지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 동국대학교 불교학술원 International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture Vol.27 No.2
- 발행연도
- 2017.12
- 수록면
- 149 - 180 (32page)
- DOI
- 10.16893/IJBTC.2017.12.27.2.149
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The two truths theory is usually considered as an indispensable framework for Madhyamaka exponents to maintain a middle position. Based on Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MK) and its Indic commentaries, this paper challenges this view and argues that there is a discernible turning point in the exegetic history of the MK concerning the two truths theory and that the practice of establishing the middle position on two truths was not present in the Madhyamaka tradition until Bhāviveka of the sixth century.
In MK 24.10, Nāgārjuna affirms the pedagogical value of the mechanism of conventional conceptualization by asserting that paramārtha has to be taught through the media of vyavahāra. Nevertheless, he explicitly denies all kinds of customary categories, which are the content of conventional truth. Moreover, Nāgārjuna defines the extreme of nonexistence as a view founded on the false presupposition of existence, i.e., a view committed to the position that things previously exist and then perish. Hence, he establishes his middle position free from both extremes simply through a negation against the presupposition of existence, rather than by any dichotomic arguments. The Akutobhayā and Buddhapālita’s commentary align with this stance and further equate the middle position to paramārtha. The practice of combining the middle position with two truths theory had not been introduced into the Madhyamaka tradition until Bhāviveka, who admitted practical existence at the conventional level to secure a middle position. Such a practice was later adopted by Candrakīrti, and eventually became the standard explanation of the middle position in the Madhyamaka tradition.
In MK 24.10, Nāgārjuna affirms the pedagogical value of the mechanism of conventional conceptualization by asserting that paramārtha has to be taught through the media of vyavahāra. Nevertheless, he explicitly denies all kinds of customary categories, which are the content of conventional truth. Moreover, Nāgārjuna defines the extreme of nonexistence as a view founded on the false presupposition of existence, i.e., a view committed to the position that things previously exist and then perish. Hence, he establishes his middle position free from both extremes simply through a negation against the presupposition of existence, rather than by any dichotomic arguments. The Akutobhayā and Buddhapālita’s commentary align with this stance and further equate the middle position to paramārtha. The practice of combining the middle position with two truths theory had not been introduced into the Madhyamaka tradition until Bhāviveka, who admitted practical existence at the conventional level to secure a middle position. Such a practice was later adopted by Candrakīrti, and eventually became the standard explanation of the middle position in the Madhyamaka tradition.
목차
Abstract
Nāgārjuna
Akutobhayā
Buddhapālita’s Commentary
Prajñāpradīpa
Prasannapadā
Chinese Sources
Conclusion
References
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Bhāviveka versus Candrakīrti on the Logic of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: Negation of Arising in the Four Possible Ways
International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture
2019 .06
-
『능가경』에 나타나는 유심사상의 특징
종교연구
2016 .12
-
Kumārajīva and Nāgārjuna on the Refutation of Annihilationism: A Comparative Inquiry into Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and Kumārajīva’s Translation
International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture
2019 .06
-
실재론적 진리에서 실천적 정당화로 -인간의 삶과 실천을 중심으로 -
동서철학연구
2019 .01
-
Who or What Created the World? Bhāviveka’s Arguments Against the Hindu Concept of Īśvara
International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture
2019 .06
-
불교의 이제설과 관련되는 우빠니샤드의 논의
동서철학연구
2018 .01
-
탈진실 개념에 대한 한 가지 분석
철학연구
2022 .09
-
『星湖全集』 속 ‘實’을 바라보는 두 가지 視線 - ‘事實’과 ‘眞實’의 엇갈림과 어울림 -
대동한문학(大東漢文學)
2016 .01
-
포스트트루스 시대의 포스트모던 소설 읽기—하니프 쿠레이시의 마지막 말
영어영문학21
2022 .12
-
상호문화적 대화의 관점에서 본 플라톤과 나가르주나 : 중도와 적도 개념을 중심으로
코기토
2018 .02
-
원효의 공성과 중도관에 대한 인도 중관학파적 리뷰: 『금강삼매경론』을 중심으로
불교철학
2017 .10
-
진리 대응설에 대한 쿤과 퍼트넘의 대안
철학∙사상∙문화
2022 .06
-
‘우리’의 진리조건적 의미와 비진리조건적 의미
철학적분석
2024 .12
-
한국어 비교문장을 이용한 문장 진리치 판단에 관한 ERP 연구
언어와 정보
2019 .11
-
반야중관학의 변증적 파기와 마조의 심(心)･불(佛)･도(道)
인도철학
2024 .08
-
탈진실 시대, 진실전달 방식-죽음을 넘어 시대의 어둠을 넘어, 봄날, 소년이 온다를 중심으로 -
한국언어문학
2023 .03
-
‘포스트-트루스’ 시대의 기록과 기억－동시대 다큐멘터리의 ‘진실’ 재현 방식을 중심으로－
사이間SAI
2022 .11
-
자동화 사회의 디지털기억과 기술적 무의식- 윤이형과 테드 창의 과학소설을 중심으로
한국문학과 예술
2025 .03
-
Reconsideration of the Two Truths in the Prasannapadā: What is “laukika paramārtham”?
International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture
2019 .06
-
인도밀교의 성립에 나타난 후기중관파와 밀교의 교섭 고찰
불교학연구
2016 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-022-001651606