http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
길희성(Keel, Hee-Sung) 보조사상연구원 2009 보조사상 Vol.31 No.-
본 논문은 지눌(1158-1210)의 선사상을 마이스터 엑카르트(1260-1328)의 그리스도교 신비주의 사상과 인도의 라마나 마하르쉬(1879-1950)의 베단타 신비주의 사상과 비교 고찰함으로써 지눌 선사상의 보편성을 더 선명하게 부각시키고자 한다. 위의 세 사상가는 신과 인간 영혼의 밀접한 관계적 일치를 강조하는 '사랑의 신비주의'와는 달리, 인간의 정신(마음, 영혼)과 절대적 실재와의 완벽한 존재론적-영적 일치를 추구한다. 특히 엑카르트는 창조주 하느님과 인간 영혼의 존재론적 차이를 강조하는 유일신 신앙의 테두리를 과감하게 넘어서 양자의 완벽한 일치를 추구한다는 점에서 동양의 일원론적 형이상학의 입장에 매우 근접하고 있다. 본 논문은 지눌의 불성(진심)사상을, 실체론적 사고를 거부해온 전통적 불교 사상의 테두리보다는 그리스도교와 힌두교를 대표하는 두 사상가의 형이상학적 영성의 관점에서 조명함으로써 지눌 선사상의 새로운 이해와 아울러 종교 간의 상호 이해와 궁극적 일치의 가능성을 모색한다. The present article is a comparative study of Chinul's(1158-1210) Seon(Zen) thought with the mystical thoughts of Meister Eckhart(1260?-1328) and Sri Ramana Maharshi(1879-1950), the modern Hindu saint representing the spirituality of the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Unlike the mysticism of love predicated upon the relational unity of God and the human soul, the three thinkers mentioned above agree in pursuing a perfect divine-human unity, ontological and spiritual. Of particular significance in this regard is Meister Eckhart who came very close to the Asian monistic spirituality by boldly transcending the ontological divide, characteristic of monotheistic faiths, between God and the humans. Rather than understanding Chinul's concept of Buddha-nature(True Mind) in the framework of traditional Buddhist thought which repudiates the notion of metaphysical substantiality, the present article focuses on the essential similarity between Chinul's Buddha-nature and Eckhart's intellectus and Ramana's I-I(the True Self), with a view to promoting the mutual understanding of the three religious traditions and the idea of their ultimate unity.
길희성(Hee-Sung Keel) 한국종교학회 2015 宗敎硏究 Vol.75 No.4
Carefully distinguishing between religious pluralism and religious plurality, this essay explores the possibility of developing a religiously plural form of Christian theology in the modern world. There has been mainly two types of Christian theology: dogmatic theology and contextual or dialogical theology which seeks dialogue with other religions and secular world. In the light of some features which the two disciplines, dialogical theology and the history of religion(Religionswissenschaft) share, a religiously plural form of Christian theology would be more compatible with dialogical theology than with dogmatic theology. Through engaging dialogue with, and learning from Asian religious traditions, it will be able to benefit greatly from Asian religious traditions, especially in its effort to overcome the traditional supernaturalistic view of God and the world and seek a new direction toward ‘natural supernaturalism’ in face of the global environmental/ecological crisis. Due to pervasive influence of modern science, which is preoccupied with the question of ‘how’ disregarding the question of ‘why,’ modern men and women suffer from the general ‘crisis of meaning’ in life and the world. By drawing upon the rich philosophical wisdom and spiritual insights provided by Asian religions, a religiously plural form of Christian theology will also be able to address to this modern malaise more effectively.