Acharya Nāgārjuna

[자미온]

Acharya Nāgārjuna

(Devanagri:नागार्जुन, Telugu: నాగార్జున, Tibetan: ཀླུ་སྒྲུབ་ klu sgrub, Chinese: 龍樹) (ca. 150–250 CE) was an Indian philosopher who founded the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism^{[citation needed]}.

원래의 이름은 나가르주나(Nagarjuna)이며, 용수(龍樹)는 산스크리트어로 용(龍)을 뜻하는 나가(naga)와 나무[樹]를 뜻하는 아가르주나(agarjuna)를 한자로 옮겨 표기한 것이다. 한국·중국·일본 등 동북아시아 지역에서는 모두 용수라는 이름으로 나타내며, 존칭(尊稱)으로 용수보살(龍樹菩薩)이나 용수대사(龍樹大士)라고 부르기도 한다. 밀교(密教)에서는 ‘용맹(龍猛)’이라고 나타내기도 한다.

인도 중부 데칸고원(Deccan)에 있는 비다르바(vidarbha) 출신으로 알려져 있다. 처음에는 브라만교(Brahmanism)의 교리를 공부하였으며, 카시미르(Kashmir)와 인도 북부 지역을 두루 여행하며 소승불교般若經)≫ 등의 대승불교 경전을 공부하여 새롭게 발흥하던 대승불교의 교리를 체계화하는 데 크게 기여하였다. 당시 인도 중남부의 사타바하나 왕조(Satavahanas)는 하이데라바드(Hyderabad) 인근에 불교 강원(講院)을 세워 실론과 간다라, 중국 등지의 유학승들을 머무르게 했는데, 용수는 만년에 이곳에서 사타바하나 왕조의 보호를 받으며 가르침을 펼쳤다. 그래서 강원이 있던 곳은 그의 이름을 따서 나가르주나 언덕이라고 불렸다고 전해진다.

용수는 공(空)과 중도(中道) 이론을 체계화하여 대승불교의 발전에 큰 영향을 끼쳐 대승8종(大乘八宗)의 종사(祖師)라고도 불린다. 그는 모든 현상은 그 나름의 인과관계로 나타난다는 석가의 연기설(緣起說)을 바탕으로 대승불교의 기반이 된 ≪반야경≫에서 강조된 ‘공(空)’을 논증하였다. 그는 모든 현상은 인과관계로 나타나는 것이므로 스스로 독립해 존재하는 불변의 실체는 없다고 보고, 모든 존재는 무자성(無自性)이며 공(空)이라고 하였다. 그래서 용수의 공은 무자성공(無自性空)이라고 나타내기도 한다.

그리고 그는 진속이제설(眞俗二諦說)을 기초로 공(空)과 연기(緣起)가 대립하지 않음을 밝히며 중도(中道)에 대해서도 논증하였다. 그는 인간의 인식을 초월한 진리의 세계를 진제(眞諦)인 제일의제(第一義諦)라고 하였고, 언어나 개념으로 인식된 상대적인 현상의 세계를 세속제(世俗諦)라고 구분하였다. 그리고 진제(眞諦)에서는 모든 법이 공(空)하지만 세속제(世俗諦)의 현상적인 차원에서는 연기(緣起)에 의한 상대적인 세계가 이루어지며, 진제와 세속제는 서로 의존하고 있는 진속불이(眞俗不二)의 관계에 있다고 보았다. 곧 공(空)은 ‘없음[無]’이 아니라 모든 것이 서로 관계를 맺고 있다는 연기(緣起)이며, 있음과 없음을 초월한 중도(中道)야말로 불교의 가장 핵심적인 가르침이라는 것이다. 그는 ≪중론(中論)≫에서 “연기법이 곧 공이며 가명이며 중도(中道)의 뜻이다(衆因緣生法 我說卽是無 亦爲是假名 亦是中道義)”라고 하였고, 중도(中道)에 대해서는 “생하지도 않고 멸하지도 않으며, 상주하지도 않고 단멸하지도 않으며, 동일하지도 않고 다르지도 않으며, 오지도 않고 가지도 않는다(不生亦不滅 不常亦不斷 不一亦不異 不來亦不出)”라고 설하였다.

이러한 용수의 사상은 불교 교리의 발전에 큰 영향을 끼쳤다. 그의 사상은 구마라습(鳩摩羅什)에 의해 중국으로 전해져 ‘삼론종(三論宗)’을 형성하였다. 또한 8세기 산타라크시타(Santaraksita, 寂護)에 의해 티베트로 전래되어 티베트 불교의 형성에도 큰 영향을 끼쳤다.

용수에게는 ≪중론≫, ≪회쟁론(廻諍論)≫, ≪공칠십론(空七十論)≫, ≪십이문론(十二門論)≫, ≪대지도론(大智度論)≫, ≪마하반야바라밀경(摩訶般若波羅蜜経)≫, ≪십주비바사론(十住毘婆沙論)≫ ≪보행왕정론(寶行王正論)≫ 등의 저술이 전해진다. 하지만 이 가운데 ≪중론≫과 ≪회쟁론≫을 제외한 나머지 저술들은 학계에서 그의 저술로 확실히 인정되지는 않고 있으며, 다양한 이견이 제출되고 있다.

His writings are the basis for the formation of the Madhyamaka school, which was transmitted to China under the name of the Three Treatise (Sanlun) School. He is credited with developing the philosophy of the Prajnaparamita sutras, and was closely associated with the Buddhist university of Nalanda. In the Jodo Shinshu branch of Buddhism, he is considered the First Patriarch.

Little is known about the actual life of the historical Nagarjuna. The two most extensive biographies of Nagarjuna, one in Chinese and the other in Tibetan, were written many centuries after his life and incorporate material seen by some as historically unreliable. Nagarjuna was born a Brahmin^[1], which in his time connoted religious allegiance to the Vedas, probably into an upper-caste Brahmin family and probably in the southern Andhra region of India.^[2]

Philosophy

Nāgārjuna's primary contribution to Buddhist philosophy is in the use of the concept of śūnyatā, or "emptiness," which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anātman (no-self) and pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), to refute the metaphysics of Sarvastivāda and Sautrāntika (extinct non-Mahayana schools). For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena are without any svabhāva, literally "own-being" or "self-nature", and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being. Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two-truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, one which is directly (ultimately) true, and one which is only conventionally or instrumentally true, commonly called upāya in later Mahāyāna writings. Nāgārjuna drew on an early version of this doctrine found in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, which distinguishes nītārtha (clear) and neyārtha (obscure) terms -

By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one reads the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one reads the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle..."^[6]

Nāgārjuna differentiates between saṃvṛti (conventionally true) and paramārtha (ultimately true) teachings, but he never declares any conceptually formulated doctrines to fall in this latter category; for him, even śūnyatā is śūnyatā; even emptiness is empty. For him, ultimately,

nivṛttam abhidhātavyaṃ nivṛtte cittagocare|

anutpannāniruddhā hi nirvāṇam iva dharmatā||7

The designable is ceased when the range of thought is ceased,

For phenomenality is like nirvana, unarisen and unstopped.

This was famously rendered in his tetralemma with the logical propositions:

X (affirmation)

non-X (negation)

X and non-X (both)

neither X nor non-X (neither)

Nagarjuna also taught the idea of relativity; in the Ratnāvalī, he gives the example that shortness exists only in relation to the idea of length. The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast. He held that the relationship between the ideas of "short" and "long" is not due to intrinsic nature (svabhāva). This idea is also found in the Pali Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas, in which the idea of relativity is expressed similarly: "That which is the element of light ... is seen to exist on account of [in relation to] darkness; that which is the element of good is seen to exist on account of bad; that which is the element of space is seen to exist on account of form."^[7]

For more on Nāgārjuna's philosophy, see Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

Nagarjuna as Ayurvedic Physician

Nagarjuna was also a practitioner of Ayurveda, or traditional Indian Ayurvedic medicine. First described in the Sanskrit medical treatise entitled Sushruta Samhita (of which he was the compiler of the redaction), many of his unique conceptualizations, such as his descriptions of the circulatory system and blood tissue (uniquely described as rakta dhātu) and his pioneering work on the therapeutic value of specially treated minerals knowns as bhasmas, which earned him the title of the "father of iatrochemistry," are described by Frank John Ninivaggi in his text: Ayurveda: A Comprehensive Guide to Traditional Indian Medicine for the West, p. 23. (Praeger/Greenwood Press, 2008).

Writings

 

There exist a number of influential texts attributed to Nāgārjuna, although most were probably written by later authors. The only work that all scholars agree is Nagarjuna's is the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), which contains the essentials of his thought in twenty-seven short chapters. According to Lindtner^[5] the works definitely written by Nagarjuna are:

• Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā (Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way)
• Śūnyatāsaptati (Seventy Verses on Emptiness)
• Vigrahavyāvartanī (The End of Disputes)
• Vaidalyaprakaraṇa (Pulverizing the Categories)
• Vyavahārasiddhi (Proof of Convention)
• Yuktiṣāṣṭika (Sixty Verses on Reasoning)
• Catuḥstava (Hymn to the Absolute Reality)
• Ratnāvalī (Precious Garland)
• Pratītyasamutpādahṝdayakārika (Constituents of Dependent Arising)
• Sūtrasamuccaya
• Bodhicittavivaraṇa (Exposition of the Enlightened Mind)
• Suhṛllekha (To a Good Friend)
• Bodhisaṃbhāra (Requisites of Enlightenment)

 대표적인 저술작

중론송

십이문론

공칠십론

회쟁론

육십송여리론

대지도론 - 대품반야경의 주석서

십주비바사론

대승이십송론

보리자량론

인연심론

친구에게 보내는 편지(Suhrllekha)

라트나발리(Ratnavali;보행왕정론)

There are other works attributed to Nāgārjuna, some of which may be genuine and some not. In particular, several important works of esoteric Buddhism (most notably the Pañcakrama or "Five Stages") are attributed to Nāgārjuna and his disciples. Contemporary research suggests that these works are datable to a significantly later period in Buddhist history (late eighth or early ninth century), but the tradition of which they are a part maintains that they are the work of the Mādhyamika Nāgārjuna and his school. Traditional historians (for example, the 17th century Tibetan Tāranātha), aware of the chronological difficulties involved, account for the anachronism via a variety of theories, such as the propagation of later writings via mystical revelation. A useful summary of this tradition, its literature, and historiography may be found in Wedemeyer 2007.

Lindtner considers that the Māhaprajñāparamitopadeśa, a huge commentary on the Large Prajñāparamita not to be a genuine work of Nāgārjuna. This is only extant in a Chinese translation by Kumārajīva. There is much discussion as to whether this is a work of Nāgārjuna, or someone else. Étienne Lamotte, who translated one third of the Upadeśa into French, felt that it was the work of a North Indian bhikṣu of the Sarvāstivāda school, who later became a convert to the Mahayana. The Chinese scholar-monk Yin Shun felt that it was the work of a South Indian, and that Nāgārjuna was quite possibly the author. Actually, these two views are not necessarily in opposition, and a South Indian Nāgārjuna could well have studied in the northern Sarvāstivāda. Neither of the two felt that it was composed by Kumārajīva which others have suggested.