Zen Buddhism and Western Scholarship - Will the Twain Ever Meet?

Charles Muller(찰스 뮬러) 불교학연구회 2004 불교학연구 Vol.9 No.-

  이 논문에서 필자는 과거에서부터 현재까지 지속되어 오고 있는 불교학 연구와 수행과의 단절에 대하여 성찰해 보았다. 성찰의 결과로서 필자는 불교학과 수행이 긴밀하게 연관되어야 할 필요가 있다고 제안한다.<BR>  일본의 선과 중국의 선에 관하여 연구할 때 서구 학자들이 택하는 접근법은 주로 역사적이고 문헌학적이다. 그래서 서구의 불교학은 수행과 단절되어 있다. 이러한 단절은 동아시아 선 수행전통에서 볼 때도 마찬가지이다. 선 수행은 학문적 연구로부터 단절되어 있다. 선 수행 전통은 교리적/이론적 연구들로부터 거리를 유지하고 있으며 그것들과 구별되어 있다. 선 수행 전통은 직관적이며, 개인적이며, 경험적이며, 비문헌적이며, 그리고 외면상 비체계적이다. 그리고 선 수행자들은 과거나 현재나 선수행의 핵심이 지적으로 접근될 수 없다고 본다. 이와 같은 방법으로 불교학과 선 수행은 단절되어 있다.<BR>  필자는 이상과 같은 성찰의 결과로서 다음과 같이 제안한다. 즉 학자와 수행자는 서로 긴밀한 관련을 맺을 필요가 있으며, 서로 협력이 필요하다는 것이다. 학자들은 수행자들이 결여하고 있는 도구와 자료를 가지고 있다. 수행자가 학자와 협력함으로써 잃을 것은 없다. 학자도 마찬가지이다. 오히려 서로가 서로를 고양시킬 수 있다. 상호적 도움을 통해서 우리는 학자와 수행자, 혹은 불교학과 선수행을 연결시키고 우리가 잃어왔던 것을 되찾을 수 있을 것이다.

The Meaning of the Explicit and Inexplicit Approaches in Wŏnhyo's System of the Two Hindrances (Ijang ŭi 二障義)

Charles Muller 서강대학교 종교연구소 2017 Journal of Korean Religions Vol.8 No.1

Wŏnhyo’s Ijang ŭi is a lengthy treatise that examines and explains the afflictive and cognitive hindrances to liberation and enlightenment more thoroughly than any known work in the history of Buddhism. While this in itself is sufficient to make it a watershed work, the treatise goes even further, in defining two distinctive systems of the hindrances, which are associated with the two major doctrinal lineages of Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha. These two systems are labeled by Wŏnhyo with the Buddhist exegetical terms ‘‘explicit’’ (Qnītârtha, 顯了門) and ‘‘inexplicit’’ (Qneyârtha, 隱密門). These, I argue, are for Wŏnhyo not value-laden terms as usually seen in East Asian doctrinal classification systems, but conceived based on Wŏnhyo’s impression of the relative clarity (or lack thereof ) of their systematic descriptions in the source texts of the two traditions. In the end, Wŏnhyo shows not only how these systems differ, but how they also mutually complement and inform each other. This makes this treatise an emblematic work demonstrating the Silla scholiast’s hallmark methodological approach of doctrinal synthesis (hwajaeng). Wŏnhyo’s work on this topic deeply influenced scholarship on the hindrances by later Faxiang, Tiantai, and Huayan scholars in China, Korea, and Japan. In the course of introducing the Ijang ŭi, I also provide a brief outline of the development of the two hindrances concepts in the Tathāgatagarbha and Yogâcāra traditions, along with a synopsis of the major pre-Wŏnhyo treatise on the hindrances, that by the Chinese scholar Huiyuan.

Moving into XML Functionality : The Combined Digital Dictionaries of Buddhism and East Asian Literary Terms

Muller, Charles,Beddow, Michael 동국대학교 전자불전연구소 2001 전자불전 Vol.3 No.-

WŎNHYO’S APPROACH TO HARMONIZATION OF THE MAHAYANA DOCTRINES (HWAJAENG)

Charles Muller 계명대학교 한국학연구원 2015 Acta Koreana Vol.18 No.1

Wŏnhyo (617–686) is known to the world as Korea’s leading Buddhist thinker and scriptural commentator, mainly due to his numerous exegeses and treatises that attempted to sort out the plethora of new Buddhist ideas generated in the fifth through seventh centuries in East Asia—ideas produced both through the continued influx of newly translated Indian texts, as well as the rapid appearance of fresh East Asian interpretations of the Buddhist doctrine. Wŏnhyo is especially noted for being the only scholar among the great East Asian commentators who had neither sectarian affiliation nor took a sectarian-based approach in the interpretation of Buddhist doctrines. Thus, the privileging of a specific sectarian approach was for Wŏnhyo impossible, since he saw each of the various doctrinal streams of Buddhism as representing a distinct but valid piece of the vast Mahāyāna system—as true as any other piece, but not to be seen as some kind of “ultimate” doctrine. Wonhyo’s method—known as hwajaeng 和諍 (“harmonization”)—is characterized by the juxtaposing of two or more divergent theoretical positions, comparing them, and clarifying their distinctive assumptions and aims. Once these assumptions are properly apprehended, what on the surface appear to be contradictory opinions are shown to be commensurate with each other from a deeper perspective. This article examines in detail the range of motivations, method-ologies, and approaches seen in Wonhyo’s hwajaeng project. Wonhyo’s approach will be examined in terms of three general aspects, which straddle the range of doctrinal/ scholastic, logical/philosophical, and religious, with the religious showing at least three levels of profundity.

Review of One Korean’s Approach to Buddhism: The Mom/Momjit Paradigm by Sung Bae Park.

Charles Muller 동국대학교 불교학술원 2009 International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Cultur Vol.13 No.-

This is a review of the book One Korean’s Approach to Buddhism: The Mom/Momjit Paradigm, by Sung Bae Park, published by SUNY Press (2009). This book represents an overview of the author’s personal quest for enlightenment through the non-dual path of Buddhist practice and academic scholarship, forged through the mode of the mom/momjit paradigm—a close analog of the better-known ti-yong (“essence-function”) paradigm.

Special Topic of W&nhyo : W&nhyo`s Interpretation of the Hindrances

Charles Muller 국제불교문화사상사학회 2003 International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Cultur Vol.2 No.-

Book Review : Review of Cultivating Original Enlightenment: Wonhyo`s Exposition of the Vajrasamadhi-Sutra, by Robert E. Buswell, Jr.

Charles Muller 국제불교문화사상사학회 2008 International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Cultur Vol.10 No.-

This is a review of the book Cultivating Original Enlightenment: Wonhyo`s Exposition of the Vajrasamadhi-Sutra, by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., published by the University of Hawaii Press (2007). This volume, the first to be published in the Collected Works of Wonhyo series, contains the translation of a single text by Wonhyo, the Kumgang Sammaegyong Non, along with a substantial introduction. The contents of the introduction are discussed in depth, along with some comments regarding the content and character of the translation.

Session 3 : Moving into XML Functionality: The Combined Digital Dictionaries of Buddhism and East Asian Literary Terms

Charles Muller,Michael Beddow,Toyo Gakuen University 동국대학교 전자불전문화콘텐츠연구소 2001 전자불전 Vol.3 No.-

Faith and the Resolution of the Four Doubts in Wonhyo`s Doctrinal Essentials of the Sutra of Immeasurable Life (Muryangsu-gyeong-jong-yo)

Charles Muller 국제불교문화사상사학회 2007 International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Cultur Vol.8 No.-

Among the numerous distinctive aspects of the work of the noted Korean scholar-monk Wonhyo is the broad range of traditions and texts that he accorded treatment-along with the unusual level of fairness and seriousness he brought to such works-an indication of his lack of sectarian bias. Another distinctive aspect of his work as an exegete is the extent to which his "religious" attitude-his concern for the nurturance of the faith in the minds of his readers inevitably rises to the forefront of his works. Thus, what he has to say about the idea of "faith" 信 in the context of a Pure Land work is a matter of considerable interest. On the other hand, given the way that the Pure Land tradition is currently perceived by its modern adherents, one might be given to assume that the notion of "faith in other-power" constitutes the backbone of the arguments made in seminal Pure Land scriptures such as the Sutra of Immeasurable Life (Larger Sukhavati-vyuha; K. Muryangsu-gyeong, C. Wu-liang-shou-jing). This paper shows, based on Wonhyo`s analysis, how in fact the main form of faith expounded by the sutra is something much more like that seen articulated in mainstream Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha texts. The paper also shows how Wonhyo uses Yogacara-based hermeneutics to unravel the conundrum of the four kinds of cognition dropped, without explanation in the final lines of the sutra.

WONHYO'S APPROACH TO HARMONIZATION OF THE MAHAYANA DOCTRINES (HWAJAENG)

A. CHARLES MULLER 계명대학교 한국학연구원 2015 Acta Koreana Vol.18 No.1

Wŏnhyo (617–686) is known to the world as Korea’s leading Buddhist thinker and scriptural commentator, mainly due to his numerous exegeses and treatises that attempted to sort out the plethora of new Buddhist ideas generated in the fifth through seventh centuries in East Asia—ideas produced both through the continued influx of newly translated Indian texts, as well as the rapid appearance of fresh East Asian interpretations of the Buddhist doctrine. Wŏnhyo is especially noted for being the only scholar among the great East Asian commentators who had neither sectarian affiliation nor took a sectarian- based approach in the interpretation of Buddhist doctrines. Thus, the privileging of a specific sectarian approach was for Wŏnhyo impossible, since he saw each of the various doctrinal streams of Buddhism as representing a distinct but valid piece of the vast Mahāyāna system—as true as any other piece, but not to be seen as some kind of “ultimate” doctrine. Wonhyo’s method—known as hwajaeng 和諍 (“harmonization”)—is characterized by the juxtaposing of two or more divergent theoretical positions, comparing them, and clarifying their distinctive assumptions and aims. Once these assumptions are properly apprehended, what on the surface appear to be contradictory opinions are shown to be commensurate with each other from a deeper perspective. This article examines in detail the range of motivations, method-ologies, and approaches seen in Wonhyo’s hwajaeng project. Wonhyo’s approach will be examined in terms of three general aspects, which straddle the range of doctrinal/ scholastic, logical/philosophical, and religious, with the religious showing at least three levels of profundity.