高麗 慧月이 보수한 房山 石經山石經 답사기

朴現圭 동북아시아문화학회 2004 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.6

그들은 동일한 텍스트를 보았는가? - 『석마하연론』 텍스트 교감과 계통 -

김지연(Kim, Ji-Yun) 동국대학교 불교문화연구원 2019 佛敎學報 Vol.0 No.88

『석마하연론』은 『대승기신론』의 주석서로, 「서」에는 용수를 저자로 적고 있다. 그러나 이 논이 일본에 전래된 8세기부터 저자에 대한 논란이 있었고, 『실담장』에서는 신라의 승려월충을 저자로 지목하기도 했다. 비록 언제, 누가, 어디서 『석론』을 지었는지 알 수 없지만, 쿠카이· 종밀·의천 등이 이 논에 주목하면서 한국·중국·일본에서 지속적으로 유통되어 많은 사본과 판본이 남아있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 『석론』의 텍스트에 대한 연구는 거의 이루어지지 않았다. 따라서 본고는 한국의 고려대장경 월정사본[麗], 중국의 방산석경[房], 일본의 이시야마데라본[石], 도다이지본[東], 오타니대본[大], 미노부산대본[身], 대일본교정대장경[校], 신수대장경[T]의 『석론』「서」 및 제1권의 처음과 마지막 부분을 교감하고, 이를 토대로 텍스트 간의 관계를 고찰하여 계통도를 작성하였다. 그 결과를 정리해보면, 첫째로 [T]에서 잘못 표기된 부분을 수정하고 누락된 부분을 보완하였다. 또한 비록 [T]에서 『석론』의 저본을 밝히지 않았지만 [T]와 [麗]가 약 88% 일치하므로, [T]가 [麗]를 저본으로 하면서 [校]를 참고로 하여 제작되었음을 유추할 수 있다. 둘째로 『석론』 텍스트의 계통을 밝혀보았다. 전체적으로는 [麗]·[房]과 [石]·[東]·[大]·[身]으로 나누어져, 중국 ․ 한국의 텍스트와 일본의 텍스트가 서로 다른 계통을 형성하였음을 확인하였다. 세부적으로는 [麗]와 [房] 및 [石]과 [東]·[大]·[身]의 계통으로 분류되었다. 전자에서는 [麗]가 [房]과 동일한 본[거란대장경]을 저본으로 하면서도 다른 텍스트를 대교하여 수정했을 것으로 추정된다. 후자에서는 [石]이[東] · [大]·[身]과는 다른 계통임을 보여주는 것으로 해석된다. 셋째는 [麗]가 일본의 텍스트인 [東]·[大]·[身]에 영향을 주었는가의 여부를 검토하였다. 제작시기를 고려한다면 [麗]가 [東]에 직접적으로 영향을 주었다고는 할 수 없지만, 두 텍스트간의 일치하는 사례를 통해 [東]이 [麗]의 저본이 되는 본의 영향을 받았을 가능성을 유추할 수 있었다. The Shi moheyanlun 釋摩訶衍論 (abbreviated as Shilun) is the commentary on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith 大乘起信論. The foreword of the commentary claims that it was written by Nāgarjuna 龍樹. However, doubts were expressed regarding the authorship from 8th century in Japan, and the description of Shittanzo 悉曇藏 raises the possibility that the Silla monk Woulchung 月忠 wrote the Shilun. Although its time of publication and author cannot be determined, many people like Zongmi 宗密, emperor Daozong 道宗, Uicheon 義天, and Kūkai 空海, have been interested in the Shilun. As a result, there are many extant texts of the Shilun in Korea, China, and Japan. However, until now, no one has focused on the pedigree of the commentary or compared the manuscripts and the woodblock-printed book of the Shilun. Therefore, in this study, I examine the Tripitaka Koreana 高麗大藏經 of Wouljung-sa 月精寺 woodblock-printed book, the Fangshan Stone Sutra 房山石經, and the manuscripts of Ishiyama-dera 石山寺, Tōdai-ji 東大寺, and Otani Univerity 大谷大, the woodblock-printed book of Minobusan University 身延山大, the DaiNibonkoteddaizokyo 大日本校訂大藏經, and the Taisho Tripitaka 大正新脩大藏經. By comparing the preface and the parts of the first volume, I was able to divide these cases into three categories. I first corrected misspellings and supplemented missing sections. Next, I traced the stem of the Shilun; on the whole, it was divided into [麗]·[房] and [石]·[東]·[大]·[身], showing that the texts from China and Korea form a different line from the texts from Japan. In detail, the uses of [麗] and [房], [石], and [東]·[大]·[身] are distinct in the two lines. In the former, I assume that [麗] was modified via comparison with other texts. In the latter, I consider that [石] differed from the original script of [東]·[大]·[身]. Finally, I examined whether [麗] influenced the Japanese texts [東]·[大]·[身]. Considering the timing of publication, [麗] cannot be said to have influenced [東] directly, but it is possible that [東] may have been affected by the original text of [麗] due to the matching sections of [麗] and [東]. In addition, I presume that [麗] was transmitted to Japan and had an effect on [大]·[身]. By organizing these connections, I have identified the pedigree of the Shilun, as shown in Table 1.

고려시대 대불정다라니(大佛頂陀羅尼) 신앙과 석당(石幢) 조성의 의미

옥나영 ( Ok Na Young ) 한국사상사학회 2018 韓國思想史學 Vol.0 No.60

대불정다라니(大佛頂陀羅尼)는 『수능엄경(首楞嚴經)』 권7에 수록되어 전하는 다라니이다. 『수능엄경』은 8세기경에 신라에 전해졌을 뿐만 아니라, 당나라와 일본의 밀교 승려들의 인적 교류에 근거하여 볼 때 『수능엄경』에 수록된 대불정다라니도 별도의 관심의 대상이 되었을 가능성이 있다. 고려시대 들어서 의천(義天)의 송나라 유학을 계기로 『수능엄경』에 대한 관심이 촉발되었으며, 이자현(李資玄)의 활동 이후에는 특히 선가(禪家)에서 『수능엄경』과 관련한 이해가 깊어지게 되었다. 그런데 『수능엄경』에 대한 관심과는 별도로 대불정다라니만을 신앙 활동의 근거로 삼았던 것으로 추정되는 신앙 사례들이 고려~조선시대의 문자자료와 시각자료의 형태로 전해지고 있다. 고려 사람들은 대불정다라니만을 서적으로 간행하거나, 석탑을 장엄할 때 활용하거나 또는 대불정다라니만을 새긴 석당 또는 석비를 제작하기도 하였다. 이 중 고려 말에 간행된 것으로 추정되는 장서각소장본(보물1129호)은 대불정다라니의 범자와 함께 한자로 음역 표기를 더한 형태의 간행물이다. 장서각소장본에서 사용한 한자는 방산석경에 새겨져 전하는 『석교최상승비밀장다라니집(釋敎最上乘秘密藏陁羅尼集)』 권2에 수록된 487구 및 같은 방산석경의 불공역의 481구 대불정다라니의 표기법과 상당수 일치한다. 이는 고려시대 요나라 불교와의 교류의 구체적인 예로서 중요하다. 또한 이 때 사용한 한자와 발음법이 조선시대 간행된 『오대진언(五大眞言)』에서 사용되고 있다. 동일한 범자를 음역할 때 보다 정확성이 높다고 생각하는 한자로 변용하기도 한다는 점을 고려한다면, 장서각 소장본의 발간은 조선시대 『오대진언』 간행 배경의 단서가 된다는 점에서 의미가 크다. 대불정다라니를 범자로 표기한 다른 신앙 모습으로는 평안도, 황해도 지역에서 만들어진 대불정다라니 석당 및 제천 송계리 대불정주비에서 그 예를 찾을 수 있다. 다라니를 새긴 석당이 제작된 것은 중국에서 당~송 시대를 거쳐 요~금대에 이르기까지 변화하고 확산되었던 석당 제작이라는 신앙을 수용한 예라고 할 수 있다. 또한 대불정다라니의 공덕을 신앙하는 사람들이 생겨났고, 그 다라니를 범자로 표기하고 원어에 가깝게 다라니를 독송하는 것을 중요하게 생각했던 당시의 다라니에 대한 신앙을 반영하는 모습이라고 할 수 있다. The Mahapratyavgira-dharani is listed in Surangama Sutras Volume7. Surangama Sutras was introduced to Silla in the 8th century. Also, based on the interchange of Tang dynasty and Japanese Esoteric buddhist monks, it seems that Mahapratyavgira-dharani was also become an object of interest. In the Goryeo period, interest in Surangama Sutras was raised as the result of the Uicheon(義天)’s studying abroad in the Song dynasty. Since the Lee ja-hyen(李資玄)’s scholarly activity, Goryeo became deeper its understanding of Surangama Sutras. However, apart from the interest in Surangama Sutras, there are some cases that are supposed to have made the Mahapratyavgira-dharani the basis of faith activities. Such cases are handed down in the form of literary data and visual data in the period of Goryeo~Joseon dynasty. Among them, Treasure No.1129 is a publication in addition to the Sanskrit of Mahapratyavgira-dharani plus the pronunciation of Chinese character. The Chinese character used in Treasure No.1129 is quite consistent with the notation of Fangshan Stone Tripitaka No.1071 and No.1048. This is important as a concrete example of buddhist exchange between Goryo and Liao dynasty. Also pronunciation of Chinese characters had been used at this time was used in the Odaejineon(five mantra anthlogy 五大眞言) published in the Joseon. Therefore Treasure No.1129 is meaningful because it is a clue to background of Odaejineon‘s publication. Stone-sutras of Mahapratyavgira-dharani are another example of faith in the Sanskrit language of the Mahapratyavgiradharani. The productions of the stone-sutra of Mahapratyavgira-dharani are an example of accepting the faith of making the stone-sutras of Mahapratyavgira-dharani which spreaded from Tanng to Jin dynasty. It is a reflection of the dharani faith that people who believed in the charities of Mahapratyavgira-dharani had arisen and that it is important to recite Mahapratyavgira-dharani in a similar pronunciation as Sanskrit.

房山石經, 契丹大藏經, 그리고 高麗大藏經

하정민 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2020 한국문화 Vol.0 No.91

Located in the Fangshan district in the southwest of Beijing, the Yunju temple contains a collection of stone-carved Buddhist scriptures. These stone-carved scriptures which are engravings of Buddhist sutras on stone slabs, are called the Fangshan Stone Sutras. The carving of the Buddhist scriptures on stone at Fangshan began in the early seventh century and continued until the seventeenth century. In particular the Liao dynasty witnessed a large-scale stone-carved sutra project at Fangshan in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The stone sutras carved during this period were based on the text versions printed from the new Liao Canon (Khitan Canon or Qidan Canon). The Liao Canon was a complete collection of Buddhist scriptures compiled and carved on wooden blocks in the eleventh century, but it is not extant. The Fangshan Stone Sutras executed during the dynasty are fundamental in order to delve into real aspects of the Liao Canon and its relationship with the Goryeo Canon. This study closely examines the Fangshan Stone Sutras executed during the Liao dyansty, as a preliminary attempt to explore features and characteristics of the Liao Canon. To understand the Fangshan Stone Sutras executed during the dyansty, this paper looks into the formation and development of stone-carved sutras at Fangshan. This paper also explores the motivation of the creation of the stone-sutras and their original texts on which the stone sutras were based, from the seventh to seventeenth century. A great number of stone-carved sutras created during the Liao dynasty are handed down at Fangshan, and thus a close investigation on the stone-carved sutras will bring little known aspects of the Liao Canon to light. Importantly a very small number of printed copies from the Liao Canon were discovered in a wooden pagoda in Ying County, Shanxi province in China recently. The comparison of some printed texts from the wooden pagoda to the Fangshan Stone Sutras during the Liao dynasty reveals the fact that the texts of the copies were almost identical, but the scale, format and style of them were different. In particular, the scale of the stone sutras is a bit larger than that of the wooden pagoda pieces. This discrepancy in scale indicates that scripts for stone sutras at Fangshan had to be rewritten to adjust to the size of the stone slabs. Other important pieces of reference for research on the Liao Canon are Sugi's Collation Notes on the second edition of the Goryeo Canon finished around the mid-13th century. Considering several pieces of information obtained by comparing the extant texts from the wooden pagoda in Ying County to the stone-carved sutras at Fangshan, this paper focuses on Sugi’s notes on the corresponding Buddhist scriptures included in the second Goryeo Canon. A careful analysis of Sugi's notes about the specific texts appears to confirm the accuracy and reliability of Sugi’s notes and suggest a distinct characteristic of the Liao Canon that are different from other Buddhist canons. .

투고논문 : 범(梵),장(藏),돈황본 『금강경』 대조 연구

최종남 ( Jong Nam Choi ) 인도철학회 2009 印度哲學 Vol.0 No.27

실크로드 역사에서 중심역할을 한 돈황은 세계적인 造型遺産과 文獻遺産을 남겼다. 이 중에서 문헌유산은 2만 여점의 필사본들이다. 이들은 莫高窟제 17호굴에 밀봉된 채 보존되어 있다가 도사 王圓?과 그의 조수 楊씨에 의해 光緖226(1900)년에 발견되었다. 발견된 필사본 2만 여점은 대부분 佛典들로서 한문본이다. 본 논문에서는 이들 돈황사본 중에서 完本, 혹은 完本에 가까운 20점의 대승불전 『금강경』을 산스크리트어 원전, 티베트어 번역본, 고려대장경과 대조하고, 그리고 이와 함께 중국과 일본의 大藏經類인 房山石經, ?砂大藏經, 永樂北藏, 乾隆大藏經, 大正新修大藏經을 각각 대조·연구하였다. 이들의 언어별, 大藏經類別대조에 의하면 돈황사본에 상당수의 오류가 있음을 알 수 있었다. 그 내용을 보면 다음과 같다. ①단어, 혹은 문장 생략, ②단어 첨삭, ③비슷한 한자로 誤記, ④단어倒置, ⑤단어를 바꾸어 필사, ⑥단어, 혹은 문장을 중복 필사, ⑦문장을 다르게 구성하여 필사, ⑧필사시 빠뜨린 단어, 혹은 문장을 오른쪽 옆빈 行에 기록한 경우 등이다. 이와 같은 예들로 보아 돈황사본은 신앙과 기원을 위하여 필사하였고, 그리고 돈황사본의 필사 시기는 대부분 北宋蜀版大藏經의 開版이전인 971년 전에 필사되었으리라고 추정된다. 본 연구에서는 『敦煌寶藏』에 수록되어 있는 卷5까지 중에서 스타인 본 『금강경』(구마라집 번역) 20점만을 중심으로 대조·연구하였다. 아직도 수천 점의 『금강경』이역본별, 언어본별 필사본들이 현존하고 있다. 많은 관련학자들이 동참하여 이와 같은 필사본들을 경전의 原意에 가깝게 교감·연구하였으면 한다. Dunghuang who took an important role in history of the Silk Road left legacies of international formative arts and literatures. Among these, The legacies of literatures consist of 20 thousand manuscripts. They were in good preservation with sealing up in the 17th cave of Mogao Cave, and found by an enlightened buddhist Wang Yuanlu and his assistance Mr. Yang in Guangxu 226(A.D. 1900). Most of the found manuscripts are Buddhist scriptures in Chinese. The rest are manuscripts in Sanskrit, Tibetan, Mongolian and languages of Central Asia. These manuscripts that were collected by expedition parties of England, France, Japan, Russia, America, etc. are displayed in libraries, museums, etc. of each countries. This treatise compares Vajracchedika-prajnaparamita Sutra 20 Mahayana scriptures that are complete works or close to them in Dunghuang`s manuscripts with original works in Sanskrit, translated ones in Tibetan and Tripitaka Koreana. In Addition, this paper studies Tripitakas of China and Japan such as Fang Shan Shi Jing, Tripitaka of Jisha, Tripitaka of Northern Yongle Edition, Tripitaka of Qianlong and Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo im comparison. I have found a lot of faults in Dunghwang`s manuscripts by comparison in languages and with other Tripitakas. The faults are followings. ①omission of words or sentences, ②correction of words ③miswriting with similar Chinese character, ④inversion of words, ⑤use of new words ⑥duplication of words or sentences, ⑦change in construction of sentences, ⑧writing omitted words or sentences at copying in the blank line at left, etc. I presume with above mistakes that Dunghwang`s manuscripts were copied for faith and prayer before A.D. 971 when Tripitaka of the Northern Song Dynasty Shu edition had been revised. This paper compares and studies only 20 Vajracchedika-prajnaparamita Sutras(translation by Kumarajiva) of Stein among 5 books contained in Dun Huang Bao Zang. Thousands of Vajracchedika-prajnaparamita Sutras still exists in other languages and translation versions. I hope that a lot of scholars take part in studying the above manuscripts in comparison with original works.

梵・藏・돈황본 『금강경』 대조 연구

최종남 인도철학회 2009 印度哲學 Vol.0 No.27

Dunghuang who took an important role in history of the Silk Road left legacies of international formative arts and literatures. Among these, The legacies of literatures consist of 20 thousand manuscripts. They were in good preservation with sealing up in the 17th cave of Mogao Cave, and found by an enlightened buddhist Wang Yuanlu and his assistance Mr. Yang in Guangxu 226(A.D. 1900). Most of the found manuscripts are Buddhist scriptures in Chinese. The rest are manuscripts in Sanskrit, Tibetan, Mongolian and languages of Central Asia. These manuscripts that were collected by expedition parties of England, France, Japan, Russia, America, etc. are displayed in libraries, museums, etc. of each countries. This treatise compares Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra 20 Mahayana scriptures that are complete works or close to them in Dunghuang's manuscripts with original works in Sanskrit, translated ones in Tibetan and Tripitaka Koreana. In Addition, this paper studies Tripitakas of China and Japan such as Fang Shan Shi Jing, Tripitaka of Jisha, Tripitaka of Northern Yongle Edition, Tripitaka of Qianlong and Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo im comparison. I have found a lot of faults in Dunghwang's manuscripts by comparison in languages and with other Tripitakas. The faults are followings. ①omission of words or sentences, ②correction of words ③miswriting with similar Chinese character, ④inversion of words, ⑤use of new words ⑥duplication of words or sentences, ⑦change in construction of sentences, ⑧writing omitted words or sentences at copying in the blank line at left, etc. I presume with above mistakes that Dunghwang's manuscripts were copied for faith and prayer before A.D. 971 when Tripitaka of the Northern Song Dynasty Shu edition had been revised. This paper compares and studies only 20 Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtras(translation by Kumārajīva) of Stein among 5 books contained in Dun Huang Bao Zang. Thousands of Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtras still exists in other languages and translation versions. I hope that a lot of scholars take part in studying the above manuscripts in comparison with original works. 실크로드 역사에서 중심역할을 한 돈황은 세계적인 造型遺産과 文獻遺産을 남겼다. 이 중에서 문헌유산은 2만 여점의 필사본들이다. 이들은 莫高窟 제 17호굴에 밀봉된 채 보존되어 있다가 도사 王圓籙과 그의 조수 楊씨에 의해 光緖 226(1900)년에 발견되었다. 발견된 필사본 2만 여점은 대부분 佛典들로서 한문본이다. 본 논문에서는 이들 돈황사본 중에서 完本, 혹은 完本에 가까운 20점의 대승불전 『금강경』을 산스크리트어 원전, 티베트어 번역본, 고려대장경과 대조하고, 그리고 이와 함께 중국과 일본의 大藏經類인 房山石經, 磧砂大藏經, 永樂北藏, 乾隆大藏經, 大正新修大藏經을 각각 대조・연구하였다. 이들의 언어별, 大藏經類別 대조에 의하면 돈황사본에 상당수의 오류가 있음을 알 수 있었다. 그 내용을 보면 다음과 같다. ①단어, 혹은 문장 생략, ②단어 첨삭, ③비슷한 한자로 誤記, ④단어 倒置, ⑤단어를 바꾸어 필사, ⑥단어, 혹은 문장을 중복 필사, ⑦문장을 다르게 구성하여 필사, ⑧필사시 빠뜨린 단어, 혹은 문장을 오른쪽 옆 빈 行에 기록한 경우 등이다. 이와 같은 예들로 보아 돈황사본은 신앙과 기원을 위하여 필사하였고, 그리고 돈황사본의 필사 시기는 대부분 北宋蜀版大藏經의 開版 이전인 971년 전에 필사되었으리라고 추정된다. 본 연구에서는 敦煌寶藏에 수록되어 있는 卷5까지 중에서 스타인본 금강경(구마라집 번역) 20점만을 중심으로 대조・연구하였다. 아직도 수천 점의 금강경 이역본별, 언어본별 필사본들이 현존하고 있다. 많은 관련학자들이 동참하여 이와 같은 필사본들을 경전의 原意에 가깝게 교감・연구하였으면 한다.

高麗大藏經本 釋摩訶衍論의 底本 연구

김영미 이화여자대학교 이화사학연구소 2019 梨花史學硏究 Vol.0 No.59

Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(Shi moheyan lun 釋摩訶衍論) was included in the second edition of the Goryeo Canon following the Liao(Khitan) Canon. In this aspect, this paper examines several wooden-printed versions of Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna and the implication of the text in the Goryeo Canon. Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna in the Goryeo Canon shows differences from the version in the Liao Canon based on the Fangshan shijing(房山石經) edition, with regard to the content and transcription of the spell. Therefore, two wooden-printed versions in the Goryeo and Liao Canon are not same each other. By comparing the texts in the Goryeo, Liao and Yan(燕) editions, fragmentarily quoted in the Note of Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(釋摩訶衍論記) by Puguan(普觀) of the Southern Song dynasty, it is also found that the Liao edition is the Fangshan shijing edition and the Goryeo edition is different from the one in the Goryeo Canon. In addition, the one in the Goryeo Canon is the most similar to the one in the Yan edition, but they are not identical. It is resulted from the comparison between the excerpts of the commentary on Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna by a Buddhist monk of Khitan and the text in the Goryeo Canon. Considering that Dàozōng(道宗, 在位1055-1101) wrote the introduction(引文) on Comprehensive Profound Extracts of Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(釋摩訶衍論通玄鈔) by Zhifu(志福) and mentioned its collation, there was a newly printed version in Khitan, based on the collation. Fawu(法悟) also would contain emperor’s interpretation on Praising Profound Commentary of Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(釋摩訶衍論贊玄疏), discussing on the new version with Dàozōng. From this point of view, it is assumed that the text Fawu referred to was a newly printed Yan edition and it was different from the one in the Liao Canon which Zhifu referred to. After the texts written by Buddhist monks of Khitan and the Yan edition were introduced to Goryeo, Double-proofread Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(重校釋摩訶衍論) was collated by Uicheon(義天, 1055-1101). Therefore, it is suggested that Double-proofread Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna was included in the second edition of the Goryeo Canon.

『釋教最上乘秘密藏陁羅尼集』에 나타난 地藏菩薩陁羅尼

유성열,강대현 한국불교학회 2015 韓國佛敎學 Vol.74 No.-

The collection of dhāraṇī for the teaching of Śākyamuni as supreme vehicle secret repository, the book is a collection of dhāraṇī commonly used in the Buddhist community, written in 898 years by the Xinglin, and all of dhāraṇī carved in stone of Fangshan cave, such as by Weihuo in the Liao and Jin dynasty. This book is for those in the 21 books from the total of 30 books of Fangshan Stone Tripitaka, consists of 30 volumes. It is not an exaggeration to say that the book was the culmination of a dhāraṇī in Buddhist history because there are a total of more than 600 dhāraṇī in this book. Furthermore, it seems to be a valuable resource for future research of the letters of Siddhamātṛkā-type because there are the letters of Chinese transliteration of the Sanskrit and the letters of Siddhamātṛkā-type side by side in writing. And there are four pieces of a Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva dhāraṇī in this book Vol.21. It is as follows that ①the Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva dhāraṇī(from Daśacakra-kṣitigarbha sūtra), ②the Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva dhāraṇī such as the range of indestructible adamantine, ③the Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva dhāraṇī, ④the Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva magnanimousness dhāraṇī. ① is a another representation of dhāraṇī for the letters of Chinese transliteration of the Sanskrit ‘衆德究竟記莂呪術陀羅尼章句’ in the Daśacakra-kṣitigarbha sūtra or ‘具足水火吉祥光明大記明呪總持章句’ in the Great vehicle and collection sutra of Daśacakra-kṣitigarbha. ② is a name for a new Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva mantra that appears on the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi sūtra. However, unlike these scriptures ①‧② Basis for ③‧④ had not yet been discovered. but the analysis of ③‧④dhāraṇī, ③ is not satisfied by Nirvana Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva themselves wish, it is has to do with a main object of veneration for great vow. ④ seems to be related to dhāraṇī for majestic power of Kṣitigarbha, which unfolded in the hall of Kṣitigarbha of garbhodbhava-maṇḍala. Anyway, according to the authors, the basic analysis of The collection of dhāraṇī for the teaching of Śākyamuni as supreme vehicle secret repository and the study on four kinds of Kṣitigarbha bodhisattva dhāraṇī that was contained in it, the authors wish that it was back-to-back studying with a more in-depth research in the future. 『釋教最上乘秘密藏陁羅尼集』은 行琳이 898년에 당시까지 佛家에서 유통되었던 다라니를 집성‧편찬한 책이다. 그리고 이 책의 다라니를 遼‧金代에 와서 惟和 등이 房山의 동굴에 刻石하였다. 이 책은 『房山石經』 전30책 중에서 28책에 해당하는데, 여기에는 총 600여 편의 다라니가 수록되어 있어서 불교역사상 가히 다라니의 집대성판이라고 해도 과언이 아니다. 더구나 이 책은 편찬과정에서 당시 크게 유행하였던 悉曇梵字를 한역음자 옆에 병서하고 있어서 향후 불전에 나타나고 있는 여러 진언 및 다라니에 대한 실담범자 구현 및 실담문자 연구에 귀중한 자료가 될 것으로 보인다. 그리고 이 책 21권에 본 논고의 주제인 지장보살다라니 네 편이 수록되어 있다. 즉 ①「地藏菩薩陁羅尼」(出『十輪經』), ②「地藏菩薩金剛不可壞行境界陁羅尼」, ③「地藏菩薩陁羅尼」, ④「地藏菩薩廣大心陁羅尼」가 그것이다. ①은 『大方廣十輪經』의 ‘衆德究竟記莂呪術陀羅尼章句’ 또는 『大乘大集地藏十輪經』의 ‘具足水火吉祥光明大記明呪總持章句’에 대한 또 다른 한역음자 표기의 다라니이다. ②는 『대일경』에 나타나는 ‘지장보살진언’을 새롭게 명칭한 것이다. 이들 ①‧②와는 달리 ③‧④에 대한 경전적 근거는 아직 발견하지 못했다. 하지만 ③‧④에 대한 다라니구를 분석해보면 ③은 지장보살이 자원하여 열반에 들지 않는 이른바 大願本尊과 관련이 있고, ④는 胎藏曼茶羅의 地藏院에서 펼쳐지고 있는 지장보살의 위신력과 관련된 다라니로 보인다. 어쨌든 『석교최상승비밀장다라니집』에 대한 기초적인 분석과 동시에 그 안에 수록되어 있었던 지장보살다라니 네 편에 대한 고찰을 시발점으로 하여 향후 이 책의 모든 다라니에 대한 보다 심도 있는 연구가 뒤를 이었으면 한다.

고려대장경본(高麗大藏經本) 『석마하연론(釋摩訶衍論)』의 저본(底本) 연구

김영미 ( Kim Young-mi ) 이화여자대학교 이화사학연구소 2019 梨花史學硏究 Vol.0 No.59

Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(Shi moheyan lun 釋摩訶衍 論) was included in the second edition of the Goryeo Canon following the Liao(Khitan) Canon. In this aspect, this paper examines several wooden-printed versions of Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna and the implication of the text in the Goryeo Canon. Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna in the Goryeo Canon shows differences from the version in the Liao Canon based on the Fangshan shijing(房山石經) edition, with regard to the content and transcription of the spell. Therefore, two wooden-printed versions in the Goryeo and Liao Canon are not same each other. By comparing the texts in the Goryeo, Liao and Yan(燕) editions, fragmentarily quoted in the Note of Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(釋摩訶衍論記) by Puguan(普觀) of the Southern Song dynasty, it is also found that the Liao edition is the Fangshan shijing edition and the Goryeo edition is different from the one in the Goryeo Canon. In addition, the one in the Goryeo Canon is the most similar to the one in the Yan edition, but they are not identical. It is resulted from the comparison between the excerpts of the commentary on Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna by a Buddhist monk of Khitan and the text in the Goryeo Canon. Considering that Dàozong(道宗, 在位 1055-1101) wrote the introduction(引文) on Comprehensive Profound Extracts of Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(釋摩訶衍論通玄鈔) by Zhifu(志福) and mentioned its collation, there was a newly printed version in Khitan, based on the collation. Fawu(法悟) also would contain emperor’s interpretation on Praising Profound Commentary of Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(釋摩訶衍論贊玄疏), discussing on the new version with Dàozong. From this point of view, it is assumed that the text Fawu referred to was a newly printed Yan edition and it was different from the one in the Liao Canon which Zhifu referred to. After the texts written by Buddhist monks of Khitan and the Yan edition were introduced to Goryeo, Double-proofread Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna(重校釋摩訶衍論) was collated by Uicheon(義天, 1055-1101). Therefore, it is suggested that Double-proofread Explanation of the Treatise on Mahāyāna was included in the second edition of the Goryeo Canon.

《房山石經》與《龍龕手鑒》字形比較研究

王立軍 경성대학교 한국한자연구소 2009 한자연구 Vol.0 No.1