백용성의 『금강경』에 대한 이해

이수창 ( Lee Soo-chang ) 동국대학교 전자불전문화콘텐츠연구소 2017 전자불전 Vol.19 No.-

Back Yong-seong wrote three books on Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita-sutra. It seems that he dedicated himself to studying Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita-sutra from the age of 57 to 60. He left three different books on Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita-sutra and they have the following features. First, in Sinyuk Daejanggyung Gumganggyung-Ganguil (『新譯大藏 經金剛經講義』), the author exposited 112 sections after dividing the Sutra into 113 sections on the basis of the existing 32 parts. Second, Sinyuk Daejang Gumgang Maha-Prajnaparamita-sutra (『新譯大藏金剛摩 訶般若波羅蜜經』) added the author’s thoughts focused on Yefu-Daochuan (冶父道川, 1127-1130)’s theory among Hamhu-Duktong’s Gumgang Maha-Prajnaparamita-sutra Oga Haeseoleui (『金剛般若波羅蜜經五家解說誼』). Third, in Sangyuk Gwahae Gumgang-gyung (『詳譯科解金剛經』), Yong-seong newly explained Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita-sutra not being influenced by both the existing 32 parts and Oga Haeseoleui. In comparing these three kinds of Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita-sutra books, we can verify that Yong-seong’s understanding of Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita-sutra grew gradually deepened. The fact that Yong-seong wrote three different books on Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita-sutra means his level of understanding of the Sutra developed. When we discuss a person’s thought, it is commonly accepted to judge through his last book or article. Because the person’s thought becomes more elaborated and elevated with the passage of time. In this respect, it is needless to say that Yong-seong’s understanding of Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita-sutra should be based on his third book Sangyuk Gwahae Gumgang-gyung.

특집 논문 : 용성의 불전번역과 그 의의 -『금강경』과 『용성선사어록』을 중심으로-

김호귀 ( Ho-gui Kim ) 동국대학교 전자불전문화콘텐츠연구소 2015 전자불전 Vol.17 No.-

The Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra(金剛般若波羅蜜經) belongs to Maha yana Sutras, more particularly among the kinds of Prajnaparamita Sutras. The Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra translated six times in Chines language extending from 5c - 9c. The first translation was Kumarajiva(鳩摩羅什), Jingang - banrouboluomi - jing(金剛般若波羅蜜經) year 402. Yongsung Jinjong, seon master of modern korea, has translation wit h commentary notes about Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra by Ku marajiva. He translation with commentary notes over three times and one time the general idea of Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra. Thre e times translation with commentary notes of Vajracchedika Prajnapar amita Sutra are Shinyeok-daejangkyeong, Shinyeok-daejang-gumgang -mahabanyabarami-kyeong and Sangyeok-gwahae-VajraSutra. One tim -e the general idea of Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra is Gumgan g-maha-banyabaramilkyeong-Junbudaeyi-yunkwan. These writings wer e contained volume no.5 the complete works of Yongsung-daejongsa. And we can see genuine sayings form in Korean seon history, i.e. t 0he advent of Youngseonsa-aurok[龍城禪師語錄]. The advent of Youngs 0eonsa-aurok comprised in vol.Ⅰ. of Complete works of Yongsung-Dae -jongsa[龍城大宗師全集]. This Complete works of Yongsung-Daejongs a was published in year 1941 by Samjang-Yeokhoi[三藏譯會]. Youngseonsa-aurok consisted of two volumes. That summarized as follows, that is ta say, a preface introduction by Kim Sung-geun[金聲根], the body of text are 13items, a supplement, after notice by 0Kimsan-Taeheup[金山泰洽] and a epilogue by Dongsan-Hyeil[東山慧 一]. Youngseonsa-aurok recorded two types, namely, one sis genuine China alphabet the other is China alphabet and Korean alphabet. But 0the after with Korean alphabet is translated about the before with China alphabet. The contents of Youngseonsa-aurok are diversity themes. First is genuine analects of seon, Second is educations, Third is missionary work of Buddism, Forth is variety of problems modern society, etc. We know that the value of Youngseonsa-aurok are diversity. But the primary value is reappearance the genuine sayings form in Korean seon history. So, the Youngseonsa-aurok played an important role in this point.

고려시대 『金剛般若波羅密經(금강반약파라밀경)』 彫成(조성) 현황과 書誌的(서지적) 성격

최연주 ( Yeon Joo Choi ) 동아대학교 석당학술원 2015 석당논총 Vol.0 No.61

This paper is a study on the 『Vajracchedika prajnaparamita Sutra』 published in the Goryeo Dynasty. The 『Vajracchedika prajnaparamita Sutra』 is the 13th-century elites, including unmanned forces and local-powered, etc. are organized by officials was published. In addition, the monks and Buddhist temples personnel were actively involved. In an optative sentence review period - there was hope that the end of the 13th century, safety, security and the war of the people of the country, the 14th century there was hope that the Emperor Yuan(元) and King of longevity. Such information may be published at the time that reflects the circumstances of the times. The 『Vajracchedika prajnaparamita Sutra』 Published came in the 13th century, was investigated thoroughly and check the caret such as a piece in contrast to the content. The same two kinds of woodblock this contrast is to present the results. In particular, participants in the 『Vajracchedika prajnaparamita Sutra』 of the 13th century sculpture professionals and many monks were investigated. The figures from the survey hyoyeo(孝如), chungseo(沖敍), seokgwang(釋光), meoungkak(明覺), etc., are the same person and the person involved when a piece of the Tripitaka Koreana(高麗大藏經). Discussed previously published Sutra Tripitaka Koreana(高麗大藏經) piece goals and business looks to be the same with each other and their desire to pursue a practical sense. So hyoyeo(孝如), chungseo(沖敍), seokgwang(釋光), meoungkak(明覺), such as who will be more actively involved in the business. Tripitaka Koreana(高麗大藏經) piece of business, we can guess that the propulsion to take advantage of existing facilities and professionals.

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.

1214년에 조성된 해인사 소장 『金剛般若波羅蜜經』의 역사,문화적 성격

최영호 ( Young Ho Choy ) 동아대학교 석당학술원 2015 석당논총 Vol.0 No.61

This paper attempts to analyze into the historical & cultural character of the Vajracchedika-prajnaparamita-Sutra-woodblock that is stored in the Haein-Temple(海印寺). Its Sutrawas translated into Chinese(漢文) by the Kumarajiva(鳩摩羅什). Its woodblock was constructed at the Gunsyaeng-Temple(群生寺), that time was in first year(1214) of Goryo-Dynasty``s Emperor-Gojong(高宗). First, this paper organized the various analytical indicators that contained in its woodblock. As a result, we was confirmed a fact that its woodblock had been reflected in a visual artistry & convenience of printing & scientific technology of conservation. Next, this paper newly analyzed into the historical & cultural character of its woodblock. First, its woodblock is composed of a unique system and is the oldest example of the existent Vajracchedika-prajnaparamita-Sutra-woodblock. Second, the structure of its woodblock creatively reconstructed the Vajracchedikaprajnaparamita- Sutra that had been created until the early 13th century. Third, its woodblock is a prime example of the memory & recitative-version that was created to ensure a strangeness &magnificence of the Vajracchedika-prajnaparamita-Sutra. Finally, its woodblock contain the various original information that can restored the history & culture of the early 13th century.

<浮雪傳(부설전)>의 저작시기에 대한 再考證(재고증)- 典故(전고) 분석을 중심으로 -

이미숙 ( Mi Sook Lee ) 한국불교선리연구원 2014 선문화연구 Vol.17 No.-

This paper reconsidered written period based on the writings quoted in <BuSeol - Jeon>. Story of Buseol was delivered in the world by being received as a fact in reality based on <BuSeol - Jeon> which is delivered in Wolmyeongam(月明庵). However, in 1975, the academic world determined that the same work as <BuSeol - Jeon>, which Wolmyeongam delivered, existed in 『Yeongheojib(暎虛集)』, published in 1635. Though, after that, Wolmyeongam published a book which generally introduced a story about Buseol. Here, the writer thought that reconsideration on the written period of the work was necessary, therefore, historically researched the written period by comprehending the written period of the books where the writings of the work appear, and the period that the books were distributed in our nation. As the result, the researcher confirmed that from the important parts of 『Gugeumyeok - gyeongdogi(古今譯經圖紀)』, written in China during the 7th century to 『five annotation commentary of Vajracchedik. - prajnaparamita - sutra(金剛經五家解說誼)』. written in Korea during the 15th century were quoted in the important part of <BuSeol - Jeon>. Particularly, there were writings which were quoted in 『five annotation preface of Vajracchedik. - prajnaparamita - sutra(金剛經五家解說誼)』. Therefore, it was comprehended that the writer of <BuSeol - Jeon> quoted by reading 『five annotation preface of Vajracchedik. - prajnaparamit. - sutra』. Here, it was clearly confirmed that the written period of work could not go back to before 15th century. Therefore, it was confirmed that <BuSeol - Jeon> was written in the 16th century based on the works, recorded in 『Yeongheojib』. And in the process of investigating the quoted writings, the name of Queen Jindeok in the work was Seungman, and her mother``s name was Wolmyeong. Here, it was confirmed that there was a possibility that story was arranged by Yeongheo, through the point that the meaning of Queen Jineeok was connected to 『Srimala - simha - nada - sutra(勝만經)』, and the story of <BuSeol - Jeon> was related to Wolmyeong. Also, this research could prepare an opportunity to interpret the relation between Silla period, the story of the work, and the mid-Joseon, written period.

특집논문 : 『금강경』 번역의 제 문제 -백용성 대종사 번역본 『금강경』의 구성 및 내용의 특징

김호귀 ( Ho Gui Kim ) 동국대학교 전자불전문화콘텐츠연구소 2013 전자불전 Vol.15 No.-

So to speak, Sinyuk-DaejangGumgangMahabanyabaramilgyung in 1922, SnngyukGW1h:JeGumganggyung & GumgangMahabanyabaramilgyung in 1926, and SinyukDaejanggyung in 1936. Moreover, YongSung wrote a summing up of Vajracchechka prajiiaparamifjj-satra, that is, Gumgangbanyabaramilgyung- Yungvmn in 1923. Sinyuk-DaejangGumgangMahabanyabaramilgyung use Hangul at the same time with Chinese characters in the formed of book. But the contents of book was made of the commentary by Yefu-Daochuan({``j3`` )(jiJI/) of Song dynasty, the commentary by Hamhu-DuktongO~EmW ii) of Josun dynasty and the commentary by Younssung himself. SnngyukGwahaeGumganggyung was composed of fifty four sections about Vajracchechka prajiiaparamifjj-satra, and Young sung dilated upon that subject through forty one sections. SinyukDaejanggyung on the basis of thirty two sections by Zaoming, namely, the prince of Liang. But Yongsung itemize the thirty two sections into one hundred thirteen, and among them one hundred thirteen sections had notes by Yongsung himself. Gumgangbanyabaramilgyung- YWJgllWl written In answer form. twenty seven theme. But The Gumgangbanyabaramilgyung- YWJgUWl was the core of prajilaptlrami tfj-satra. question and contents of Vajracchedika prajnaparamita-sutra.

『금강경정해』의 구조와 주해의 특징 고찰

김호귀 한국선학회 2023 한국선학 Vol.- No.65

Jīngangjīng ̄ -zhengjie ̀ is a commentary on Vajracchedika-PrajnaparamitaSutra(金剛經) by Shèngxián(剩閒) of Qīng-Dynasty. Shèngxián is a lay-man of Buddhist. His genus name is Gōnge-jìecǎi(龔穊綵). In fact, however, Jīngangjīng ̄ -zhengjie ̀ was corrected by Hojungji(扈正智), who was presumed to be a Korean at the end of the Joseon-Dynasty. Shèngxián was annotated based on Vajracchedika-Prajnaparamita-Sutra translated into Chinese by Kumārajῑva(鳩摩羅什). Shèngxián divided the entire text into 50 paragraphs, annotated each term, and gave lectures for each paragraph. In particular, in the passage of the annotated each term, not only the explanation of the phrases and terms of the text, but also the explanation of the context before and after the context was added. This attitude of the commentator is an example of understanding the concept of ātman-saṃjñā(我 相), pudgala-saṃjñā(人相), sattva-saṃjñā(衆生相), and jīva-saṃjñā(壽者相) as a meaning in Chinese characters rather than a meaning in Sanskrit(梵語). In the passage of the lectures for each paragraph, He gave a detailed explanation by showing his own perspective centering on the contents of the corresponding paragraph. Hojungji summarized the contents of 32 kinds of subject classification from the standpoint of complementing the opinion of the commentator, and took the role of the corrector by actively reflecting his opinion on some specific concepts. 『금강경정해』는 잉한거사(剩閒居士) 공기채(龔穊綵)의 주해서인데, 조선 말기의 사람으로추정되는 연방도인(蓮舫道人) 호정지(扈正智)가 교정자로서 그 역할을 분담하였다. 잉한거사는 소명태자가 나집본 한역 『금강경』에 분과한 32분과에 근거하면서 경문 전체를 50 단락으로 나누고, 낱낱의 경문 단락마다 「주(註)」와 「강(講)」을 붙였다. 「주」는 경문의 문구 내지 용어에 대한 낱낱의 설명이다. 개중에는 한역된 한자의 의미에근거한 해석을 가하여 애초의 범어가 지니고 있는 의미와 전혀 무관한 해석도 많이 보인다. 「강」은 50단락에 걸쳐서 해당 경문의 내용에 대하여 잉한거사 자신의 안목을 발휘하여조망하면서 상세한 설명을 붙였다. 가령 ‘즉비’와 ‘시명’, ‘삼심불가득’, ‘지견불생’의 해석에 대하여 등에 나름대로 안목을 발휘하여 새롭게 해석을 가하였다. 이후에 교정자인 호정지는 두 가지 점에서 주해자의 견해를 보완하는 입장을 취하였다. 그 근거를 보면, 첫째로 32분과에 붙인 대의(大意)가 주해자의 견해와 동일하지 않다. 둘째로 제10, 제18, 제31의 세 분과에서 교정자가 나름대로 잉한거사의 안목에 대하여 비평을 가하였다. 가령 ‘즉비’와 ‘시명’, ‘삼심불가득’, ‘지견불생’에 대한 비평이 그것이다. 이로써 『금강경정해』는 주해자인 잉한거사의 안목과 교정자인 호정지의 견해가 합쳐진주해서임을 알 수가 있다.

길장(吉藏)의 금강경(金剛經) 분과에 대한 고찰

김호귀(Ho Gui Kim) 동국대학교 불교문화연구원 2005 佛敎學報 Vol.- No.42

『상역과해금강경』의 版次 연구

오용섭 한국서지학회 2019 서지학연구 Vol.80 No.-

『상역과해금강경』은 백용성이 불교의 대중화를 위해 국역과 해설을 더한 불경 중의 하나이다. 이 저작은 15년에 걸쳐 신활자본인 초판부터 석인본인 4판에 이르기까지 무려 5회나 발행되었다. 그가 시도한 새로운 해설방식은 독자성을 보여주는 것일 뿐 아니라 무엇보다 오늘날 『금강반야바라밀경』 국역의 초석이 되었다는 점에서 가치를 부여할 수 있다. 이 논문에서는 용성의 국역불경 중에서 5회에 걸쳐 발행된 『상역과해금강경』을 판차별로 소개하였다. 초판은 1924년에 발행되었으나 이 사실은 잘 알려져 있지 않다. 그 이유는 이후에 발행된 판에서 1926년 발행본을 초판으로 명시한 점이 크다. 용성의 생전에 모두 5차례에 걸쳐 발행된 『상역과해금강경』은 1920년대에 발행된 초판과 수정초판, 1930년대에 발행된 재판, 3판, 4판 등 두 계통으로 나눌 수 있다. 1935년에 발행된 재판은 3인이 자금을 출자하여 발행되었으며, 유일하게 가격표시가 있는 판매용이었다. 특히 이 재판에서는 많은 용어들을 대각교에서 사용하는 용어로 바꾸어 놓았으며, 이후 발행된 3판과 4판은 모두 재판을 대본으로 발행되었음을 알 수 있다.