儒釋衝突與調和 —— 跨文化交流中的臺灣與韓國漢傳佛教

박영환 한국중국언어문화연구회 2014 한중언어문화연구 Vol.- No.35

I have been thinking of the problem of Korea and Taiwan’s cultural difference ever since I studied abroad in Taiwan for the first time more than 20 years ago. Specific for, how did Taiwan’s Buddhism become flourishing? What’s the difference between Korean society’s and Taiwan society’s Confucian values? Is it connected with Korean society’s exclusiveness and Taiwan society’s inclusiveness? These small macro-problems recurred to me from time to time. And I have tried to discuss on the problems I have been thinking about on the base of these factual situations in these two years. My shallow opinion of The Charm and Influence Enacted by Buddhism in Contemporary Society of Taiwan: Together With Its Similarities and differences with Korean Buddhism had been delivered at the International Symposium of the Religious Retrospect and Prospect at the One Hundred Anniversary of the Founding of ROC which was hosted by Taiwan Association for Religious Studies and held in Academia Sinica on May 14th, 2011. And also in August, 2012 I delivered the Religious thoughts of Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism and Taiwan Society at the 32nd International Symposium on Chinese Studies that hosted by Korean Association of Chinese Studies and held at Yonsei University in Korea. The reason of the big differences between Taiwan’s and Korea’s Chinese Buddhism has been further discussed on the base of existing studies in this essay. This is a very interesting and important subject. The textual research has been made from four aspects which include the analysis of Taiwan Buddhism and Korean Buddhism’s developing process from the view point of Confucianism and Buddhism’s conflict and compromise, what actually are the reason of Taiwan Chinese Buddhism’s prosperity, and the research of Chinese Buddhism’s developing process in Korea. Firstly, the different religious values between Korean scholar-officials and Ming dynasty’s officials is analyzed through the 16th century’s cultural records of Fujian Min district which is one root of Taiwan’s culture in order to realize that Ming dynasty’s officials held inclusive religious value that is a mélange of Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism; but Korean officials held exclusive religious values that is the overwhelming Confucianism and the attack on heresies. Secondly, the value that Confucianism occupies the central position and Buddhism plays subsidiary role was still kept on the base of the combination of Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism in Taiwan district during the late Ming and early Qing periods; However, in Korean Dynasty not only the value of Neo-Confucianism was kept from the beginning to the end, but also the views that were different from Neo-Confucianism were always intolerant. Thirdly, the consciousness of rebelling against tradition was appeared in Taiwan’s Buddhist circle during the period of Japanese occupation which not only made firm position for women’s independence, but also raised Buddhism’s position and narrowed down the distance between Confucian scholars and monks; During this period although the modern trend of establishing new educational institutions was appeared in Korean Buddhist circle, Korean Buddhism was essentially dependent on Japanese Buddhism as to seek Korean Buddhism’s revival and development. As this dependence became stronger and stronger, the opposition and dispute between anti-national Japanolatry “Educational Institute”’s mainstream power and “General Affairs Office”’s nonofficeholding power which emphasized nationality and independence was appeared. Finally, owing to Taiwan culture and scholar thought’s pluralism, extremely conservative values and traditions of Neo-Confucianism weaker and weaker gradually so as to make room for the contemporary development of Taiwan’s modern Buddhism. But in Korea, the centralized Buddhist system and thought that started from the Joseon dynasty and based on Confucianism’s great u...

『문수설반야경』과 『금강경』의 관점에서 보는 혜능 남종선의 주제와 방법론

윤희조 한국동서철학회 2019 동서철학연구 Vol.0 No.91

In the Teachings of Eastern Mountain, Chan Buddhism reciting Buddha’s name of Zhishen, the northern school of Chan Buddhism of Shenxiu, and the southern school of Chan Buddhism of Huinung appear. Daoxin, the founder of the Teachings of Eastern Mountain, takes Buddha's mind as the theme, and adopts Samadhi for One Act as the methodology. Huinung, the founder of the southern school of Chan Buddhism, takes prajñāpāramitā as the theme, and adopts methodology and purpose becoming one as the methodology. In Saptaśatikāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra the essence is prajñāpāramitā and Samadhi for One Act. From the Saptaśatikāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, we can see the possibility of splitting up three lines of Chan Buddhism. It is possible to make a Chan Buddhism reciting Buddha’s name from a specific method that is included in the Samadhi for One Act in Saptaśatikāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Keeping one and not separate, which describes Samadhi for One Act in the language of Daoxin, moves toward the northern school of Chan Buddhism through keeping the original and true mind of Hongren and seeing the mind of the Shenxiu. The importance of the prajñāpāramitā in Saptaśatikāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra goes to the southern school of Chan Buddhism of Huinung. The northern school of Chan Buddhism and the southern school of Chan Buddhism have different themes. It is the difference between mind and prajñāpāramitā. If the mind is characterized by the pure mind and defiled mind, prajñāpāramitā is characterized by non-dual. This change in the theme can be found in the process of the ideological development from the early Hongren of the context of the northern school of Chan Buddhism to the late Hongren of the context of the southern school of Chan Buddhism. Huinung, the founder of the southern school of Chan Buddhism can go to the prajñāpāramitā monism through the Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra. In the Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, there is no mention of Samadhi for One Act, only the prajñāpāramitā. Through the prajñāpāramitā, Huinung moves into the non-dual, where methodology and purpose become one. As the result of that methodology and purpose become one, the idea that samadhi and wisdom must be practiced together comes into being. The thought that samadhi and wisdom must be practiced together takes the form of is-isn’t(而不) like the Three Non-being(三無). It goes to the form of practice without thought of practice and tao without need for practice. If Huinung's return to the theme of prajñāpāramitā was to return to the tradition of the prajñāpāramitā sūtra, the methodology of that methodology and purpose becoming one would be an innovative methodology, unlike the traditional and gradual methodology of the northern school of Chan Buddhism. 동산법문으로부터 지선의 염불선, 신수의 북종선, 혜능의 남종선이 출현한다. 동산법문의 개창자인 도신은 부처의 마음을 주제로, 『문수설반야경』의 일행삼매를 방법론으로 삼는다. 『문수설반야경』은 반야바라밀과 일행삼매를 핵심으로 한다. 이 경에서 삼선(三禪)의 분파가능성을 볼 수 있다. 일행삼매 안에 포함되어 있는 구체적인 방법론인 염불에서 염불선이 가능하고, 일행삼매를 도신의 언어로 표현한 수일불이는 홍인의 수본진심, 신수의 관심을 통해서 북종선으로 나아간다. 『문수설반야경』이 반야바라밀 자체를 중시한 것은 혜능의 남종선으로 나아간다. 남종선의 개창자인 혜능은 반야바라밀을 주제로, 『금강경』의 수증불이를 방법론으로 삼는다. 북종선과 남종선은 주제를 달리한다. 심과 반야바라밀의 차이이다. 심은 청정심과 염오심의 이분을 특징으로 가진다면, 반야바라밀은 불이를 특징으로 한다. 이처럼 주제가 변화하는 것은 도신에서 홍인, 신수로 이어지는 북종선 맥락의 초기 홍인이 혜능에게 『금강경』을 설하는 후기 홍인으로 나아가면서 사상적으로 발전하는 과정에서 찾을 수 있다. 혜능은 『금강경』을 통해서 반야일원론으로 나아갈 수 있게 된다. 『금강경』은 반야바라밀만 설하고 일행삼매에 대한 언급을 하지 않는다. 반야바라밀을 통해서 혜능은 방법론과 목적론이 불이가 되는, 수증불이로 나아간다. 수증불이의 귀결로 정혜등학이 나오게 된다. 수증불이는 구체적으로 념이불념(念而不念), 상이불상(相而不相), 주이부주(住而不住)의 삼무(三無)처럼 이불(而不)의 형태를 띈다. 이는 이후 무수지수(無修之修), 도불용수(道不用修)의 형태로 나아가게 된다. 혜능이 반야바라밀의 주제로 돌아간 것이 반야경계통의 전통으로 돌아간 것이라면, 수증불이의 혜능의 방법론은 북종선의 전통적인 점수적 방법론과 달리 혁신적인 방법론이라고 할 수 있다.

鶴鳴의 禪農佛敎에 보이는 結社的 性格

김호성 한국선학회 2010 한국선학 Vol.27 No.-

학명은 근대 한국에서 선농불교를 주창하고 실천한 선구자이다. 용성 보다 시기적으로 빠르다는 점에서 ‘효시’로까지 볼 수 있다고 평가하였다. 이러한 관점은 선농불교를 단순히 禪家 전통의 普請과는 다른 차원에서 이해함으로써 가능하게 되었다. 물론 선농불교는 보청의 전통을 잇고 있지만, 보청과는 달리 뚜렷한 역사적 특수성을 반영한다. 그 시대 상황 속에서 교단의 존재양식에 대한 반성에서 출발하므로 개혁적 성격이 있다. 학명이나 용성의 선농불교가 선가 전통의 보청과는 다른 측면이다. 이 점을 주목할 때 ‘역사’는 형성된다. 또 한편으로 학명의 선농불교에서 주목할 점은, 학명 스스로가 ‘결사운동’이라고 自任하거나 표방한 일이 없음에도 불구하고 하나의 ‘결사’로 볼 수 있다는 점이다. 선농의 결사, 즉 선농결사로 자리매김할 수 있다고 나는 본다. 이 논문은 바로 그 점을 드러내고자 한 것이다. 우선 학명의 선농불교를 하나의 결사로 볼 수 있으려면, 결사의 개념 정의에 있어서 스스로 ‘결사’라고 하는 의식이 있었는가 하는 점은 결정적인 기준이 되지 않아야 한다. 그러한 표방 여부와는 별도로, 결사를 구성하는 데 더욱 중요한 것은 그것이 避隱 속의 개혁인가, 또 脫권력/脫정치의 수행운동인가 하는 점에 있었던 것으로 보았다. 이런 나의 결사 개념에 비추어 볼 때, 학명의 선농불교는 손색이 없는 결사였던 것으로 평가하였다. 또 하나 그의 선농불교 현장에서 활용되었던 텍스트 속에서, 학명의 선농불교가 결사임을 증거하는 성격의 텍스트를 확인할 수 있다는 점이다. 결사는 공동체 운동이므로 참가한 대중들의 윤리적 실천강령이 필요하다. 그것은 역시 禪家의 전통을 이어서 ‘淸規’라는 형태로 나타난다. 내장사에서 행해진 학명의 선농불교에는 「內藏禪院 規則」이 제정되어 있었으며, 여기에는 선농불교를 행해야 할 이유나 목표 등이 간략하지만 분명하게 표방되어 있었다. 結社文에서 밝혀야 할 성격의 내용까지 포괄하고 있었던 것이다. 하지만 결사의 논리적 이유와 방법을 밝히고 있는 結社文의 역할을 대신해 줄 텍스트가 없었던 것은 아니다. 바로 「禪園曲」이라는 불교가사이다. 거기에는 선농불교의 반대자를 설득하는 논리와 農이 禪 안에서 차지하는 의미 등을 밝히고 있어서, 시기적으로 늦게 발표된 것이므로 結社文이라 보기는 어려울지 몰라도 결사의 이유를 적은 理由書라 해도 좋을 것으로 평가하였다. 이러한 두 가지 접근방법을 통하여, 나는 학명의 선농불교는 그 자체가 결사적 성격을 갖는 것으로서, 보통명사적 의미에서 ‘선농결사’로 불러도 좋으리라 본다. Hak-Myung(鶴鳴) was a Sŏn master, a buddhist reformer, a performer of combinational practice of Sŏn and Agriculture, a poet, and a painter who drew the paintings of Bodhi-Dharma(達磨圖). Therefore overall studies should be done on his varied facets, but before that, deep researches on his individual aspects should be preceded. Previous studies on Hak-Myung as a reformer, as a performer of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism, and as a poet have been done a little. Especially the studies on his thought and conduct of combinational practice of Sŏn and Agriculture have been received lots of attention along with his reformative position on the history of modern Buddhist order in Korea. Considering small quantities of primary and secondary sources which remain now, I was not sure if there could be a new understanding. However researching more concretely, I realized that there are still some parts which need to be organized. One of them is the point that the first of the Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism which had conducted combinative practice of Sŏn and Agriculture in modern Korean Buddhism was not Yong-Sung(龍城) but Hak-Myung unlike existing theory. I have already re-examined in my previous study. In addition, through this study, it could be re-appraised that Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a Gyŏl-sa(結社, Fraternitas). It is obvious to me who has been interested in the Gyŏl-sa(結社, Fraternitas) for a long time and evaluated it as a restoration of spirit of renunciation. First of all, there is one problem in my perspective that regards Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a Gyŏl-sa. He has never said his Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a 'Gyŏl-sa' in his own words. In regard of appraising a new Buddhist movement as a Gyŏl-sa, usually it is an important criterion that the advocate of the movement is aware of a previous Gyŏl-sa and willing to succeed it. However, I think it is not a decisive criterion that the advocate claims and regards his/her movement as the Gyŏl-sa. Because fulfilling those components which construct a 'Gyŏl-sa' is much more important. The first component is that if it is a reformation held on condition of seclusion. Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism tried to practice within its power first--in a corner-- realizing properly the problems of Sŏn order and the entire Buddhist society. The second component is that if it is a movement of practice held for non-power/ non-political purpose, and it satisfies the condition. Hak-Myung practiced the Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism under the banner of 'Half Farm and Half Sŏn-ism' at Naejangsa temple, but his purpose was not controlling the whole Buddhist order. Moreover, his position was only a chief monk of a branch temple. The third component is that even if Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism was a small-scale moral community, it was definitely a Gyŏl-sa. In the light of the definition of the Gyŏl-sa, it is possible to regard Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a Gyŏl-sa. Moreover if it is accepted, there should exist two elements : 'Pure Rules' which the participants follow and 'a statement of reason' which defines logical reasons or methods. On the 'Pure Rules', the previous researchers also --even if they didn't point out that it was not the 'Pure Rules of the Gyŏl-sa'-- have been agreed that <Rules of Naejang Sŏnwŏn> is the Pure Rules. There, the principle, the purpose, the method of the Gyŏl-sa and the concrete standards of daily life are enacted. In the sense that the <Rules of Naejang Sŏnwŏn> includes the principle and purpose of the Gyŏl-sa, it can be regarded that Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a Gyŏl-sa of Sŏn-Agriculture. But it is no doubt that if there exist a proclamation, it could be regarded as a definite associational movement. Considering it is general that a proclamation is issued in the beginning of the Gyŏl-sa, it seems that there is no such a thing in hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism. But, even though the time of announcement was delayed a bit, there is a noteworthy buddhist poetry <Sŏnwŏngok> which gives the particulars of the reasons and the methods of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism. It is hard to be called exactly a proclamation, but I think it can be evaluated as the 'statement of reason of the Gyŏl-sa' because this text performs a role what a proclamation usually does. And it might be used as a textbook for the participants to understand the Gyŏl-sa. Thus, in respect of conceptual perspective and fulfillment of required texts, it is possible to say that Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism is a kind of Gyŏl-sa. Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism is also an Gyŏl-sa of Sŏn-Agriculture. It is noticeable that Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism takes on a specific historicity which cannot be evaluated as a mere cooperation requesting of Sŏn society. As an attempt which tried to ultimately reform the malady of modern Korean Buddhism that had been turned away from labour and digressed from the spirit of renunciation, Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism should be re-appraised its historical value. Now we are at a fork in the road : one that moves us away from Hak-Myung, and the other that goes together with him. Which road would the Korean Sŏn performer choose? The future of Korean Buddhism might depend on it.

대비로자나경차제법소(大毘盧遮那經次第法疏)의 밀교사적 의미 고찰

鄭盛準 한국불교학회 2008 韓國佛敎學 Vol.50 No.-

The Mahāvairocana Sūtra(大日經) was translated into Chinese by Śubhakara-siṃha(善無畏), a master from mid-India, and brought about a lot of changes to Chinese Buddhism. At that time Esoteric Buddhism in China was prevailed by incantational Mantra which purpose was mainly to fulfill the worldly desire for practitioner, but the Mahāvairocana Sūtra was quiet different from those early Esoteric Buddhism since the purpose and foundation of it was to accomplish Buddhahood. The Mahāvairocana Sūtra is supposed to flow into Korean peninsula and expected to provoke similar situations that the Chinese Buddhism had already experienced. Today it is difficult to find any philological materials concerned with the situations except the Commentary of Vairocana-Sūtra's Rites(大毘盧遮那經次第法疏), whose author is His Ven. Bulgasaui(不可思議), a Monk from Silla's Yeongmyosa Temple(零妙寺). Refer to the inscription's record of Galhang Temple(葛項寺)'s stone pagoda and historical record of Samgukyusa(三國遺事) it is possible to draw a lineage that initiated by Master Seungjeon(勝詮法師), which handed down to Master Unjeok(言寂法師) and Bulgasaui, so it is possible to assume that Bulgasaui were related to the traditions of Euisang(義湘)s Hwaom(華嚴)’ order. One of the clues to make this assumption clear is that the doctrinal foundation of Hwaom and Esoteric Buddhism is same as those are dealt with ultimate truth of Dharma's realm(法界) and Dharma's Body(法身) beyond history and time, especially presented by Vairocana Buddha(毘盧遮那如來). Considering the doctrinal foundations of Silla's Buddhism before the inflow of Mahāvairocana Sūtra it is found some doctrinal similarities to Esoteric Buddhism. For example Wonhyo(元曉)'s Integrated Buddhism(圓融佛敎) unites various doctrines of Theravada and Mahāyāna Buddhism into the thought of One Mind(一心), and in Hwaom school it is dealt the Vairocana Buddha as an emanation of universal truth. By views of practices and rites the Abhiṣetana's Light Mantra(大灌頂光眞言) in Wonhyo's Yusimanlakdo(遊心安樂道) is deemed as a development of Silla's Esoteric Buddhism since those believes of Hwaom, Pure Land(淨土), and Avalokiteśvara(觀音) were unified into a system of Vairocana Buddha. Especially, by the existence of Abhiṣetana's Light Mantra it is possible to expect a functional change of Mantras in Silla Buddhism to develop its role of fulfilling worldly desire to an advanced purpose of accomplishing ultimate enlightment. The Avalokiteśvara, a Boddhisattva said in the Commentary of Vairocana-Sūtra's Rite is deemed as a part of Vairocana Buddha's Incarnation(神變). The idea of the practice in the commentary is for a practitioner to accomplish the enlightment of Vairocana Buddha and to carry out those Avalokiteśvara's merciful behaviors. This assumption make it is possible to draw a doctrinal and practitional continuance between Yusimanlakdo and the Commentary of Vairocana-Sūtra's Rite. The Abhiṣetana's Light Mantra, now known as Light Mantra(光明眞言), is classified into a Kṣitigarbha's belief(地藏信仰) system, but the Yusimanlakdo and the Commentary of Vairocana-Sūtra's Rite shows that the Mantra actually belongs to the Vairocana Buddha's system. 신라스님 불가사의는 인도 선무외삼장에게 수학하여 『대비로자나경차제법소』를 남겼고, 이것은 오늘날 드물게 전해지는 신라의 밀교저술 가운데 하나이다. 불가사의 스님은 영묘사출신으로 알려져 있는데, 영묘사는 의상의 화엄계 사찰이기 때문에 비로자나여래를 중심으로 한 화엄과 밀교의 친근성이 불가사의의 교학형성에 영향을 끼쳤을 것으로 보인다. 원효의 『유심안락도』에는 아미타불의 협시보살로서 관음보살의 영험에 의지한 전통적 신앙체계를 보이지만, 문헌에 담긴 대관정광진언의 존재는 악도에 떨어진 중생들을 구원하기 위해 비로자나여래의 가피에 의지하고, 이를 실천하기 위해 진언을 염송한 사실을 보여준다. 『대비로자나경차제법소』에는 관음보살이 비로자나여래의 신변의 일부로 표현되고 있으며, 수행자는 법신여래가 되어 관음보살과 같은 중생구호의 주체가 되어야 한다는 새로운 수행이념이 설해진다. 『대일경』에는 대승불교의 불보살들이 태장계만다라에 수용된 통일된 세계관을 보여주고 있으며, 이러한 융합과 통일의 사유 신라불교의 원융불교와 쉽게 결합했을 것으로 보인다. 현재 한국불교의 관음신앙과 지장신앙은 서로 다른 신앙체제로 인식되지만, 『대비로자나경차제법소』의 연구는 신라시대부터 대보살에 대한 신앙이 비로자나여래를 중심으로 중기밀교의 향상된 세계관과 결합한 정황을 전해주고 있다.

恭讓王代의 政局動向과 斥佛運動의 性格

李廷柱(Lee Jung-Joo) 한국사연구회 2003 한국사연구 Vol.120 No.-

There have been many researches on anti-Buddhism in the late Kory? period. Most of the researches suggested that the anti-Buddhism in the late Kory? period derived from need for socio-economic reform and ideological transformation for founding new dynasty. However, these frame works were not successful in giving clear answers to the questions such as, "how did Buddhism remain still strong among the ruling stratum including royal family of Chos?n dynasty?" and "why can't we find a strong anti-Buddhism movement like the one in king Kongyang's reign in the early Chos?n period?" Thus, I have tried to figure out the characteristics of anti-Buddhist movement in king Kongyang's reign and provide new challenging perspective in this article, by taking a close look at the political situation of Kongyang's reign, the unfolding of anti-Buddhism movement in this period, and the motivation of Kongyang's belief in Buddhism. I have come to the new conclusion and reevaluation of anti-Buddhism movement in Kongyang's reign. Kongyang was put in the throne by Yi S?ng-gye and his party but he strived to revive Kory? dynasty. Owing to the overwhelming political pressure from Yi S?ng-gye and his party, he tried to retrieve this situation by embracing Buddhism and depending on religious power. Accordingly Yi S?ng-gye and his party began criticizing Kongyang's embracement and started anti-Buddhism movement in order to put him in an dead end. The anti-Buddhism movement derived from political agenda of Yi S?ng-gye and his party rather than socio-economic crisis or ideological transformation of that period. Moreover, the fact that even Confucian scholars and officials diverged on this anti-Buddhism movement and showed serious disagreement according to their political position. and the fact that anti-buddhist movement like the one in this period was rarely seen even in the early Chos?n period when the kings protected and embraced Buddhism, give vivid evidence that the anti-Buddhism movement in Kongyang's reign was politically motivated rather than economically or ideologically motivated.

유마경과 정토, 그리고 현대불교

원영상 한국불교학회 2017 韓國佛敎學 Vol.81 No.-

This dissertation, based on the idea of the Pure Land presented in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, analyzes the stream of modern Buddhism. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, which belongs to the scriptures of early Mahāyāna Buddhism, can be called a comprehensive scripture in which the overall teachings of Mahāyāna thought were dissolved. Particularly, various Pure Land thoughts which cannot be found in primitive Buddhism are developed within it. This point can be an important guideline in modern Buddhism which advocates the salvation of society. Accordingly, while this study sees that the Pure Land thought in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra gave a motivating power in the socialization of Buddhism during the Mahāyāna Buddhism movement, it examines the stream of modern Buddhism from the three perspectives of the Pure Land of only-mind, the purification of the Buddha land, and Pure Land in other regions. First, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra is about an only-mind Pure Land and the enlightenment of society. In the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, the act of deliverance to see the world of sentient beings as the Buddha land of bodhisattvas can be described as a socialization of enlightenment. The engagement in society and history can be told as a process of practice. In modern times, Han Yong-un, Paek Yong-seong, Park Jung-bin and SeonoGiro, by taking as the foundation the jewel of the Buddha who realized enlightenment, transformed society through Buddhism. Their reformation of Buddhism may be the socialization of the jewel of the Buddha, and was to develop a movement that human beings, the principal agent who realize the jewel of the Buddha, revolutionize societies. Second, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra is about the purification of the Buddha land and Buddhism’s engagement in society. The ‘non-dual instruction’ as the core idea of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra suggests the duty to purify society by the buddhadharma. It elucidates the point that the religious ethics which is accompanied by practice transcends general ethics, and its goal is the realization of happiness through out all of society. Such points are directly connected with the movement of Engaged Buddhism, which shows up in modern Asia and is reforming societies by interpreting the jewel of the dharma as doctrine from the perspective of modernization. Third, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra is about the relation between the Buddha land in other regions and the socialization of the Saṃgha. The idea of the Pure Land in other regions, which suggests the possibility to achieve the Buddhist path by all sentient beings, is the Pure Land which ideal societies reflected on collectively, and also is the socially realized body of the Saṃgha as a harmonious order. Vimalakīrtinirdeśa in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra is a bodhisattva who came from the Land of the Akṣobhya-Buddha and whose role is to realize oriental Pure Land which is the marvelous joy land where non-movement, non-duality and compassion are equal. The ultimate goal of the Saṃgha is to make this world a Pure Land and it is a community in which the buddhadharmas are realized. Thus, the three ideas about the Pure Land constituted in the spirit of reforming Buddhism to realize the Pure Land through interpreting the three jewels of the Buddha, dharma, and Saṃghacan be applied to a modern perspective. 본 논문은 『維摩經』에 등장하는 정토사상을 기반으로 현대불교의 흐름을분석한 것이다. 대승불교의 초기 경전군에 속하는 『유마경』은 대승사상의 전반적인 가르침이 용해되어 있는 종합적인 경전이라고 할 수 있다. 특히 초기불교에서는 볼 수 없는 여러 정토사상이 전개되고 있다. 이 점은 사회 구제를앞세우고 있는 현대불교에 있어서도 중요한 지침이 될 수 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 『유마경』의 정토사상이 대승불교운동에서 불법의 사회화에 동력을 불어넣었다고 보는 한편, 이를 유심정토, 淨佛國土, 타방정토의 세 가지 측면에서 현대불교의 흐름을 살펴보고 있다. 첫째는 유심정토와 깨달음의 사회이다. 『유마경』에서 중생들의 세계를 보살의 불국토로 보는 구제행위는 깨달음의 사회화라고 할 수 있으며, 사회 역사속의 참여 그 자체를 수행의 과정으로도 볼 수 있다. 근대에 있어 한용운, 백용성, 박중빈 그리고 세노오 기로는 깨달음을 구현한 佛寶를 기점으로 불교의 사회변혁을 전개했다. 이들의 불교개혁은 불보의 사회화라고 할 수 있으며, 불보를구현하는 주체인 인간이 사회를 변혁시키고자 하는 운동을 전개한 것이다. 둘째는 정불국토와 불교의 사회참여이다. 『유마경』의 핵심사상인 不二法門 은 사회를 불법으로 정화시켜야 할 당위성을 제시하고 있다. 실천성을 동반하는 종교윤리가 일반윤리를 초월하는 점을 설파하고 있으며, 그 목표는 사회전체의 행복 실현이다. 이러한 점들은 근현대 아시아에서 일어나고 있는 참여불교(Engaged Buddhism)가 교의로서의 法寶를 현대적으로 해석하여 사회를 개혁하고 있는 운동과 직결된다. 셋째는 타방불토와 승가의 사회화와의 관계이다. 모든 중생의 불도 성취가능성을 제시한 타방정토는 곧 이상사회가 집단적으로 투영된 정토이자 화합교단으로서의 승가의 사회적 구현체라고 할 수 있다. 『유마경』에서 維摩는아축불국토에서 온 보살이자 그의 역할은 부동=불이=자비의 묘희국이라는동방정토를 구현하고자 하는 것이다. 승가의 궁극적인 목표는 이러한 대승정신에 기반, 이 세계를 정토화 하는 것으로 불법이 구현된 공동체라고 할 수있다. 이처럼 세 정토사상은 불법승 삼보의 현대적 해석에 기반하여 정토를구현하고자 하는 개혁불교의 정신을 이루고 있다고 할 수 있다.

서민불교에서의 효 의미 찾기 - <회심곡>을 중심으로 -

장정태 ( Jang¸ Jeong Tae ) 한국청소년효문화학회 2021 韓國의 靑少年文化 Vol.37 No.-

<회심곡>은 조선시대 승려 휴정1)이 지은 불교 가사로 232구로 구성되어 있다. 16세기 말경에 지은 것을 1704년(숙종 30) 명간이 엮어 1776년(영조 52) 해인사에서 펴낸 목판본 『권선염불문』에 실려 전한다. 순 한글로 『회심가곡』이라고 하여 나옹화상이 지은 『서왕가』와 함께 기록되어 있다. 내용은 부모에게 효도하고, 탐욕심(貪慾心)을 버리며, 착한 일을 많이 하고, 염불하여 본심(本心)을 바르게 닦아 극락에 가서 태평가(太平歌)를 부르자는 권념송불(勸念頌佛) 232구의 가사이다. <회심곡>은 문전염불을 하는 문승들이나 절 걸림을 위한 걸립승(乞粒僧), 동량승(棟梁僧)들에 의해서 많이 불려졌으며 모연승(募緣僧)이나 모연(募緣)패와 같은 유희(遊戲)집단에 의해 불렸다. <회심곡>은 부르는 주체에 따라 <화청>이라고 부르기도 한다. 이와 같은 구분은 세속화된 일반사회에서 불리는 것과 구분하기 위해 달리 부르기 시작하면서 붙인 이름이다. 현재 박송암(朴松岩)류의 불교 <회심곡>과 경기 민요의 안비취(安翡翠)로 나뉘어 전승되고 있다. 우리가 쉽게 듣고 알고 있는 <회심곡>은 안비취에 의해 보급된 <회심곡>일 가능성이 높다. <회심곡>은 불교가사이면서도 유교, 도교, 무속 외에 민속적 요소들이 혼합되어 이루어진 특징을 가지는데 이것은 숭유억불정책을 써서 민간에서는 무속이나 민속적 요소가 만연했던 조선 시대에 순수 불교적 요소가 그대로 파급되기가 쉽지 않았을 것이므로 불교 자체를 수용하면서도 당시의 사상적 바탕을 외면하지 못하고 습합을 꾀한 데서 연유한 것으로 보인다. 도입부에 유교의 충효사상을 삽입하였지만 결국 <회심곡>을 향유한 계층은 서민들이다. 주로 죽음의 문제를 생각하면서 불교적인 교리를 통해 인생의 무상을 달래려 했다. 이와 같은 시도는 종교사상과 함께 서민들의 삶을 위로해주는 민중성이 모두 포함되어 있다. 그러나 중요한 것은 <회심곡>은 다른 사상의 전파를 위한 것이 아니라 오로지 불교사상을 포교하기 위한 음악이었다는 사실이다. In our society, the word "people" was always used in the 1980s. Wonhyo's Buddhist Pavilion was found in the Jeongto Faith with the People. In this paper, the traditional form of faith called folk belief and folk Buddhism is described as "people's Buddhism". However, the research results of existing researchers were expressed in the original form as much as possible in order to respect them. was recognized as a way of enlightening the original effect. The name of the Buddhist opposition group was also popular Buddhism. Since then, as the awareness of the era of common people Buddhism sprouted, many monks, including Wonhyo, alternatives and plainclothes in the history of the Three Kingdoms, began to be recognized as advocates of common people Buddhism. They must have been well aware of the religious needs and suffering of ordinary people while living with ordinary people. Most of them lived in the village or downtown area, farming without listening to their wives and daughters, describing the humanities of Buddhism in the same language as ordinary people. However, researchers also perceive Buddhism as a way of surviving a group of monks who were excluded from the authoritative order. Monk groups accept folk beliefs as a means of missionary work through expedient means. However, Buddhism is not an advanced academic religion, but one that is understood by ordinary people. It can become a common people Protestant or a common people Catholic when it meets Protestantism. Some are Buddhist figures that may be decried as a belief of ups and downs through the inclusion of some folk elements. The term "ordinary people" in Buddhism refers to ordinary people who do not have official duties and do not have social privileges over aristocrats, etc. Buddhism is literally a form of Buddhism in which priests approach the common people. He is a priest who approaches and listens to them, not a wait. And the common people are Buddhism on their own terms. It can be a belief of ups and downs and blind faith. As long as this form of faith exists, Buddhism and religion of the common people can have vitality. Filial piety is the most basic ethics in our society. So filial piety is also called the root of white blood and virtue. This symbolizes the image of an old man carrying his son on his back when he sees the letter "hyo." In other words, serving filial parents (old and decrepit) is the basis of all service. The idea that filial piety is encouraged in traditional society but Buddhism is not tolerated has been kept as a social unwritten rule. But in modern society, it is nothing but a personal matter. They endure all sacrifices for their children and are stingy about their parents. It does not appear to be a problem at home, but also in social welfare policies. < Hoesimgok > is a Buddhist monk of the Joseon Dynasty, named Hoesimgok (1250-1604) was a Buddhist monk during the reign of King Myeongjong and King Seonjo. After losing both parents at the age of ten, he came to Seoul with the help of Pastor An Ju and failed to enter Jinsa-si. He was on his way to Jirisan Mountain.Jeong Ji-eun, a study on the origin and development of "Hwachung," followed Pastor An Ju of Dongguk University's Graduate School of Culture and Arts, 1998 p.23 and studied at Banjae, so he went to Jirisan Mountain with some of his classmates to study scriptures and visited Monk (1485-1571).(Kim Seung-dong Pyeonjeo, "Buddhist Temple", "National History", 2011 and p.569), and Joseon Buddhist monk Cheongheo Jeong's annex (Unheo Yongha, "Buddhist Temple", Dongguk Station Gyeongwon, 1985 and p.p.974-975) It is composed of 232 Buddhist lyrics. Built around the end of the 16th century, it is published in the "Gwonseonyeombulmunmunmunmunmun" published by Haeinsa Temple in 1776 (the 52nd year of King Yeongjo's reign) in 1704 (the 30th year of King Sukjong's reign). It is recorded in pure Korean along with "Seowangga" composed by Naong Hwa-sang, called "Hoesimgagok." The lyrics are about 232 verses of Songbul, a song about filial piety to parents, abandoning greed, doing many good things, and cleaning up one's true feelings properly to go to heaven and sing taepyeong. < Hoesimgok > was often sung by Buddhist monks, geolipseungs for Buddhist monks, and Dongryangseungs for Buddhist temples, and was sung by entertainment groups such as Mo yeonseung and Mo yeonpae. < Hwachimgok > is also called < Hwachung > depending on the subject of the song. This distinction was given as it began to be called differently from what is called in secularized general society. Currently, it is divided into Park Songamryu's Buddhist "Hoesimgok" and Gyeonggi folklore's taste. It is highly likely that "Goesimgok," which we easily hear and know, is "Goesimgok," which was distributed by Anbi-chwi. < Hoesimgok > is a Buddhist monk and has a mixture of folk elements other than Confucianism, Taoism, and shamanism, which is believed to be due to the fact that it was not easy for pure Buddhist elements to spread in the private sector. Although Confucianism was inserted into the introduction, the people who enjoyed "Hoesimgok" were ordinary people. Mostly considering the issue of death, he tried to appease the freeness of life through Buddhist doctrines. Such attempts include both religious ideas and popularity that comfort the lives of ordinary people. But the important thing is that Hoesimgok was not just music to spread other ideas, but to preach Buddhist ideas.

삼국시대 仙ㆍ佛 습합의 ‘彌勒思想’

정경희(Jung kyung-Hee) 고조선단군학회 2007 고조선단군학 Vol.16 No.-

The ultimate aim of Korean Sundo discipline is the recover of Samjin(三眞) through Jigam(止感: ceasing emotions)ㆍJosik(調息: tuning breathin g)ㆍKumchok(禁觸: forbidding senses). Samjin is Sung [性:the state of lacking in good or evil in Chun(天Information or Nought) dimension]+Myung [命:the state of lacking in purity or impurity in 人(EnergyㆍKi氣) dimension]+Jung [精:the state of lacking in thick or thin in Ji(地, Material) dimension] or ‘the pre-formed state of Being’, and it was similar to the Buddha-nature. As Samjin in Korean Sundo discipline was similar to the Buddha-nature in Buddhism discipline, the phenomenon of Korean Sundo-Buddhism fusion could be formed. As a phenomenon of Korean Sundo-Buddhism fusion, ‘the thought on Saints of Korean Sundo(仙道聖人論)’ and ‘the thought on thousands of Buddha in Bhadrakalpa(賢劫千佛論)’ were fused. And Koreans had kept an eye on Kasyapa Buddha(迦葉佛) and Shakyamuni Buddha(釋迦佛) as the past Buddha. In the case of Shakyamuni Buddha, the belief in the originator of Buddhism was natural. But Kasyapa Buddha was worthy of notice. Amang Past Saints of Korean Sundo, i.e. Samsung(三聖: Hanin桓因ㆍHanwoong桓雄ㆍDangun檀君), the third grade was Dangun(definitely forty seven persons of Dangun). The one among forty seven persons of Dangun was assimilated to Kasyapa Buddha of Buddhism. Also Koreans had kept an eye on Maitreya Budda(彌勒佛) as the future Buddha. Future possibility of awakening of Samjin or future Saints in Korean Sundo was assimilated to Maitreya Buddha of Buddhism. Thought on Maitreya was accepted to three-kingdom society positively to be the center of the phenomenon of Sundo-Buddhism fusion, especially not ‘thought on a trainee’s ascension上生 in Maitreya’s world(Tusita-deva兜率天)’, but ‘thought on Maitreya’s descent下生 to this world’. In the tradition of awakening(Sungtong性通) and materialization of awakening (Kongwan功完) of Korean Sundo discipline, the fact that the consciousness of awakening(Sungtong性通) had to be materialized to reality(Kongwan功完) was emphasized. Thus Koreans prefered 'the thought on Maitreya’s descent 下生 to this world' to ‘the thought on a trainee’s ascension上生 in Maitreya’s world(Tusita-deva兜率天)’, because the ideal world(Yongwhasaegae 龍華世界)'s materialization was emphasized in ‘the thought on Maitreya’s descent 下生 to this world’. In addition, kings in late three-kingdom society liked ‘the thought on holy Saint-King(Chakravartin轉輪聖王)’ of ‘the thought on Maitreya’s descent下生 to this world’ as the political idea to lead separation of church and state. Two core thought to back up ‘the thought on Maitreya’s descent下生 to this world’ were ‘the thought on early Vijnanamatravada(唯識)’ and ‘the thought on Sila(戒律, commandments)’. The thought on early Vijnanamatravada was prevalent to three-kingdom society, because it was not only the thought to back up ‘the thought on Maitreya’s descent下生 to this world’, but also it was similar to ‘the thought of Sundo’. Sung [性: the state of lacking in good or evil in Chun(天, Information or Nought) dimension] to be awakened lastly among Samjin in Korean Sundo and the ninth consciousness(Amalavijnana 阿摩羅識) in early Vijnanamatravada were the same consciousness of awakening. Like this, as the early Vijnanamatravada was similar to the thought of Sundo, it could be accepted to three-kingdom society. In the case of Sila, for it was emphasized in ‘the thought on Maitreya’?‘the thought on Vijnanamatravada’, the thought on Sila was prevalent to three-kingdom society. Especially Koreans in three-kingdom society had been attempting to materialize the ideal world in this world through 'the thought on Maitreya’s descent下生 to this world', thus the strict observance of Sila to materialize the ideal world was emphasized. The thought on Sila in three-kingdom society was both Hinayana Buddhism's Sila and Mahayana Buddhism's Sila, but the relative importance of Mahayana Buddhism's Sila was raised gradually. Besides Sundo commandments (仙道戒) were included in it.

不然 李箕永의 韓國佛敎史 硏究

김상현(Kim, Sang Hyun) 한국불교연구원 2011 불교연구 Vol.35 No.-

이 글은 不然李箕永(1922~1996)의 한국불교사 연구 성과를 정리한 것이다. 불연은 우리 역사를 전공하기 위해 경성제국대학 예과에 입학했고, 예과를 수료한 뒤에는 같은 대학 법문학부 사학과에서 동양사학을 전공했다. 벨기에의 루벵대학에서 철학을 공부할 때도 불교에 중점을 둔 새로운 종교사 연구를 시도하겠다는 생각을 한 바 있었고, 귀국 이후 불교학 내지는 원효사상(Won-Hyo’s Thought) 연구에 집중하여 남다른 성과를 이룩했지만, 그의 관심은 한국불교사, 특히 신라불교사를 떠나지 않았다. 불연은 역사를 불교의 술어로 緣起(Paṭiccasamuppāda)라는 개념으로 해석했다. 따라서 불연이 이해하는 역사는 단순히 발전하는 것도 기계적으로 순환하는 것도 아니다. 역사란 신이 조종하는 것도 운명도 아니기에 발전할 수도 퇴보할 수도 있는 가변적인 것이 된다. 불교적 입장에서 역사를 이해하고 있던 불연은 유물사관에 대해서 매우 비판적이었다. 불연에 의하면, 유물론은 인간을 경제의 노예로 전락시키고 모든 정신문화의 가치를 가소평가 하는 치명적인 결함이 있고, 인간의 역사를 계급적 갈등 관계로만 이해하는 유물사관의 획일주의적 결정론에도 심각한 문제가 있다는 것이다. 불연의 주장에 의하면, 불교의 이해 없이는 해명될 수 없는 것이 한국의 역사시대라고 한다. 이 때문에 불교와 사회와의 관계를 추구하는 입장에서 한국사 연구가 진행되어야 함은 불가결의 중요한 과제라고 강조했다. 불교와 사회의 관계는 서로 유리된 관계가 아니라, 사회는 불교에 의해서 이끌려 왔고, 불교는 사회 속에서 변용되면서 사회 자체를 이루어 온 것이라고 보았다. 그리고 그는 한국불교의 특수성을 알기 위해서는 중국불교나 일본불교 등과 비교 평가하는 일이 필요하다고 역설했다. 불연은 신라불교의 특징을 밝히려는 여러 노력을 했다. 불연은 『삼국유사』는 물론이고 신라 승려들의 여러 저서를 검토했다. 신라의 고승으로는 원효를 비롯한 원광, 의상, 명효 등에 관심을 보였고, 신라의 불교전적에 대해서는 원효의 여러 저서를 비롯하여 의상의 『화엄일승법계도』, 명효의 『해인삼매론』, 『석마하연론』 등을 연구했다. 신라불교에서 보살계의 정신이 강조되었다거나 신라인의 세계관이 철학적 통찰에 의해 형성된 것이라는 그의 견해는 신라 학승들의 여러 저서를 검토한 뒤에 얻은 결론이었다. 불연은 1974년에 한국불교연구원을 개원한 뒤에 5명의 연구원과 함께 『불국사』 등 한국의 사찰 18책을 간행했다. 해당 사찰의 역사와 사상, 그리고 유물 등에 대해서 종합적으로 서술함으로써 한국문화의 고향으로서의 사찰을 탐구한 한국의 사찰은 이 방면 연구의 선구적인 업적이었다. 불연은 1970년대에 「불교사상의 수용과 변모」와 「고려후기의 불교사상」, 그리고 「조선왕조 말기의 불교」와 「한국현대 불교사상」 등 한국불교사의 전개 과정과 관련된 글을 발표했고, 이를 다시 정리한 『한국의 불교』를 세종대왕기념사업회의 교양국사 총서 중의 한 책으로 간행하기도 했다. This essay aims to elucidate Bulyeon Rhi Ki-Young (1922~1996)’s academic achievement of Buddhist history. He entered a preparatory course in Keijo Imperial University to study Korean history. After completing the preparatory course, he studied Asian history at the history branch in the faculty of law. When he was studying philosophy at Louvain University in Belgium, he tried to conduct a new religious history research concerning Buddhism. Even though he made a distinctive academic achievement on Buddhism and Won-Hyo’s thought since he had returned to Korea, his greatest concern was Korean Buddhism and Buddhism of the Silla Kingdom. Bulyeon explains history with Buddhist concept of Paṭiccasamuppāda(緣起). Therefore, for him, history is not something simply progresses nor mechanically circulates. Since history is not masterminded by God or fate, history for him is something variable so that it can progress or retrogress. His perception of Buddhist history made him critical of the materialistic conception of history. According to him, historical materialism makes human kind a slave of economy and underestimates the value of spiritual culture. And its standardized determinism, which explains history only as a struggle of classes, also has a serious problem. Bulyeon asserted that Korean history can not be properly understood unless there is a deep understanding on Buddhism. Therefore, to conduct Korean history research, one most necessarily needs to concern relations between Buddhism and the world. According to him, Buddhism and the world are not isolated from each other. The world has been led by Buddhism and the world has changed Buddhism into the world itself. He also insisted that to understand unique feature of Korean Buddhism, one should understand Chinese and Japanese Buddhism. Bulyeon made a various effort to elucidate distinct feature of Buddhism of the Silla Kingdom. He examined Samgukyusa and other Buddhist writings from Silla period. He studied Buddhist dignitaries like Wong-wang, Ui-sang, Myeong-hyo as well as Won-hyo, and examined various Buddhist books like Hwaeomilseungbeopgyedo, Myeong-hyo’s Haeinsamaeron, Seokmahayeonron, and Won-hyo’s writings. After the extensive research, he came to a conclusion that Silla people created the perception of the world based on Buddhist philosophical insight and the spirit of bodhisattva-sīla (菩薩戒) was emphasized in Silla Buddhism. Bulyeon established the Institute of Korean Buddhism in 1974, and published, with 5 researchers, 18 books of Korean Buddhist Temple Series including Bulkusa Temple. These books were a pioneering achievement of Korean Buddhism since it was a comprehensive account of history, relics, and thoughts of Korean Buddhist temples. By this achievement, Korean Buddhist temples were re-discovered as the origin of Korean culture. In 1970s, Bulyeon presented essays concerning the history of Korean Buddhism like The Acceptance and Transition of Buddhist Thoughts, Buddhist Thoughts in the Late Koryeo Dynasty, Buddhism in the Late Joseon Dynasty, and Korean Modern Buddhism. And he compiled these essays into a book titled Korean Buddhism which was published as one of the Korean History Book series of the King Sejong Memorial Foundation.

민주화 운동기(1980∼1994)의 불교와 국가권력

김광식 대각사상연구원 2012 大覺思想 Vol.17 No.-

본 고찰은 민주화 운동기의 불교와 국가권력간의 상관성을 살핀 고찰 이다. 그 대상 시기는 1980년부터 1994년까지로 설정하였다. 그리고 분석 대상은 그 시기의 10ㆍ27법난, 민중불교, 9ㆍ7해인사 승려대회, 94년 종 단개혁이었다. 본 고찰의 초점은 1960년대, 1970년대에는 불교가 국가권 력에 예속성이 강하였는데, 어떤 연유로 1980년 이후부터 그런 관행이 변질되었는가이다. 즉 10ㆍ27법난 이후 불교계 구성원들은 자각을 하면 서 불교 및 교단의 변혁운동에 나섰다. 그래서 본 고찰에서는 첫째, 10ㆍ27법난을 통해 국가권력에 대한 대응 의식이 나타났음을 분석하였다. 둘째, 민주화 운동기의 이런 변화를 추동 한 이념이 민중불교이었음을 입증하였다. 셋째, 1986년 9ㆍ7해인사 승려 대회에서 국가권력에 대한 저항의식이 고양된 내용, 대응 이념, 대안노선 이 어떠하였는가를 살폈다. 그래서 사회의 민주화, 불교의 민주화가 불교 개혁 이념으로 정립된 배경을 정리하였다. 넷째, 이런 1980년대의 변혁, 개혁운동이 94년 종단개혁에 어떻게 투영되었는가를 분석하였다. 이로써 1980년 이후 불교사 전개과정에서 나타난 불교와 국가권력 간의 상관성 을 바라볼 수 있는 관점을 수립할 수 있었다. This paper is a research that studied correlations between Buddhism and national power in the era of democratization. The corresponding period is set between 1980 and 1994. Also the analysis subjects are 10.27 Buddhism rebellion, 9.7 Monk Conference of Haeinsa Temple, People's Buddhism and Revolution of Religious Order in 1994. This study cast a question on the fact that Buddhism was strongly subordinated to the national power during the 1960s and 1970s, but why such custom was changed since 1980s. In other words, members of Buddhism had a self-awareness since the 10.27 Buddhism rebellion and took an action towards transform movement of Buddhism and the religious order. Therefore, this paper first analyzed that there appeared responsible awareness against national power through the 10.27 Buddhism rebellion. Second, the paper looked in detail about resistance awareness against national power in the Monks Conference in 9.7 Haeinsa Temple which enhanced contents, responsible ideology and alternative routes. Third, the paper proved that the ideology which drove such transformation was People's Buddhism. Fourth, it analyzed how such transformation and reformation movement in the 1980s were projected in the Religious Order Revolution in 1994. Therefore, it established a perspective to view correlations between Buddhism and national power that appeared in the development process of the Buddhism history since the 1980s.