아비달마대비바사론
성립 연대
성립 연대에 대한 이 전통적인 설의 진실성을 반박하는 주장들이 있는데, 이 논서의 제114권에 '昔健馱羅國迦膩色迦王'(석건타라국가니색가왕: 옛날 건타라국의 가니색가왕)이라는 표현이 있어 이에 근거하여 가니색가왕 이후에 성립된 것이라는 주장들이 있다. "阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論", DDB.《Digital Dictionary of Buddhism》. Edited by A. Charles Muller. 2022년 8월 19일에 확인: 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 Basic Meaning: Treatise of the Great Commentary on the Abhidharma Senses: (Skt. Abhidharma-mahā-vibhāṣā-śāstra, *Mahāvibhāṣā) 200 fasc. by Kātyāyanīputra 迦多衍尼子, trans. Xuanzang 玄奘 between 656–659. T 1545.27.1a-1004a. Traditionally held to have been composed in Kashmir around the second century CE; the actual date is uncertain. A key philosophical treatise of the Kāśmīra Sarvâstivāda school which presents and argues against the theories of various other schools — though not held to be the earliest extant text of that school (see 六足論, 阿毘達磨集異門足論, 施設論). Commonly referred to by the short title of 大毘婆沙論 (also 大毘婆娑論). The Xuanzang translation of the *Mahāvibhāṣā is one of three texts of roughly the same name extant, all preserved in the Chinese canon. The others are the *Vibhāṣā-śāstra 鞞婆沙論 (T 1547) translated by *Saṃghabhūti/Saṃghabhadra 僧伽跋澄 et al. in 383; and the *Abhidharma-vibhāṣā-śāstra 阿毘曇毘婆沙論 (T 1546), translated by Buddhavarman 浮陀跋摩, Daotai 道泰 et al., in 437–439 CE. These works are obviously of a particular sort of historical interest as two of the three earliest Chinese translations from the early Sarvâstivāda Abhidharma corpus (the other being the Prakaraṇa-pāda translation by Guṇabhadra and Buddhayaśas, 衆事分阿毘曇論 T 1541). All three extant Vibhāṣā present themselves as commentaries on the Jñānaprasthāna 阿毘達磨發智論 T 1544)/ *Aṣṭaskandha-śāstra (八犍度論 T 1543) (hereafter JñP; this text is counted as one of the 'seven [basic] treatises' 七論 of the Sarvâstivāda Abhidharma, along with the 'six feet/legs'  六足論). However, these three texts are considered not parallel versions of the same text, but rather exemplars of a genre called vibhāṣā. There is evidence that other texts existed in the same genre that are no longer extant (Willemen, Dessein and Cox 231). On the other hand, Willemen, Dessein and Cox report, on the basis of previous scholarship, that comparison of the Buddhavarman and Xuanzang versions of the text with a Sanskrit fragment in the Pelliot collection suggests that both are translations of the same basic text, and that between the Sanskrit, these two versions of the text, and the Saṃghabhūti, we have evidence of "at the very least, three distinction recensions of a vibhāṣā" (emphasis added). They further state that "the [Sanskrit] fragment represents a recension of the vibhāṣā [emphasis added] different from that represented by either Chinese translation, and... both of the Chinese translations represent expanded, and possibly later versions of the text" (233–234). Thus, it appears that relations between at least the texts represented by the latter two of the three Chinese translations are quite close, even if they do not represent exactly the same text. The relationship between these various texts is further complicated by the fact that the Buddhavarman translation, originally in a hundred fascicles, was lost soon after its translation in a political disturbance of 439 CE, and it was only possible to partially restore it (to the extent of sixty fascicles) thereafter. The extant text is therefore reportedly only part of the original, fuller translation, and it only covers the first three of eight chapters of the Jñānaprasthāna (Willemen, Dessein and Cox, 232–233). In comparing the Buddhavarman and Xuanzang versions of the text, therefore, it is useful to bear in mind that we cannot normally expect anything appearing after p. 578a14 in Xuanzang (the beginning of JñP Ch. 4) to be matched in Buddhavarman. The Saṃghabhūti text (*Vibhāṣāśāstra T 1547) is very different in structure from the other two extant Vibhāṣā, and comments only on two sections of the root text JñP; for details see Willemen, Dessein and Cox, 235, 228–229. The authorship of the *Mahāvibhāṣā has sometimes traditionally been associated with the reign of the Kuṣāna King Kaniṣka (Willemen, Dessein and Cox 232), who may have been an important patron of Sarvâstivāda scholastic endeavors. It has been argued, however, on the basis of a mention of the name of this king in an anecdote in the text (昔健馱羅國迦膩色迦王, T 1545.27.593a15) that it must in fact post-date him; see Ōnishi Yoshinori, “Is the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra Really Arguing against the Sarvâstivādins?” Buddhist Studies Review 16, 2 (1999), 169. Another interesting argument about the date of the text relative to other materials has been advanced by Akanuma Chizen, who argues somewhat tenuously, on the basis of a single sentence in the text that he reads as referring to the prajñāpāramitā literature (此中般若說名方廣, T 1545.27.660a29) that at least some version of the prajñāpāramitā must have been known to its authors; see Hanayama Shōyū, “A Summary of Various Research on the Prajñāpāramitā Literature by Japanese Scholars,” Acta Asiatica 10 (1966), 55. The contents of significant portions of the *Mahāvibhāṣā have been summarized in a series of articles in Japanese by Kawamura Kōshō 河村孝照 (bibliographic details of these articles may be found by searching the INBUDS database at http://www.inbuds.net/jpn/index.html under Kawamuraʼs name). Willemen, Dessein and Cox (239) also give a reference to a detailed outline of the text by Fukuhara Ryōgon 福原亮厳, in his Ubu Abhidastuma ronsho no hattatsu 有部阿毘達磨論書の発達 (Kyoto: Nagata Bunshōdō 1965), 529–598. Numerous further references to prior studies, especially in Japanese, and other bibliographic aids, may be found in Willemen, Dessein and Cox. In his Riven by Lust: Incest and Schism in Indian Buddhist Legend and Historiography (University of Hawai`i Press, 2009), Jonathan A. Silk studies a very interesting instance of the working methods of the Vibhāṣā authors, in the particular instance of the Mahādeva narrative. See further 大天. References: Willemen, Charles, Bart Dessein and Collett Cox. 1998. Sarvâstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism. Leiden: Brill. See esp. 229-239. [Michael Radich, Dan Lusthaus]