중기 인도 주석 전통에 나타나는 게송의 전승과 문맥화－ 전지자의 발화 가능성을 둘러싼 Tattvasaṃgraha의 게송과 Pañjikā의 주해를 중심으로－

초록

This paper traces how verses cited from a rival school were invoked in the course of consolidating one’s own doctrinal position, and how the context surrounding such citations was subsequently reconstructed over time, through an examination of texts recording debates within and beyond Buddhism in medieval India. To this end, it analyzes the debate over the Buddha’s teaching as an omniscient being (sarvajña), as it unfolds between the Mīmāṃsā thinker Kumārila and the authors of the Tattvasaṃgraha (hereafter TS) and its commentary, the Pañjikā (hereafter TSP), an important source that encyclopedically compiles the debates between Buddhists and non-Buddhists that flourished from the seventh century onward. In response to Kumārila’s objection that an omniscient Buddha absorbed in meditative concentration (samādhi) cannot perform the worldly act of speech, the TS/TSP offers as scriptural evidence a paradoxical pair of ideas drawn from the Tathāgataguhyasūtra (hereafter TGS): the one claim that the Tathāgata “utters not a single syllable,” and the complementary claim that the teaching nonetheless spontaneously issues forth—whether from the Buddha’s bodily marks or from insentient objects such as walls, a notion this paper terms “teaching from space.” Kumārila, however, seizes on precisely this image of “teaching from space, walls, and the like” and recasts it as an illustrative example, the simile of the wish-fulfilling gem (cintāmaṇi), only to dismiss it. As Kataoka(2003)’s prior research has shown, this verse in fact derives from Kumārila’s own writings; strikingly, however, it was subsequently taken up by later Buddhist authors—its Mīmāṃsā origin forgotten—as a positive scriptural proof text for the Buddhist position itself. Chapter II accordingly examines the background against which the paradoxical notions of “not uttering a single syllable” and “teaching from space” came to be formulated in the course of the TGS’s transmission, along with their textual strata. It then briefly surveys the Mahāyāna sūtras that attest to the tension between “teaching with a single voice” (ekasvara) and “not uttering a single syllable,” and reconstructs, point by point, the question-and-answer structure between Kumārila and the TS/TSP authors, in order to clarify the precise unfolding of this debate. Chapter III then examines how the wish-fulfilling-gem verse, originally deployed by Kumārila, was reconfigured in later Buddhist and non-Buddhist literature. It first surveys the citation of this verse in later Indian Buddhist treatises—including works by Haribhadra and Prajñākaramati—where it is repurposed, stripped of its original speaker and rhetorical function, as a positive maxim or scriptural proof text for the Buddhist position. It then turns to later tantric Buddhist literature, such as that of Vibhūticandra, where the same verse is redeployed in connection with new doctrinal themes such as great compassion (mahākaruṇā), before examining the Śaiva Siddhānta thinker Rāmakaṇṭha II, whose use of the verse shows that its recontextualization crossed not only sectarian and authorial boundaries but also occurred within a single author’s own corpus, where the same verse was redeployed differently according to the genre and argumentative aim of each work. Through this analysis, this paper aims to support its central argument concerning the transmission and contextualization of verses in Indian philosophical literature.

키워드