http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 지도교수 : 권기종 (검색결과 5 건)
-
The Corea Dynasty where Buddhism was pursued, faced a serious social crisis near the end of the Dynasty. As social circumstances, according to 'land annexation' in other words expansion of a farm by aristocrats or powerful families in the provinces and temples, national and free holders' land for taxation was reduced, as a result, the Dynasty's finance became weak, while in order to supplement of this shortage of taxation, burden of the farmer was increased, so that it became the cause of such as the ruin of free holders and rural economy, and creation of wandering people. The ruin of rural economy meant the collapse of the whole social system depending on the agricultural economy. According to the evil of the 'land annexation', the serious problems such as the collapse of the national economy, worsening of the conflict across the classes were raised. Meanwhile, Buddhism in the end of the Corea Dynasty assumed a corruptive status. Confucianists strongly criticized this corrupted Buddhism. Jeong, Mong-ju, or Lee, Saek and other scholars who were Relatively modest, did not blame Buddhism-itself, but Jeong, Do-jeon criticized Buddhism-itself saying that the theory of Buddhism was wrong in his book 'Bulssijapbyeon' (a book criticising Buddhism). Therefore the rising gentry who had broken down the Corea Dynasty and built the Joseon Dynasty, were armed with Confucianism, became been against Buddhism. Jeong, Do-jeon was one of major intellectuals between the end of Corea Dynasty and the beginning of the Joseon Dynasty, against Buddhism by writing 'Bulssijapbyeon'. Therefore, by holding a critical point of view about 'Bulssijapbyeon', we would strengthen the ideological logic about Buddhism. During the period from the end of Corea Dynasty to the beginning of the Joseon Dynasty, the effort that overcame the evil of Buddhism and introduced a new ideology, as well as the criticism about a conventional ideology-Buddhism was vividly made. For this reason, Jeong, Do-jeon gathered together various ideologies against Buddhism, so that constructed foundations for 'pro-Confucianism/anti-Buddhism' lasting for 500years of the Lees Joseon Dynasty. Jeong, Do-jeon seriously criticized almost all theories of Buddhism from 'Transmigration(Yunhoe)', 'Karma(Ingwa, Inyeon)' to 'Jagyonggwaseong' ‘Simgwado’, ‘Morality(Illyun)', 'Mercy(Jabi)' and 'Hell(Jiok)', so there remained almost nothing not being criticised. This criticism showed extremely biased point of view about Buddhism, not stating both positive and negative side of it. Criticism just for criticism-itself would be a cause being criticised by others, and it could be nothing but a illogical emotional bias. Especially the argue against Transmigration(Yunhoe)', 'Karma(Ingwa, Inyeon)' or 'Simgwagong' aims at total destruction of Buddhism as well as ≪the absence≫ of a logic. Moreover, the argument of Jeong, Do-jeon is confusing religion with morals, so because it criticised Buddhism based on secular morals of Confucianism, it should be a farfetched argument lacking in fairness. In addition, Jeong, Do-jeon showed more biased position to support anti-Buddhism of the first Emperor of the Joseon Dynasty, Lee, Seong-gye. As reviewed before, Jeong, Do-jeon not only didn't understand Buddhism but also criticised it just by Confucian interpretation.
-
1. 八相作佛と五時八敎 - ｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣と｢佛祖統紀｣ 釋迦如來の一代記を通觀すると8相であり、別觀すると5時である。如來の生涯と敎說を交織した典籍の代表作と言えば、雲黙和尙の｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣と大石志磐の｢佛祖統紀｣をあげることができるだろう。｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣を撰述した雲黙和尙(浮庵長老無寄)は高麗の白蓮結社の繼承者である。彼は1,328年釋迦如來の生涯と敎說を2卷で撰述した。｢佛祖統紀｣の方は1,269年に撰述された天台の佛典史書である。山家の無住宗淨の弟子である大石志磐は金口相承と今師相承に基づいて、すべての天台の敎觀二門を正史形態で撰述した。この本の一番著しい特徵は紀傳體と編年體を混用していることで、祖統論の中心は山家の宗緖爲光である。 ｢佛祖統紀｣と｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣は、いずれも天台家の書籍であって、この二冊とも年月日を單位として8相と5時を有機的に交織している。この二つの本は構成の順序が同一であって、また同じ時期に撰述された。そして金口相承(西土聖賢)を扱っており、東土傳燈の佛敎史があり、末法觀が揭載されている。｢佛祖統紀｣は金口相承と今師相承を扱い、山家中心の祖統を54卷の尨大な分量で扱っている。それに比べて｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣はただ2卷でなされている。｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣は今師相承は扱っていない。東土傳燈以降の佛敎史については｢景德傳燈錄｣を参考しろと勧めているだけである。しかしこの本はただ2卷であるにせよ、｢天台四敎儀｣と同様に敎觀二門について深い理解を見せている。さらに文學的形式･哲學的敎觀･東土傳燈の佛緣の核心についても深い見解があるのも、この本の大きな特徵になるだろう。 2.1. ｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣･｢佛祖統紀｣の5時8敎 - 各々撮要･文句分析で｢天台四敎儀｣を繼承 ｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣は840句、210頌、註(後代に64句、16頌、假託)を通じて本迹二門の半滿･圓偏･本迹･權實を論究している。上卷は世界の開合と始終、5時8敎と釋迦如來の生涯、西土祖師に関わる內容である。下卷は東土傳燈の佛敎史と末法觀を説いている。そして、目立つ大きな特徵は、上卷で著者自分が諦觀法師の｢天台四敎儀｣を要約したと言及していることである。だとすると、この本は｢天台四敎儀｣の敎門を受け継いでいるには異見はないだろう。 彼は｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣上･下卷の全般にわたって｢天台四敎儀｣の正修を散說したのではないかと私は思う。特に下卷の200-208頌とそれに伴う註解で方便行を强調していると見られる。上卷の化法四敎では、もう正修を修行位に合わせて配置し、下卷では萬善成佛･五種法師･六波羅蜜などの圓頓戒で正修行と方便行を有機的に扱っているからである。従って｢天台四敎儀｣の觀門まで完璧に受け継いでいると見做しても差し支えはないと思う。 ｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣はその內容的な側面(敎觀二門･內面的形儀)からは｢天台四敎儀｣を傳承したと見え、形式的な側面では｢佛祖統紀｣を参考したと見られる。それは典籍に含まれた佛敎史及び敎觀について一々言えない共通點が発見されることや、佛祖の跡を正しく認識させることを目指していることから確かになる。それ以外の代表的な特徵もまた二つぐらい挙げることができるが、一つは｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の構成方式と展開の順序が｢佛祖統紀｣と同一である点、二つはこの二冊とも年月日を單位として8相と5時を有機的に交織している。 しかしこの二冊は撰述の具體的な記述と撰述の意圖は全く違う。一応｢佛祖統紀｣の場合は、第21卷諸師雜傳で、山外の學長について宗旨を失ったと見ている。淨覺仁岳･神智從義･草菴道因などがそういう人物で、正統的な圓理隨緣の學說と師の旨を否定している人として見做しているのだ。 ｢佛祖統紀｣の構成を見ると、本紀(8)、世家(2)、列傳(12)、表(2)、志(30)からなっていて、54卷5篇19科の體系で組織された。歷史記述の方式は紀傳體を主にして、志は編年體を使いこなしていると、序文の部分で著者は言っている。 もし卷9と10の諸祖旁出を世家で分類すると、｢佛祖統紀｣は本紀-世家-列傳-(表)-志の體系になるだろう。｢佛祖統紀｣の通塞志などでは｢通志｣ないし｢資治通鑑｣の編年體を取って佛敎史を凝集している。その屬性は卷33-48まで通塞志の持つ編年法體系から見て、山家の宗緖爲光と見ることができるであろう。 ｢佛祖統紀｣は今師相承を重んじて、法智大師(四明知禮)を中心にその前後、同じ行列の傍出系譜を共に扱っている。｢佛祖統紀｣第8卷で、9祖の興道禪師以下、四明知禮までの直系祖統を扱い、以下卷9･10の旁出世家で再び南岳慧思と天台智顗の傍出祖師を扱っている点からも、やはり山家の始祖である四明知禮に基づいて、その前後左右の系譜に片寄って組織したのではないかと私には思われる。 この事実は、卷11以下卷20までの諸祖列傳を再び扱っていることからもっと明らかになる。さらに卷11の諸祖列傳では四明知禮と同じ行列である第16條寶雲義通以下で2世弟子たちの付法を扱っている。 そして卷12は法智の弟子たちに関する相承を揭載している。卷13はその法智以下の3世で、廣智(尚賢)の弟子たちに当たる等列である。卷13の廣智･神照･南屏はみんなが法智以下2世弟子たちである。この弟子たちを中心に3分し、彼らの付法と活動を卷13から卷20にわたって分類している。歷代諸祖師列傳では自分の師である無住宗淨さえも區分することによって、四明知禮の付法相承を强調しているのだ。ところで、ここで注目すべきことは著者の大石志磐(四明知禮以下11世･廣智以下10世)は自分の法名を｢佛祖統紀｣卷24に記載し、四明知禮以下10世(廣智以下9世)の無住宗淨の相乘であることを明らかにしている点である。“四明智禮の多くの付法藏と10人ぐらいの祖師から子孫に至るまで、有一に承繼した人が廣智禪師である。”という著者序文での言及は、｢佛祖統紀｣の記述が山家の始祖である四明知禮に基づいてなされたという私の意見の具體的な論據になるだろう。 祖統の歷代諸祖論について、｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣は｢景德傳燈錄｣を見ろと勧めている。ところが婆須密尊者まで含む｢傳燈錄｣は｢佛祖統紀｣の金口相承とは違う。｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣は今師相承を取らない。しかし｢佛祖統紀｣第5卷の金口相承と｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の西土祖師に対する祖師系譜とが一致し、また｢景德傳燈錄｣の參照勸誘は東土傳燈以来の諸弘法に関わる事柄であって、今師相承荷に関わるものではない。従って、禪宗に関わる相承との繋りではない。言い換えれば、今師相承というのは｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣であまり大切な問題にはならない。 やはり阿育王が釋迦如來の舍利を分けてすでに海東の定安と金剛山に舍利塔を建てたという記述からも、海東佛緣の自負心を認識していることが伺える。また、雲黙和尙は自分の著述｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣を撰述したとき、山家･山外の著書などをより分けなく參究したと見られる。私は本論文を書く中で、｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣から ①從義の｢天台四敎儀科解｣、②仁岳の｢十不二門文心解｣の內容を取っていることを提示したことがある。海東天台が山外･山家を問わず、自由に參究している傾向はもう高麗義天僧統の｢新編諸宗敎藏總錄｣からも見ることができる。｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣も同じ立場から、宋代の山外･山家に対して必要に応じ典籍を取ったものと見られる。従って、山家の今師相承は海東天台の繼承者雲黙和尙にはあまり重要な部分ではなかったと思う。 一方、｢佛祖統紀｣は典籍の中にもう天台宗･蓮宗･禪宗の師承關係を保有している。また、｢佛祖統紀｣の5時8敎は｢天台四敎儀｣の絶對的な影響下にあったと見られる。5時8敎を求める部分では｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣と同様に、｢天台四敎儀｣から影響を受けた。 その論據として、私は｢天台四敎儀｣の文句をそのまま取り、｢佛祖統紀｣卷3で註解をつけていることを第Ⅳ篇で指摘した。｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣下卷の末法觀は彌陀往生と彌勒下生に備えて强力な懺悔と持戒を强調するが、その敎學的な原理は上卷の5時8敎に基づいて展開している。 圓頓性の側面からは、｢佛祖統紀｣と圓敎的立場はあまり異ならない。しかし末法世界を認識する根本的な視覺においてはより具體的で現實的である。従って、麤卽妙の立場から5時と8敎･觀心修行･修行位を顕し、三種止觀を目指す。さらに本論文の中で私の指摘した25方便では、不定止觀を念頭においた漸次止觀の傾向が著しい。 結局、｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣は內容的な側面からは｢天台四敎儀｣の敎觀二門をそのまま受け継いだものと思う。また、形式的な構成の側面からは｢佛祖統紀｣の論旨展開方式を取ったものと言える。 2.2.十念卽一念と隔歷次第的な圓融觀 - ｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の無間念佛と末法觀 光と陰を迷悟にたとえれば、攝卽淨土と析卽穢土は一實相での迷悟であって、あまり差はないのである。一切の實相である圓融の境地では変わらない。雲黙和尙の往生觀はそのものが娑婆卽寂光の攝卽淨土であることには疑いない。それは｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の序文に4土3身の觀點をもう提示したからである。化他の實踐を强調し、すべての末法衆生を救おうとする意志は｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の撰述の主な動機になるだろう。この末法衆生の救濟という旨から、雲黙和尙は圓敎的無間念佛を一切智の方便として提示しているのである。 問題はここから始まる。｢天台止觀論補註｣、｢天台四敎儀科解｣、｢十不二門文心解｣を受け入れている｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の圓融觀はいったい何かという短所が出るからである。だからといって、山外の別理隨緣に従うものでもない。｢佛祖統紀｣と｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の圓融觀は高い、低いが問題ではなく、當面した現實的な狀況に対する側面から出る。二冊とも事圓の立場に立って、さらに出家修行者を對象として書かれた本であるからだ。 ｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣は圓敎觀から圓融三諦を論する。しかし末法觀によって三諦を開顯し、觀心で無間念佛を取っている。時空間が隔離されて別敎の特質によって明らかになる圓敎觀を顕すものである。従って、隔別的な圓融觀であり、また隔歷次第性を持つ圓融觀になる。末法觀による觀心の實踐は如來の教えが不思議であることを別相で顕し、次第性に近い三諦觀によるものである故に、次第三觀ないし別相三諦に近い圓敎觀になる。 従って、一般的に別敎の三諦を顕す普遍的な敎學の體系は｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣では麤法としての圓融門、または3權1實が麤法として相卽する圓融觀である。 比較対象である｢佛祖統紀｣の圓融觀は、一言では‘法體卽事理’で正義できる。事圓の妄卽眞である。法身德の立場からこの圓敎觀が言われるのはその尨大な分量の典籍にもよるが、一念三千の實相論によって言われるのもやはり間違いないだろう。 不二圓融の立場では、理體として三千を用として起し、實相そのまま但體具用する。位不退の立場から一切種智を論することにたよって、圓理隨緣の立場から言われるからである。従って、事上の三千の用を起し但體具用として不變卽隨緣･隨緣卽不變になって、不隨緣の場合にも三千宛爾になるのである。 存在一つ一つが互具互融して、心だけが主體でもなく、また色だけが主體でもない。當體直是心であって、心の當體は色を去らないからである。一心に三智を、一境に三諦を備える[具]から、三千がすなわち三諦であり、三千が卽空･卽假･卽中である。位不退の立場から、宗體ー用の空假中であるのだ。主に性具論の中心になった一念三千の實相論から、その圓融觀を解釋すれば間違いないだろう。 ｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の場合、南岳(南嶽)慧大師の末法觀によって衆生の往生を提示する。先言的末法觀から一歩進んだ実践の末法往生觀として規定することができる。 本體はただ本體であるだけだ。しいて言及すると宗體用である。ところで｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣では圓融三諦･一念三千･三法無差･一心三觀の根本的な原理を釋名章に施設した後、論用章で衆生救濟のための無間念佛を提示する。宗體用[隨順戒･畢竟戒･具足波羅蜜戒]から一切智の體用宗[道共戒]に轉向しようとしている。即ち、情見(穢土→淨土) →一切智の方便を使う(『梵網經』の菩薩戒)。だから元の宗體用から時間的には別、空間的には隔になって用宗體[大乘戒･不退戒]の特質を持つようになったのである。 <표 생략 : 원문 참조> 従って、智不退の用宗體になって圓敎觀も次第に隔歷の性向を帯びる隔別的な圓融觀の性向が目立つようになったのだと見られる。 また、｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の彌陀淨土の極樂往生と彌勒下生の龍華道場は念佛の一つの方便として稱名念佛を提示する。また、南嶽慧思の末法觀に似たような面を見せる。雲黙和尙の念佛觀は一念卽十念･十念卽一念であり、その圓融觀は一言で言えば圓融三諦の無間念佛であると正義できるのである。 圓敎では法界、別敎では假、通敎では空、藏敎では能聞と所聞とをもって主體とする。稱名は修慧に当たる。一心稱名は心に依ることなく、執着のない思慧である。一切種智と佛眼の立場からは無差別的な常寂であるから、しいて4교を分別する必要はなかったようだが、末法衆生の切実な往生のために雲黙和尙の提示したのは界內の事敎から理敎に向くことであった。 3. 硏究の由來 私の尊敬する恩師である野石․權奇悰博士は、｢佛敎思想史硏究｣각주505で敍述全般に渡って韓國佛敎の淨土思想の持っている特性を見つけられた。その代表的な事項をいつくか挙げると、⑴韓國淨土思想は他の佛敎思想とは摩擦なく、淨土思想に受け入れた。⑵従って淨土信行は韓國佛敎の普遍的な信行として發展･展開し、⑶庶民佛敎の代表的な信行の方法として念佛修行の位相を固めていることを指摘された。また、玉稿｢高麗後期の禪思想硏究｣で、“6波羅蜜そのものが叩き壊すことのできない金剛の智慧であり、完成である。漸次的に磨いて行くべき6波羅蜜として見守ってばかりいるべからず、各々の個別的な波羅蜜の完成という圓頓性、また六つの波羅蜜の循環的な面まで考慮すべきである”と强調された。 また、慈師である明圓․池昌圭博士は｢法華天台學｣각주506 で五重玄義による傳統的な經典の解釈法を强調され、高麗諦觀法師の｢天台四敎儀｣を｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣で受け継いでいる点を力說された。具體的に如來8相示現と5時8敎の有機的な組織を通じて｢天台四敎儀｣･｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣･｢佛祖統紀｣のいずれも軌を一にしていることを最初に提示された。각주507 ｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣の撰述底本が內容の面では｢天台四敎儀｣を受け継ぎ、構成の體系面では｢佛祖統紀｣を受け継いでいるのを明らかにしたのは私のこの拙稿が最初である。この內容は論文として發表したことはないが、私の師たちがもう講義で提起してきたことであるのをこの要約文を通じて明かしておく。 <각주> 505 權奇悰、｢佛敎思想史硏究｣(ソウル:2001年)、 韓國佛敎硏究院, 1刷本. 506 池昌圭、｢法華天台學｣(ソウル:2003)、法華天台硏究所. 507 本論文は五重玄義で｢釋迦如來行蹟頌｣を再組織し、文句單位で分析した。このような分析的方法をもって接近した論文としては最初の試しであるから時間が多少かかったが、足りないところは多い。論者の見窄らしい執筆のせいで、ひょっとして師恩の無量に迷惑をかけるかどうか恐れるだけだ。論旨の構想と展開は權奇悰先生と池昌圭先生から手厚い助けを受けた。特に抄錄を通じて張戒環先生は佛敎史觀に対する指導を惜しまなくしてください、審査過程では註釋まで詳しく手入れしてくださった。論文の構想と編制は指導敎授である權奇悰先生の淨土と波羅蜜思想講說、池昌圭先生の法華と天台思想の講說から要義を借り、形儀を型どって構成の敎學的開合を取ったことを明かしておく。
-
위파싸나와 간화선의 수행체계 비교 연구 : 스리랑카와 한국을 중심으로
Nandaratana, I 동국대학교 2005 국내박사
It is a crystal clear fact that with the time being the unique Buddhism has been divided into different parts and each part is given a name. Theravāda and Mahāyāna are the main divisions in Buddhism. These divisions are made to suit the cultures of particular countries. In such a way we find the same divisions of Buddhism as North Buddhism and South Buddhism. According to this divisions Sri Lanka Myanmar Thailand and Cambodia belong to Theravāda or the South Buddhism where as China, Korea, Japan and Taiwan belong to Mahāyāna or North Buddhism. Even though Theravāda and Mahāyāna are recognized as the major part of Buddhism, these two has the essence of early Buddhism which contains the main philosophical concepts and recognized as it is. The essence of Buddhism is salvation gained out of the burden the cycle of birth and death(saṃsāra). Sri lankan Theravādians follow the Vipassanā Meditation to get free from the suffering of saṃsāra while Korean Mahāyāna Jogye order follow Kanhwaseon Dhyāna Meditation system. Dhyānas meditation was originated and developed in China according to the Chinese culture during the first part of the sixth century after the arrival of Patriach 'Bodhidharma'. The main topic of my study is the Kanhwanseon meditation system. Kanhwaseon meditation system begins by Master 'Taehye Jonggo' during the later part of the 11th century. This method of meditation has become the representative meditation system in Jogye Buddhist sect in Korea. Dhyāna meditation is called Zen Buddhism by Japanese while Koreans as Seon Buddhism. Jogye order which has been recognized as the biggest Buddhist order of Korea. However, two questions raise in my mind with regard to the belief that the Kanwaseon Meditation originated during the later part of the eleventh century in China. 1. If the Kanhwanseon dhyāna meditation was originated in eleventh century, does it have any relation with the essence of the original Buddhism? 2. Through Hwadu(a topic conversation) observation can some one achieve the salvation or the Nibbāna? In addition to that, their is a controversy over these two meditation systems between the traditional Korean Kanhwaseon meditators and those who practice Vipassanā meditation in the countries such as Myanmar Sri Lanka etc. They used to point their fingers to each other in the following manner. Khanwaseon meditators, “Vipassanā suits only to those who possess low characters and basic problems can not be solved through Vippassanā and also it is an ambiguous system of meditation". Vipassanā meditators, What Vipassanā meditators say is “Kanhwaseon Dhyāna meditation system which at the later part of 11th century does not match with the early Buddhism. It is just only a system of chapter division in China". If scholars are to make a judgment that one of the above mentioned meditation systems is true, then the other certainly not related with Buddhism. Therefore, my effort is, to find out the reality of these two. So, I thought to make a comparative study on Vipassanā and Kanhwaseon tasking Sri Lanka and Korea as the center. Basing on this, my second chapter is reserved to discuss the history of Vipassanā meditation and its present situation in Sri Lanka. The third chapter deals with the basic philosophical concepts of Vipassanā and a clean and wide observation of 'Four Objects of Mindfulness', 'the contemplation of the body(Kāyānupassanā)', 'the feeling(Wedanānu passanā)', 'the state of mind(Cittānupassanā)', and 'the mental contents(Dhammānupassanā)', mentioned in 『Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Suttaṃ』. In the fourth chapter I tend to discuss the history of Kanhwaseon meditation and its present situation in Korea by taking into account of my understanding with regard to Kanhwaseon. A wide and clear observation on the philosophical concept of Kanhwaseon meditation is carried out in the fifth chapter. Then comes the sixth chapter which contains the core of my study, that is the comparison between Vipassanā meditation and Kanhwaseon meditation. In this comparison much attention is paid on four major issues as mentioned below; First, the relationship of this two-fall meditations to the basic features of Buddhist Suttās. The second is, 'Mindfulness(Sati: 念)' of Vipassanā and 'Greate doutfulness(大疑心)' of Kanhwaseon. And, the relationship of two-fall meditators to the cessation of defilements and the realization of the truth. Finally, The Methodology of two-fall meditation systems. Then similarities and dissimilarities of two-fall meditation revealed by the comparison is widely shown in the seventh chapter. In this way I was able to find out three main similarities. 1) Two-fall meditation systems concentrate on wisdom rather than 'Dhyāna-Samādhi'. 2) Destroy defilements. 3) Salvation or the ultimate objective, 'The Nibbāna' is achieved. Different dissimilarities are also can be seen in the two-fall meditation systems. For an example the methodology and the objective used in these methods are differ. In addition to that there are some facts that the meditators should take into consideration. As an instance they should not misunderstand the relief they feel when engage in meditation as 'Nibbāna' or the salvation. Also they should not cling to the Dhyāna-Samādhi. After discussing all these my thesis is wound up. Finally, this has to be stated here as the conclusion of this thesis. The meditators should keep in their mind to achieve the salvation or the Nibbāna the ultimate target of Buddhism. In this juncture it is worthless to categorize as either one is higher or lower. As the main purpose of both Vipassanā and Kanhwaseon is Nibbāna or the salvation and the methodologies followed by both, possess the capability to achieve the ultimate aim, one can select either one which suit to one's character and seek for the supreme bliss of salvation.
-
Baekpa Geungseon(1767~1852) is a most venarable, a teacher of disciplines and a seon(meditation) Master. He has integrated Bodhidharma(?~528)'s 'theory of two ways to the enlightenment and four practices', and the 6th Patriarch Hui-neng(638~713)'s sudden enlightenment and no-thought theory through 'no dependence on words and letters' along with the Diamond sutra. And he has also accepted Bojo Jinul(1158~1210)'s 'simultaneous cultivation of meditation and wisdom' and Taego Bou (1301~1382)'s hwadu of 'All things returning to the one' and Lin-ji Yi-xuan(?~867)'s 'theory of three phrases on the patriarch seon'. I will summarize his thoughts according to his main writings such as 『Seonmun sugyeong』(Handbook for seon discipliners), 『Suseon gyeolsa mun』(The Document on formation of an association for practicing meditation), 『Sikji byeonseol』(the Explanation on consciousness and wisdom) and 『Jakbeop gwigam』(the Speculum on performing ceremonies). At first, 『Seonmun sugyeong』 is the one that summarizes the thought of transmitting Buddha's mind and principles of seon(meditation). The patriarch seon(the intuition seon) and the tathagata seon(the doctrine seon) are the seons of the highest class of practitioners that understand the meanings of the doctrinal Euiri seon through the thought of transmitting Buddha's mind. However, the practitioners of the middle and the lower classes should practice the undiscriminatory wisdom step by step according to the doctrinal teachings on seon. Baekpa has clarified the structure of three kinds of seons that one could obtain sudden enlightenment and gradual cultivation through keeping awake and tranquil after awakening on original cleanness of mind. And he has achieved the true parallelism of the meditation method and the scholastic method by including 'Salhwalbyeon' (expressions to make enlightenment or not to make enlightenment) to the Euiri seon among three seons, which appear in 'the transmission of the mind of Buddha in three places'. Baekpa says that the 'Mu' of Zhao-zhou Cong-shen(778~897) is not the 'Mu' opponent to the 'Yu'(existence), not the in-between one transcending the Mu and the Yu. The Mu is the one that destroys 'No dependence on words and letters' and discrimination. If one thinks about the Mu by reason, he is apt to be fallen into 'seon sickness'. He has prepared the 'Diagnoses on symptoms of seon sickness and their remedies'. His doctrines on seon follow those of Taego Bou(1301~1382), Heo-eung Bou(1515~1565), Cheongheo Hyujeong(1520~1604) and Hwanseong Jian(1664~1729). His 『Seonmun sugyeong』is one of the best introduction to seon, that explain the right way to enlightenment and cultivation in seon by applying three phrases, three essentials and three profundities to three kinds of seon like as the Euiri seon(Distinction seon), the Tathagata seon(Doctrine seon) and the Patriarch seon(Intuition seon). Secondly in 『Suseon gyeolsa mun』, Baekpa writes the rules of discipline(vinaya) for the association of meditation and vows to meditate facing the wall until acquiring enlightenment. During Goryeo Dynasty, in 1190 Bojo formed 'Jeonghye gyeolsa', the association for training of meditation and wisdom for the highest class of practitioners and in 1216 Wonmyo Yose(1163~1245) formed an association of 'Baengnyeon gyeolsa' for the lowest class of practitioners and in 1822 Baekpa formed an association of 'Suseon gyeolsa' with the fourfold community of the Buddhist society. For the three classes of practitioners by faculties, Baekpa arranged Lin-ji's path of three profounds, Bojo's three gates and his three kinds of samadhi into 'the profound of a thing in itself', the path of believing that first entering into reliance in the Avatamsaka sutra is just sudden enlightenment, the samadhi of dream and fantasy and the profound of a phrase, the path of direct approach to awakening by reflecting on a hwadu, the samadhi of undiscriminatory thought and the profound of a profound, the path of parallel keeping of quiescence and wakefulness, the samadhi of suchness. Baekpa explains the essentials of the patriarch seon and suggests the mindless gate through reflecting on the hwadu and recitation of the Buddha's name for the middle or low classes of practitioners. His 『Suseon gyeolsa mun』 follows Bojo's 'view of emptiness obtained by prajna(wisdom)' through 'simultaneous cultivation of meditation and wisdom' and Cheongheo‘s integration of the meditation method and the scholastic method by harmonization and recitation of the Buddha's name. He explains even to the thinkers of Confucian school and Daoist school why they had better believe in Buddhism. And he says 'defense theory against anti-Buddhism' by quoting Hamheo Gihwa(1376~1433)'s 『Hyeonjeong non』(Treatise on manifesting righteousness) and Mou-zi's 『Treatise on illusion in regard to fundamental truth』. Thirdly, in 『Sikji byeonseol』, Baekpa says that a practitioner of Mahayana Bodhisattva should reflect on the wisdom through correct understanding on the discrimination of the consciousness(vijnana). If he wants to obtain the wisdom, at first he should enter into the samadhi of dream and fantasy through the profound of a thing in itself, Lin-ji's first path. Next, he should clear away the imprints of ignorance by the samadhi of undiscriminatoty thought of the profound of a phrase according to He-ze Shen-hui(670~762)'s absence of discriminative thought and formlessness. At last he could enter into the samadhi of suchness by the profound of a profound through the hwadu 'Mu' of the patriarch seon. Baekpa recommends the performance of six paramitas perfecting of oneself and others rather than the recitation of the Buddha's name for being born to the pure land. In 『Sikji byeonseol』, Baekpa also writes about the pure land and the precepts. Fourthly, 『Jakbeop gwigam』 says one should reflect on the wisdom by the hwadu 'absence of discriminative thought in all Buddhist ceremonies' and prayer and chanting of morning and evening. This 『Jakbeop gwigam』is the one that has reedited the essentials from several books on ceremonies according to Baekpa's thoughts on seon. Turning right and left in the walking-over ceremony inside the Sangha hall means the patriarch seon consisting of three essentials that bestow potentiality and function. The walking over inside the Sangha hall means tathagata seon of three phrases explaining the realities through the phenomena in order to save sentient beings. And 『Gandang-non』(Treatise on contemplating one's original mind) explains the ceremony of 『Gandang』 with the concepts of three kinds of seon, potentiality and function, 'Salhwalbyeon', and 'Wondrous being of true emptiness'. Therefore we can know that Baekpa is one of the great thinkers, seon practitioners and the great educators.
-
Since Buddhism was introduced to China at the end of Dong-Han(東漢), the Chinese have viewed Buddhism as something linked to a hermit with miraculous powers affected by traditional thoughts. They thought of Buddha as one of those who became enlightened including Huangdi(黃帝) or Lao-Zi(老子). With the influence of Confucianism, they believed Buddha was Confucius(孔子). Samsara, the belief that spirit exists forever unlike body, made them see Buddha as the personified God. The theory of dharma-k?ya(法身) wasn't introduced until Praj??p?ramit?-s?tra(般若經) was translated into Chinese. A lot of people became interested in the theory of Praj?? and Xuanxue(玄學) became popular in the Wei-Jin(魏晋) era. Praj??p?ramit?-s?tra says nothing in the whole phenomenal world exists independently of causal factors and suggests a new interpretation of dharma in which characters of all things are ??nyat?. Therefore, the book explains that Buddha is not like the others that are all involved in birth and death but Buddha is Dharmat?, which is the original self-nature of all the variety of things. In other words, Buddha himself is dharma-k?ya. The Chinese interpreted the Praj??p?ramit?-s?tra using China's traditional thoughts and terms. And the concept of ??nya was interpreted based on the ideology of Xuanxue. The Chinese understood dharma-k?ya mentioned in Praj??p?ramit?-s?tra through the ontological thinking of Xuanxue and concluded that dharma-k?ya is an imperishable spirit and Dharmat? has self-existent reality. However, they thought that dharma-k?ya had a figure or form because they interpreted k?ya as a body. However, the interpretation that k?ya is a body wasn't matched with the ideology of an imperishable spirit so that the Chinese had hard time understanding the theory of dharma-k?ya. Kum?raj?va translated Pa?cavi??ati-s?hasrik?-praj??p?ramit?-s?tra(??大品般若經??). He also delivered Mah?praj??p?ramita?astra(??大智度論??) which was a guide book of Pa?cavi??ati-s?hasrik?-praj??p?ramit?-s?tra and M?lamadhyamaka-k?rik?m(??中論??) and ?ata??stra(??百論??). Even before Pa?cavi??ati-s?hasrik?-praj??p?ramit?-s?tra(??大品般若經??) and Mah?praj??p?ramita?astra were proofread, Chinese copied, imparted and studied it including Hui-Yuan(慧遠), a representative monk in China. Hui-Yuan was good at Zhuang-Zi(??莊子??), the philosophy of Zhuang-Zi and studied the theory of praj?? influenced by Xuanxue and the theory of Abhidharma by H?na-y?na(小乘), or small-vehicle. He couldn't understand the theory of dharma-k?ya conveyed in Indian Biddhism Kum?raj?va because he thought dharma-k?ya was an immortal spirit and Dharmat?, Dharma-nature, was existent. So he sent Kum?raj?va(鳩摩羅什) correspondence asking the meaning of dharma-k?ya with a perspective of ontological thinking and the Existence School, one of the small-vehicle schools that saw sources of all things substantially exist. Kum?raj?va answered Hui-Yuan based on the ideology of the middle path, which is an idea of N?g?rjuna(龍樹) and ?rya-deva(提婆). Da-Cheng-Da-Yi-Zhang(??大乘大義章??) is a collection of letters between Kum?raj?va and Hui-Yuan. I have studied how Kum?raj?va saw dharma-k?ya based on Da-Cheng-Da-Yi-Zhang. Hui-Yuan's questions contradicted Praj?? of Mah?-y?na and the theory of M?dhyamika because his questions were raised based on the theory of Abhidharma who was H?na-y?na's Buddhist text. Therefore, his questions played a role in Kum?raj?va’s explaining about dharma-k?ya based on the ideas and values of Praj??and M?dhyamika. Dharma-k?ya in Praj??p?ramit?-s?tra refers to Buddha's Dharma, which is Buddha's enlightenment through realization of truth, not to Buddha's body. The Dharma is the ultimate reality, which means all things arise dependently, from causes and all of those have no existence. That indicates emptiness of all phenomena of conditional aggregates, material and mental. Praj??p?ramit?-s?tra says that when you realize the ultimate reality, you can become Buddha and Buddha with the enlightenment is dharma-k?ya. You should have practiced good deeds to find enlightenment through realization of truth. Buddha can become dharma-body by practicing good deeds. In Praj??p?ramit?-s?tra, Buddha only says r?pa-k?ya(色身), a physical body and formless dharma-k?ya. But as a thoughtshe explains dharma-k?ya as the laudable deeds. Mah?praj??p?ramita?astra(??大智度論??) explains the concept of dharma-k?ya through good virtues and incorporates the concept into the theory of dharma-k?ya. Moreover, Mah?praj??p?ramita?astra illustrates Buddha's body in two ways based on the idea that dharma-k?ya and r?pa-k?ya aren’t the same and different. Kum?raj?va views dharma-k?ya as two beings including a true dharma-k?ya and nirm??a-k?ya which is the transformation of the Buddha in the form of a sentient being. The true dharma-k?ya can be achieved through both pure and undefiled deeds and deeds accumulated in the past. So they are called the birth of the body of Dharma-nature because they come from Dharmat?(法性). The true dharma-k?ya embraces all things, because it pervades the whole universe. Ordinary people who don't practice good deeds can't see and they say the true dharma-k?ya is figureless. However, dharmamegh?-bh?mi(十地) in the final stage of bodhisattvacan training can see it and hear dharma-k?ya's teaching. Nirm??a-k?ya, which is the transformation-body of Buddha, comes from a true dharma-k?ya. It appears according to up?ya(方便) and appears with different figures in terms of capabilities to understand Dharma. As there are many kinds of ordinary people, the appeareances of Buddha vary to meet people's needs in the world. Kum?raj?va think of a body which has changed from a true dharma-k?ya as dharma-k?ya. He also explains two dharma-k?yas consisting of a root(本)and a trace(迹) and that those two are not different. The ultimate reality was the term he used for the first time in China while he translated Pa?cavi??ati-s?hasrik?-praj??p?ramit?-s?tra. The ultimate reality is a translated term implying the doctrine of emptiness in Praj??p?ramit?-s?tra and of M?dhyamika. The ultimate reality means the real state of all elements. All things are empty because everything is totally interconnected with everything else, which means they have no separate existence. The ultimate reality is an actual state of dharma-k?ya. He says the ultimate reality consists of one satya(一諦), the ultimate everlasting truth, and formlessness as a single form. Something figureless means all teachings neither arise nor become extinct. Formlessness means every Dharma is non-ceasing and non-arising Everything is neither being nor non-being because any existence in the whole universe is a causally conditioned existence, depending on and complimenting each other. Therefore, dharma-k?ya is the Middle Path of non-duality Kum?raj?va says there are three types of dharma-k?ya. First, is a dharma-body of true reality. Second, is sa?bhoga-k?ya, the body of the manifestation of the universal Buddha-essence in symbolic form as Amitabha Buddha for the spiritual edification of the Bodhisattvas. Third, is nirm??a-k?ya which is transformed dharma-body for the deliverance of ordinary people from the sea of sufferings. He thinks those three Buddhas are all dharma-k?ya with different forms. All dharma-k?yas do not arise or become extinct, which is the same state of nirv?n?a. Unlike the theory of the triple body of the Buddha delivered to China by realizing the ultimate truth of emptiness, his three dharma-k?yas aren't standardized in terms of title for the triple body of the Buddha, However, his three dharma-k?yas ideologically imply the theory of Trik?ya, the triple body of the Buddha. That begins in the Pa?cavi??ati-s?hasrik?-praj??p?ramit?-s?tra and Mah?praj??p?ramita?astra so that Kum?raj?va's theory of dharma-k?ya contains the theory of Trik?ya. China's Buddhist circle could found the theory of dharma-k?ya through Kum?raj?va's translation which they couldn't understand exactly because he translated the theory of dharma-k?ya based on the philosophy of Praj?? and insight of the Middle Path. Many Chinese Buddhists were influenced by M?dhyamika which Kum?raj?va introduced to China, and used Kum?raj?va's theory of dharma-k?ya to set up their own theory when they analyzed the dharma-k?ya mentioned in newly introduced the Bodhisattva Vehicle's scriptures and its guide books. Kum?raj?va used the philosophy of ultimate reality based on the philosophy of Praj?? and insight of the Middle Path to explain dharma-k?ya and this made a huge impact on many Buddhists later. Seng-Zhao(僧肇) inherited his teacher's philosophy and set up the theory of ??nya grounded on the Middle Path of non-duality. Many disciples studied Madhyamika, or the Three Treatises following his teacher. Dao-Sheng(道生) was influenced by the theory that Dharmat? is Nirvana and it exists everlastingly from the philosophy of Praj??. He said that ordinary people can become Buddha. He also voiced his opinion on sudden enlightenment affected by Kum?raj?va's opinion about realization of enlightenment through correct wisdom. However, some other disciples stuck to the theory of gradual enlightenment, which sparked controversy about sudden enlightenment and gradual enlightenment. Zi-Cang(吉藏), one of the representative student monks in Sui(隋) Dynasty, inherited the insight of the Middle Path following Kum?raj?va and Seng-Zhao(僧肇) and made a huge progress on the Sanlun or three-treatise Sect. Kum?raj?va's ultimate view of phenomena had an effect on Zhi-Yi(智?). He established the doctrine of true nature of reality and developed Chinese Buddhism. The Kum?raj?va's philosophy on dharma-k?ya made a huge impact not only on the translation over dharma-k?ya, but also on the development of Chinese Buddhism.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
