진제의 사상을 이해하기 위해서는 소위 진제의 해설문헌이라 불리는 일군의 텍스트에 대해 주목할 필요가 있다. 왜냐하면 여기서 진제 또는 진제가 속한 유파의 해석이 다른 고전적인 번역문헌에 비해 보다 자유롭게 논의되고 해석될 여지가 있기 때문이다. 본고에서는『삼무성론』을 중심으로 삼성에 대한 진제의 해석상의 특징을 구체적으로 논의했다. 그리고 진제의 해석이 구체적으로『유가론』의 여러 개소와『중변분별론』 등의 초기 유식논서에 의거해서 수행되고 있음을 제시하면서, 동시에 진제의 해석이 얼마나 많은 점에서 이들 초기 유식문헌의 해석과 달라지는가를 구체적으로 제시하고자 했다. 진제의 해석을 통해 우리는 인도 유식사상 내에서 삼성설에 대한 다양한 해석이 제시되고 있었다는 문헌적 정황을 확보할 수 있을 것이다.
The aim of the present paper is to examine to what extant Paramārtha(眞諦, CE. 499-569)’s trisvabhāva theory, particularly in San wu hsing lun, is indebted concretely to Indian Yogācāra texts. In my former research I have pointed out the characteristics of his trisvabhāva interpretation, which may be summarized as follows: in Paramārtha's interpretation, the parikalpita-svabhāva refers to the cognized object, the paratantra-svabhāva to the cognizing aspect, and the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva to the non-existence of two former svabhāvas. These two svabhāvas, which is interpreted by Paramārtha to be the cognized and cognizing aspects, are so closely related each other that one can only describe their relation as "neither-same-nor-different", whereas the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva is characterized by the absence of these two Natures, but its existence is not to be negated on the ground that though two Natures do not exist, the non-existence of two Natures must be accepted to be exist. Basing on this basic point, I am pursuing to demonstrate that his descriptions of Three-natures can be reduced to the early Yogācāra sources, such as Maulī Bhūmi and Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi and Madhyāntavibhāga etc. Notwithstanding the fact that Paramārtha’s interpretation and description of the Three-natures theory are common to these sources it is to be noted that his own interpretation is very different from the Indian materials correspondent to the passages at issue. In this regard I suppose that the differences between Paramārtha and Indian Yogācāra texts may be reduced back to the various interpretation of Indian Buddhist traditions themselves.
The aim of the present paper is to examine to what extant Paramārtha(眞諦, CE. 499-569)’s trisvabhāva theory, particularly in San wu hsing lun, is indebted concretely to Indian Yogācāra texts. In my former research I have pointed out the characteristics of his trisvabhāva interpretation, which may be summarized as follows: in Paramārtha's interpretation, the parikalpita-svabhāva refers to the cognized object, the paratantra-svabhāva to the cognizing aspect, and the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva to the non-existence of two former svabhāvas. These two svabhāvas, which is interpreted by Paramārtha to be the cognized and cognizing aspects, are so closely related each other that one can only describe their relation as "neither-same-nor-different", whereas the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva is characterized by the absence of these two Natures, but its existence is not to be negated on the ground that though two Natures do not exist, the non-existence of two Natures must be accepted to be exist. Basing on this basic point, I am pursuing to demonstrate that his descriptions of Three-natures can be reduced to the early Yogācāra sources, such as Maulī Bhūmi and Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi and Madhyāntavibhāga etc. Notwithstanding the fact that Paramārtha’s interpretation and description of the Three-natures theory are common to these sources it is to be noted that his own interpretation is very different from the Indian materials correspondent to the passages at issue. In this regard I suppose that the differences between Paramārtha and Indian Yogācāra texts may be reduced back to the various interpretation of Indian Buddhist traditions themselves.
