법장 교학의 사상적 전개와 원효의 영향

Wonhyo"s influence on the Fazang"s thought and its Progress

  This paper explores Wonhyo"s influence on the Fazang(法藏)"s thought dividing Fazang"s whole writing activities into two periods.   In his writings related to the Huayen in the first half period, we can just find Fazang"s response for Wonhyo"s thought in fragments. Fazang seemed to investigate Wonhyo"s Daeseung-gisillon-so(大乘起信論疏) on the whole, with the opportunity of writing his Qixinlun-yiji(起信論義記). So the focus was directed at explicating his ideal changes after the Qixinlun-yiji and their relation with Wonhyo"s thought. Especially, I compared Wonhyo"s interpreting the relation of the Tath？gata-garbha with the ？laya-Vij？？na in his Daeseung-gisillon-so, with Fazang"s writings in his last half period. In addition, I tried explaining for the existing viewpoint about ‘the Doctrinal Classification in Four Teachings(四宗判)’ found in those writings, newly with a view of Fazang"s response for Wonhyo"s.   These tasks made me conclude as follows:   1. The reason, in my opinion, that Fazang criticizes the Daeseung-gisillon-so in his Qixinlun-yiji is that Wonhyo interprets the Dashengqixinlun(大乘起信論) with a viewpoint of the Huayen or his theory of the Harmonization of All Disputes. This leads to contradict Yoshihide Yoshizu(吉津宜英)"s opinion: the reason that Fazang, who intend to enhance the One Vehicle of Special Teaching firmly through the differentiation of the Tath？gata-garbha and the ？laya-Vij？？na, criticized Wonhyo, is that the Daeseung-gisillon-so aimed for the ‘consistency’ between the Tath？gata-garbha and the ？laya-Vij？？na.   2. While Wonhyo obviously indicated the difference of the Tath？gata-garbha and the ？laya-Vij？？na in the Daeseung-gisillon-so, Fazang didn"t classify that difference clearly in the Qixinlun-yiji. We can find this in his contrary usages such as the ‘One Mind of Tath？gata-garbha’, ‘the Tath？gata-garbha becomes the ？laya-Vij？？na followed with the Conditioned Origination’ and ‘the School of the Conditioned Origination of the Tath？gata-garbha’.   3. As translating the Dashengfajie-wuchabie-lun(大乘法界無差別論) into Chinese, Fazang divided the Tath？gata-garbha with the ？laya-Vij？？na obviously. We can find this in his not using the term of ‘One Mind of Tath？gata-garbha’ in his Wuchabie-lunshu(無差別論疏). This tendency is more enhanced in his Rulengqiexin-xuanyi(入楞伽心玄義).   4. ‘The Doctrinal Classification in Four Teachings(四宗判)’ in his Qixinlun-yiji has a strong possibility of supplementation for ‘the Five Teachings Doctrinal Classification(五敎判).’ However, the originality of ‘the Doctrinal Classification in Four Teachings’ becomes intensified gradually. This change is due to progress that Fazang has become aware of Tath？gata-garbha.   The instant that Fazang had written his Qixinlun-yiji based on Wonhyo"s Daeseung-gisillon-so and had reaffirmed the difference of the Tath？gata-garbha and ？laya-Vij？？na in the process of translation of the Dashengfajie-wuchabie-lun, Fazang"s thought had met the important change.