earticle

영어

This is to examine the discrepancy in the recent paper of Professor Heo Heung Soo presented in the History Society of China, which is one of the opinions of some Chinese scholars that Mukujungkwangtaedaranikyung of Bulkuksa temple, Gyung-ju, Korea is originated from China. The summary of the study is as follows. Firstly, among the letters of the title, Mukujungkwangtaedaranikyung of Donwhang and that of Bulkuksa temple, two letters, Mu and Da are different; Mu (无) and Da(陀) in Donwhang's and Mu (無) and Da (陁) in Bulkuksa temple's. Secondly, the Donwhang copy is consisted of many handwritten manuscripts with many different writing styles and having various different length between the lines of the contents. Furthermore, the copy of Donwhang is made of papers from hemps, and that the Bulkuksa temples is made of papers from mulberry. Thirdly, The Donwhang copy is a handwritten manuscripts while the Pulkuksa temple copy is a printed one from the wooden blocks. Fourthly, because of the four letters Ji 地, Jeung 證, Cho 初, Soo 授 of Mujooshincha they insist Bulkuksa temple copy is a Chinese origin. But their opinion is not persuasible because of the 14 letters of Mujooshincha as seen in the Taebangkwangbulwhaumkyung. Therefore, when seeing with many inconsistencies in various aspects between two copies, the opinion that the Donwhang copy is a orginal one translated into Chinese from Sanskrit and the Bulkuksa temple copy was printed based upon the Donwhang's is obviously incompatible.

한국어

이 글은 慶州 佛國寺藏 ｢無垢淨光大陁羅尼經｣이 중국 것이라는 중국 학자들의 몇몇 주장 가운데에서 최근 중국의 許興洙 교수가 中國史學會에서 발표한 글에 대하여 그 모순점을 살펴본 것이다. 본 연구 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 敦煌石室臧 ｢无垢淨光大陀尼經｣題 중 ‘无’․‘陀’ 두 자와 釋迦塔臧 ｢無垢淨光大 陁羅尼經｣題 중 ‘無’․‘陁’ 두 자는 서로 다르다. 둘째, 敦煌本은 여러 개의 사경들이 書體는 물론 行間의 거리도 각기 다르며 紙質 도 麻紙인데 비해 釋迦塔臧本은 楮紙이다. 셋째, 敦煌本은 寫本이고, 釋迦塔臧本은 木板本이다. 넷째 불국사 釋迦塔本의 武周新字 地, 證, 初, 授, 4자 때문에 中國本이라는 주장은 ｢大方廣佛花嚴經｣안에 보이고 있는 武周新字 14자 때문에 설득력이 없다. 이처럼 여러 면에서 敦煌石室藏本과 釋迦塔臧本이 다름에도 불구하고, 敦煌石室臧 本이 梵文을 漢文으로 번역한 原本이고 그것을 木板本으로 印出한 것이 곧 釋迦塔臧 本인 듯 주장한 것은 矛盾이다.