‘말놀이’라고 번역한 ‘니룩따’는 발음의 유사성을 근거로 하여 어의를 해석하는 인도의 지적 전통으로, 불교 특히 대승불교에서는 이 지적 전통을 채용하여 새로운 사상을 주장하거나 자신의 정당성을 주장해 왔다. 이 논문은 이러한 전통 중 『반야경』에 나타난 ‘무명’(無明 avidyā)에 대한 말놀이에 대해 다루었다. 대승불교 경전에 속하는 『팔천송반야』와 『대품반야』의 산스크리트본에는 무명을 발음의 유사성, 보다 정확하게는 동일한 “√vid”어근을 취하지만 그 어근의 다른 뜻인 ‘존재하다’를 취하여 “avidyamāna”즉 존재하지 않는 것으로 풀이하고 있는 말놀이가 나타난다. 그렇지만 현장의 『대반야경』 중 『팔천송반야』와 『이만오천송반야』에 상응하는 버전의 한역 등에는 또 다른 방식의 해석 “존재하지 않는 것을 [존재하지 않는다]라고 알지 못하는” 전통적인 ‘무지’(ajñāna)의 해석도 나타난다.
필자는 이러한 말놀이를 살펴보기 위하여 『팔천송반야』와 『대품반야』의 다양한 버전들, 그리고 이 경전들에 대한 하리바드라와 아리야 비묵띠세나의 주석서를 참조하였다. 그 결과 『반야경』의 ‘무명’에 대한 말놀이가 ‘비존재’로부터 전통적인 해석에 일치하도록 ‘무지’로 점차 변화했을 것이라고 추정하였다. 그리고 최초의 ‘비존재’라는 말놀이는 『반야경』의 새로운 사상인 “공성”을 가지고 당시 주류 불교의 핵심 교리인 12연기를 설명하거나 더 나아가 대체할 수 있다는 것을 보여준 시도로 추측하였다.
The nirukta, traditionally held to be a "limb of the Veda" (vedāṅga), is the Indian semantic elucidation that interprets the meaning of a certain word (X) with another word (Y) having the phonetic similarity to the former (X). As a consequence of this interpretation, the meaning of X can be replaced and redefined by that of Y. In Early Buddhism, such a hermeneutic tool was employed to challenge or overcome the Brahmanical authority. In the same way, editors of the Mahāyāna scriptures applied the method to hollow out the meanings of key terms that had been established by the mainstream Buddhists and to give new meanings to the terms in line with their own ideas. This paper deals with the wordplay of avidyā based on the nirukta tradition in the Prajñāpāramitās. In the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā as well as the Larger Prajñāpāramitā (both of which are Sanskrit versions), there is an interpretation of “avidyā” traditionally considered to be a synonym of the ignorance (ajñāna) as “non-existent” (avidyamāna). This wordplay is undertaken based on the phonetic similarity between avidyā and avidyamāna, which is a strange choice of the meaning of the root √vid of avidyā i.e., “to exist” over “to know.” However, another interpretation of the avidyā appears in Chinese translations of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā and the Larger Prajñāpāramitā by Xuanzang and others. Here, the avidyā is said to be the ignorance of non-existence of dharmas. Haribhadra (8th century), commenting on the nirukta passage of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, elucidated that ignorance (ajñāna) itself, not the non-existence [of dharmas]!, is conventionally (saṃvṛtyā) called avidyā according to the method pertaining to the nirukta. Ārya-Vimuktiṣeṇa (6th century), who composed the first commentary on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā based on the Abhisamayālaṅkāra, understood that the avidyā is synonymous with abhūtaparikalpa, projecting what is unreal [as real]. All of these interpretations reflect the traditional understanding of the avidyā, not the wordplay presented in the Sanskrit version of the Prajñāpāramitās. Comparing all the versions available to me, I assumed that the editors of the Prajñāpāramitās had first adopted the nirukta tradition to change the widely accepted meaning of avidyā, namely, ignorance with non-existence that is interchangeable with Prajñāpāramitās’ core teaching of “emptiness ”(śūnyatā). By doing so, they would have intended to show that the newly invented concept, “śūnyatā” can be applied to (or possibly replace) the twelve links of dependent origination.
The nirukta, traditionally held to be a "limb of the Veda" (vedāṅga), is the Indian semantic elucidation that interprets the meaning of a certain word (X) with another word (Y) having the phonetic similarity to the former (X). As a consequence of this interpretation, the meaning of X can be replaced and redefined by that of Y. In Early Buddhism, such a hermeneutic tool was employed to challenge or overcome the Brahmanical authority. In the same way, editors of the Mahāyāna scriptures applied the method to hollow out the meanings of key terms that had been established by the mainstream Buddhists and to give new meanings to the terms in line with their own ideas. This paper deals with the wordplay of avidyā based on the nirukta tradition in the Prajñāpāramitās. In the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā as well as the Larger Prajñāpāramitā (both of which are Sanskrit versions), there is an interpretation of “avidyā” traditionally considered to be a synonym of the ignorance (ajñāna) as “non-existent” (avidyamāna). This wordplay is undertaken based on the phonetic similarity between avidyā and avidyamāna, which is a strange choice of the meaning of the root √vid of avidyā i.e., “to exist” over “to know.” However, another interpretation of the avidyā appears in Chinese translations of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā and the Larger Prajñāpāramitā by Xuanzang and others. Here, the avidyā is said to be the ignorance of non-existence of dharmas. Haribhadra (8th century), commenting on the nirukta passage of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, elucidated that ignorance (ajñāna) itself, not the non-existence [of dharmas]!, is conventionally (saṃvṛtyā) called avidyā according to the method pertaining to the nirukta. Ārya-Vimuktiṣeṇa (6th century), who composed the first commentary on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā based on the Abhisamayālaṅkāra, understood that the avidyā is synonymous with abhūtaparikalpa, projecting what is unreal [as real]. All of these interpretations reflect the traditional understanding of the avidyā, not the wordplay presented in the Sanskrit version of the Prajñāpāramitās. Comparing all the versions available to me, I assumed that the editors of the Prajñāpāramitās had first adopted the nirukta tradition to change the widely accepted meaning of avidyā, namely, ignorance with non-existence that is interchangeable with Prajñāpāramitās’ core teaching of “emptiness ”(śūnyatā). By doing so, they would have intended to show that the newly invented concept, “śūnyatā” can be applied to (or possibly replace) the twelve links of dependent origination.
