『돈오대승정리결』에서 摩訶衍의 불성 이론을 비불교도들의 아뜨만 이론이라고 비판하는 이는 까말라씰라인가?

Abstract

Through the colophon of the Summary of the Essential Points of the Mahāyāna Sūtras (Dàshèng jīng zuǎn yàoyì 大乘經纂要義, Or.8210/S.3966 and PC2298) unearthed from Dunhuang, it can be seen that the gradual teaching of Indian Buddhism was approved officially in Tibet in 822. As described in Tibetan history writings such as the Ba’s Testimony and the Chronicle of Buddhism in India and Tibet, it can be confirmed that King Khri srong lde brtsan (reigned 755-797) did not approve officially the gradual teaching of Indian Buddhism after the Kamalaśīla (ca. 740-795) and Mahāyāna (摩訶衍, fl. late 8th c.)’s debate, but only in 822, when King Khri gtsug lde brtsan (reigned 815-841) was reign. In the True Principle of the Mahāyāna Teaching of Sudden Enlightenment (Dùnwù dàchéng zhènglǐ jué 頓悟大乘正理決), Indian Buddhist criticizes Mahāyāna’s concept of “Buddha-nature.” The gist of the criticism of Indian Buddhist is that the concept of ‘Buddha-nature’ is similar to the ‘self (ātman)’ theory of non-Buddhists. If Kamalaśīla and Mahāyāna had a direct debate with Tibetan historical writings such as the Ba’s Testimony and the Chronicle of Buddhism in India and Tibet as described by modern scholars such as Eugene Obermiller, Paul Demiéville, and Giuseppe Tucci, etc., would Kamalaśīla criticize Mahāyāna’s theory of Buddha-nature as the non-Buddhists’ theory like the description of the True Principle of the Mahāyāna Teaching of Sudden Enlightenment. Kamalaśīla, an eminent Indian scholar-monk belonging to the Yogācāra-madhyamaka, interprets Buddha-nature’s teachings as a teaching featuring “selflessness (nairātmya)” after setting the teachings of One-vehicle (ekayāna) as the entire theme in his work, the Madhyamakāloka. It can be seen that his understanding of Buddha-nature is closely connected to a phrase, “the embryo of the tathāgata, which is selflessness (tathāgatanairātmyagarbha)” in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. Through this, it can be confirmed that Kamalaśīla is not the one who criticizes Mahāyāna’s theory of Buddha-nature as the ‘self (ātman)’ theory of non-Buddhists in the True Principle of the Mahāyāna Teaching of Sudden Enlightenment.