There have been many efforts of proving Mah？y？na"s orthodoxy throughout the history of Mah？y？na Buddhism. In Mah？y？nasa？- grahav？tti(攝大乘論釋) of Asvabh？va(無性), we can find some syllogistic expressions proving Mah？y？na"s orthodoxy. But those expressions fall in the fallacy of anaik？ntika. So Jayasena(勝軍) who was the teacher of Hs？an-Tsang designed new syllogism proving Mah？y？na"s orthodoxy. That is as follows.<BR> pratij？？: All the Mah？y？na scriptures are included in Buddhavacana.<BR> hetu: Because they are not included in "non-Buddhavacana admi -tted by both parties".<BR> d？？？？nta: Like A？guttara-？gama etc.<BR> But his pupil Hs？an-Tsang pointed out the fallacy of anaik？ntika in this syllogism by presenting the counter-example of Abhidharma -j？？naprasth？na-？？stra(發智論) and designed new syllogism as follows.<BR> pratij？？: All the Mah？y？na scriptures are included in Buddhavacana.<BR> hetu: Because they are not included in "non-Buddhavacana admitted by this party".<BR> d？？？？nta: Like A？guttara-？gama etc.<BR> In Pan-Bi-Ryang-ron Won-Hyo criticized this syllogism. Won-Hyo also pointed out the fallacy of anaik？ntika in this syllogism. To show this fallacy Won-Hyo took R？pa(色) and Gh？na(香) etc. as the counter-examples.<BR> Finally Won-Hyo made himself an syllogism proving Mah？y？na"s orthodoxy as follows.<BR> pratij？？: The teachings of all the Mah？y？na scriptures are reasonable.<BR> hetu: Because they are teachings not included in "non-Buddhavacana admitted by both parties".<BR> d？？？？nta: Like A？guttara-？gama etc.<BR> Here Won-Hyo means that the orthodoxy of Mah？y？na should be decided not by proving whether they are preached by Gautama Buddha himself or not, but by proving whether they are reasonable or not. So we can guess that Buddha conceived by Won-Hyo was not the Nirm？？ak？ya but the Dharmak？ya.
Ⅰ. 서론<BR>Ⅱ. 대승불설을 증명하는 『攝大乘論釋』의 논증식과 勝軍比量<BR>Ⅲ. 勝軍比量에 대한 玄？의 비판<BR>Ⅳ. 玄？이 개량한 논증식과 그에 대한 元曉의 비판<BR>Ⅴ. 勝軍比量을 개작한 元曉의 理證的 논증식<BR>Ⅵ. 결론<BR>Ⅶ. 첨부 - 대승불설 논증과 관계된 그 밖의 단편<BR>영문초록<BR>
(0)
(0)