본 논문은 아리야 비묵띠세나가 25,000송 반야경으로부터 인용한 ``보살의 법에 대한 갈애``가 ``보살의 가르침에 대한 집착``을 의미하는지 ``집착하지 않음``을 의미하는지를 해결하기 위한 사본의 교정을 포함한 문헌학적 연구이다. 11세기에 필사된 것으로 추정되는 아리야 비묵띠세나의 『현관장엄론』의 주석서의 사본에는 ``집착하지 않[지만] 마음을 고정하고 생각한다``는 문법적으로 이상한 읽기가 있다. 그리고 이 사본은 주석서의 티벳역과 더불어 ``보살의 법에 대한 갈애``가 때로는 ``집착하지 않음``을 때로는 ``집착함``을 의미하기 때문에 상당한 혼란을 초래하고 있다. 이 혼란을 해결하고 사본의 읽기를 교정하기 위하여 필자는 현재이용 가능한 산스크리트, 티벳어, 한문의 주요언어로 기술된 25,000송의 모든 자료들을 살펴보았다. 그 결과, 이르면 17세기 후반인 네팔 사본들을 이용한 2종의 산스크리트 편집본을 제외하고 모든 자료들이 ``집착한다(abhinivisate)``를 지지하고 있음을 알 수 있었다.
While editing the first chapter of Abhisamayalankara -vrtti by Arya Vimuktisena, I``ve found a very interesting but somewhat tricky paragraph in which explanation of Dharmatrsna of Bodhisattvas is quoted from 25,000 Prajnaparamitasutra. According to only one survived manuscript, it is called Dharmatrsna that is natural (anulomiki) to Bodhisattvas and defined as rawness [or a disease(amah)] because a Bodhisattva does not cling to the idea that Five aggregates are impermanent, etc., [but] fix his mind on it and thinks of it (···nabhinivisate | adhitisthati samjanati). This statement seems to be contradictory because craving (trsn?), a synonym of clinging (abhinivesa), means non-clinging (anabhinivesa). The former editor Pensa corrected nabhinivisate to abhinivisate based on this thought and the Tibetan translation of Vrtti which has mngon par zhen pa, a equivalent word to abhinivisate. This emendation appears to be a right decision. But when we consider the three succeeding quotations about Dharmatrsna, the problem would not be that simple. Excluding the second of all four quotations which is in the same case with the first, the last two have agreement between the manuscript (ms) and Tibetan translation (Tib). But the contents of the agreement are different as night andday. That is to say, ms and Tib agree to take it as non-clinging and clinging in the third and fourth quotations respectively, which consequently implies Tib couldn``t be a firm ground of the emendation. So I decided to consult all available sources for the quotations written in main languages, i.e., Sanskrit, Tibetan, and classical Chinese. As a result, except two sanskrit editions (PD, PK) based on very late Nepalese Manuscripts (in late 17th century at the earliest) by Dutt and Kimura, all other versions of 25,000 Prajnaparamitasutra as well as 100,000 Prajnaparamitasutra which have equivalent words for abhinivisate agree to understand that Dharmat is Bodhisattva``s clinging to teachings. With support of these sources and specially based on the Tibetan translation of 25,000 Prajnaparamitasutra in Tanjur (Tt) that is contemporary with ms (11th century) and adopted classification of Abhisamayalankara same as PD and PK -but reads differently from these two, I could correct nabhinivisate to abhinivisate in the first, second and forth quotations of ms and mngon par zhen pa med cing to mngon par zhen cing in the third quotation of Tib. About the reason why the scribe of ms wrote nabhinivisate instead of abhinivisate, I assumed that Arya Vimuktisena`s explanation of Bodhisattvas`` superiority over Sravakas, etc., had influenced these quotations. Right before the first quotation, he stated clearly that Bodhisattvas are superior over Sravakas, etc., because of their aspects of non-clinging to the Truths of suffering and of origin of suffering. So the scribe may have written or probably corrected to nabhinivisate in order to coincide with Arya Vimuktisena``s comment. But being afraid of too much emendation, he avoided to add ``na`` to other two verbs, adhitisthati samjanati. And these error or transformation would be accepted as nabhinivisate nadhitisthati na samjanati in Nepalese manuscripts as they have. For supporting this conjecture, I supplied two examples which can show the contents of texts that adopt classification of Abhisamayalankara (PD, PK, and Tt) has been transformed for the purpose of being harmony with the commentary on Abhisamayalankara such as Vrtti.