha-like power. I show how this theorization about Buddhist practice, knowledge, and power is carried out by drawing on traditional canonical textual sources and pushing beyond them in a layered narrative that figures the yogācāra practitioner as a powerful conduit of a Buddhist contemplative metaknowledge approaching omniscience.
  • 6.

  • 7.

  • 8.