In this paper, I tried to prove that Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men(諸法無諍三昧法門) was written later than Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i (法華經安樂行義) by comparing their contents.<BR> At first, I compared his interpretation of an-lo-hsing (安樂行) in Fahua-ching an-lo-hsing-i with that of ch’an-po-lo-mi (禪波羅密) in Chufa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. Nam-Y？eh Hui-Ssu (南岳慧思) presented san-jen (三忍) to explain the meaning of an-lo-hsing. San-jen are chungsheng-jen (衆生忍), fa-hsing-jen (法性忍) and fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ungjen (法界海神通忍). He interpreted chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsingjen among them as having three meanings. Those three meanings of chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsing-jen correspond to san-chih (三智) of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. San-chih are tao-chih (道智), tao chung-chih (道種智) and i-ch’ieh-chung-chih (一切種智). But fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ung-jen was not interpreted in terms of the three meanings. This is an example that he had not yet establish his viewpoint in Fahua-ching an-lo-hsing-i.<BR> Secondly, I compared his interpretations of ssu-nien-ch’u (四念處) in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i and in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. In Fahua-ching an-lo-hsing-i, Nam-Y？eh Hui-Ssu interpreted ssu-nien-ch’ u as ssu-mo (四魔). But in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men he presented more sophisticated interpretation of ssu-nien-ch’u as san-chih. Therefore I think that ssu-nien-ch’u of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men was more advanced than that in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i.
Ⅰ. 서론<BR>Ⅱ. 『법화경안락행의』 안락행과 『제법무쟁삼매법문』의선바라밀의 비교<BR>Ⅲ. 『법화경안락행의』와 『제법무쟁삼매법문』에 나타난 사념처 비교<BR>Ⅳ. 결론<BR>
(0)
(0)