http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
박찬문(Park, Chan-moon) 한국목간학회 2017 목간과 문자 Vol.0 No.18
흥전리사지는 산길과 물길이 나뉘는 영동의 교통로에 위치한다. 통일신라시대에 창건(創建)되어 고려시대 전반(前半)까지 유지된 동 · 서원(東 · 西院)으로 구성된 대형 산지가람(山地伽藍)이다. 사지는 금당지와 탑지로 구성된 단탑식 가람배치의 예불공간인 서원과 대형 구들시설(溫突)과 6동의 건물지가 밀집한 생활공간인 동원으로 구분된다. 통일신라시대 독특하고 창의적인 건축물과 함께 탑, 석등, 귀부(龜趺) 등의 빼어난 석조문화재, 금동번과 청동정병, ‘국통’ · ‘대장경’ · ‘자금어’명 비편 등의 출토유물을 통해 통일신라시대 후기 위세 높은 사찰이었음을 알 수 있었다. 흥전리 사지에서는 총 13점의 비편에서 명문이 확인되었다. 비문을 통해 다음과 같은 내용을 알 수 있었다. 첫째, 스님의 성은 김씨이며 진골신분으로 계림출신 신라왕경인이었다. 둘째, 아버지는 소판을 지낸 휘 장이며 어머니는 단훈(斷葷)하며 태교하여 스님을 낳았다. 셋째, 출가하여 함통 년간 또는 그 이전에 당나라에서 유학했으며, 당나라 대장경을 가지고 왔다. 넷째, 스님은 국통이었거나 최소한 흥전리사지에서 국통과 관련된 행적이 있다. 그리고 종파적으로는 선종과 밀접한 관련이 있으며 굴산산문과 관계될 가능성이 있다. 다섯째, 스님은 함통 년간 이후 입적하였으며 비문은 9세기 후반에 자금어대를 받은 누군가에 의해 찬자 혹은 서자 되었으며, 최치원과 관련되었을 가능성이 높다. 또한 서체가 2가지인 것으로 보아 음기(陰記)가 있을 수 있어 비문의 제작이 다소 늦을 수 있다. 비문에 적힌 스님의 행적을 통해 흥전리사지의 당시 위상을 살펴볼 수 있다. Temple site in Heungjeon-ri is located on Yeongdong traffic road divided into mountain road and water road. It is a large mountain temple composed of East and West side(東·西院) which was built during the Unified Silla and preserved until the early half of the founding period Koryô. Temple site is divided into West side(西院), a Buddhist worship-space with the single stupa type arrangement of the temple which consists of a golden shrine hall and the stone stupa, and East side(東院), a living space where large-scale Gudeul facilities(溫突, Korea floor heating system) and six buildings are concentrated. In addition to unique and creative architecture in the Unified Silla period, there are excellent stone artifacts such as stupa, Stone lantern, tortoise-shaped pedestal, Including unearthed Gilt-Bronze flag, Bronze Kundika, ‘guktong(國統)’·‘daejang-gyeong(大藏經, Tripitaka)’·‘jageumeodae(紫金魚袋)’ articles of inscriptions, thus It was understood that it was a temple which was higher in the latter period of Unified Silla. A total of 13 articles of inscriptions were found in The temple site in Heungjeon-ri. Through the inscription, the following contents were found. First, the family name of the monk is Kim, and he was a Capital of Shilla from Gyerim as a jingol royal. Second, the monk’s father was the Sopan(蘇判) and his name was Zang. The monk’s mother gave birth to him after the prenatal education into careful food. Third, he became a Buddhist monk. He studied abroad in The Tang(唐) Dynasty for the hamtong(咸通) year or so before, and brought the Daejang-gyeong(大藏經, Tripitaka) in the Tang Dynasty. Fourth, the monk was guktong(國統), or at least there was a guktong-related act in the temple site in Heungjeon-ri. And he is closely related to Seonjong(禪宗, Zen Buddhism) in the sectarian sense and is likely to be related to gulsansanmun(堀山山門). Fifth, The monk entered after the year of hamtong, and the inscription was compiled or biblied by someone who received a jageumeodae(紫金魚袋) in the late 9th century, and it is likely that it was associated with Choi Chiwon. In addition, since there are two types of fonts, It may have been recorded in minus, so the production of inscriptions may be a little late. Through the Buddhist monks’ activity in the inscription on Steles of Buddhist Eminent Monk, You can see the contemporary status of the Temple site in Heungjeon-ri at that time.
Erasmus 와 Luther 사이에 논쟁의 성격에 관한 考察
朴贊文 제주대학교 1989 논문집 Vol.28 No.1
Erasmus is typical of the Christian humanism, and Luther is typical of the Reformation. There is a obvious connection between the Christian humanism and the Reformation. The two, however, should not be identified, for they differ essentially in many points, despite some resemblances. This appears evidently in the controversy between Erasmus and Luther. From a synthetic viewpoint of both humanist and christian, this writer was about to study a character of the controversy by comparing, investigating their methodology, temperament, view on human nature, and soteriology. Erasmus is rhetorical, Luther is confessional. Erasmus establishes a criterion of truth as the calculation of probability. Luther proclaims the Gospel truth surely by dogmatizing. For Erasmus the free response to Grace is probable most. For Luther, the response of faith alone in Grace is only one way to the Salvation. Thus there are essential defferences in soteriology between the two, but those are not extraneous. This means not a total severance of relation but firm ambivalence, establishing a distance each other.
朴贊文 제주대학교 1984 논문집 Vol.22 No.2
As a christian humanist, Erasmus wanted to accept and harmonize the classical heritage and christian tradition. This is the very essence of christian humanism. Erasmus' pacifism represents well the character of christian humanism. He admitted the traditional just war theory. He is, however, called as a pacifist in view of his belief that it is impossible to translate the concept of the just war into reality. He sharply recognized that war is madness and folly during his times (late 15th century ? early 16th century). War is contrary to the human nature as well as to the nature of a christian. But he was convinced that we could reach the restoration of human nature and keep away from war through the Grace of Christ based on human reason. His pacificism has a great importance in his aspiration for peace, opposing all wars on the basis of an ethical point of view, though it has a political limit.