남악혜사의 『법화경안락행의』와 『제법무쟁삼매법문』의 저술시기 연구 - 사상적 맥락의 차이를 중심으로

이병욱(Lee Byung-Wook) 불교학연구회 2008 불교학연구 Vol.19 No.-

  In this paper, I tried to prove that Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men(諸法無諍三昧法門) was written later than Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i (法華經安樂行義) by comparing their contents.<BR>  At first, I compared his interpretation of an-lo-hsing (安樂行) in Fahua-ching an-lo-hsing-i with that of ch’an-po-lo-mi (禪波羅密) in Chufa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. Nam-Y?eh Hui-Ssu (南岳慧思) presented san-jen (三忍) to explain the meaning of an-lo-hsing. San-jen are chungsheng-jen (衆生忍), fa-hsing-jen (法性忍) and fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ungjen (法界海神通忍). He interpreted chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsingjen among them as having three meanings. Those three meanings of chung-sheng-jen and fa-hsing-jen correspond to san-chih (三智) of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. San-chih are tao-chih (道智), tao chung-chih (道種智) and i-ch’ieh-chung-chih (一切種智). But fa-chieh-hai shen-t’ung-jen was not interpreted in terms of the three meanings. This is an example that he had not yet establish his viewpoint in Fahua-ching an-lo-hsing-i.<BR>  Secondly, I compared his interpretations of ssu-nien-ch’u (四念處) in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i and in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men. In Fahua-ching an-lo-hsing-i, Nam-Y?eh Hui-Ssu interpreted ssu-nien-ch’ u as ssu-mo (四魔). But in Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men he presented more sophisticated interpretation of ssu-nien-ch’u as san-chih. Therefore I think that ssu-nien-ch’u of Chu-fa wu-cheng san-mei fa-men was more advanced than that in Fa-hua-ching an-lo-hsing-i.

智?의 隨自意三昧를 통해서 본 圓頓止觀의 의미

김정희(Kim Jung-hee) 불교학연구회 2003 불교학연구 Vol.6 No.-

  This work seeks to clarify the meaning of Chih-I"s Yuna-Tun Chih-Kuan from the Sui-Tzu-I San-Mei.<BR>  According to Chih-I, Yuan-Tun Chih-Kuan is composed of the four kinds of samadhi. The four kinds of samadhi are classified into Li-Kuan and Shih-Kuan. Generally speaking, in Chinese Buddhism, li-kuan was regarded as a method of practice contemplating the ultimate reality itself. On the other hand, Shih-Kuan, it is said, takes experiential phenomena as the object of meditation.<BR>  Traditionally, Chih-I"s Yuan-Tun Chih-Kuan as Li-Kuan has been estimated as a turning point of the Chinese Buddhism(intuitivism) from Indian Buddhism(scholasticism). This view may involve some misunderstandings concerning the practice of Li-kuan. If Li-kuan is a direct contemplation on the ultimate reality, and does not need experiential intermediaries, it may be regarded as a mystic intuition.<BR>  However this view however is controversial. Because Chih-I"s Yuan-Tun Chih-Kuan should be understood under the light of the doctrine of emptiness and mah?y?na soteriology based on the theory of nonduality instead of the therav?din soteriology which emphasizes exclusion of kle?as.<BR>  What is li-kuan? In four kinds of sam?dhi, li-kuan is well explained in Sui-Tzu-I San-Mei. The Sui-Tzu-I San-Mei is the practical method through which a practitioner contemplates the four phases of his mind, its arising, staying, changing, and disappearing and finally realizes the truth of emptiness. For Chih-I, Li-Kuan is not a direct intuition of the truth without experiential intermediaries. Judging from the above, we may say that Chih-I"s Yuan-Tun Chih-Kuan is the practical theory of Buddhism that is firmly grounded in Mah?y?na thought.

智顗의 隨自意三昧를 통해 본 圓頓止觀의 의미

김정희 불교학연구회 2003 불교학연구 Vol.6 No.-

This work seeks to clarify the meaning of Chih-I's Yuna-Tun Chih-Kuan from the Sui-Tzu-I San-Mei. According to Chih-I, Yuan-Tun Chih-Kuan is composed of the four kinds of samadhi. The four kinds of samadhi are classified into Li-Kuan and Shih-Kuan. Generally speaking, in Chinese Buddhism, li-kuan was regarded as a method of practice contemplating the ultimate reality itself. On the other hand, Shih-Kuan, it is said, takes experiential phenomena as the object of meditation. Traditionally, Chih-I's Yuan-Tun Chih-Kuan as Li-Kuan has been estimated as a turning point of the Chinese Buddhism(intuitivism) from Indian Buddhism(scholasticism). This view may involve some misunderstandings concerning the practice of Li-kuan. If Li-kuan is a direct contemplation on the ultimate reality, and does not need experiential intermediaries, it may be regarded as a mystic intuition. However this view however is controversial. Because Chih-I's Yuan-Tun Chih-Kuan should be understood under the light of the doctrine of emptiness and mahāyāna soteriology based on the theory of nonduality instead of the theravādin soteriology which emphasizes exclusion of kleśas. What is li-kuan? In four kinds of samādhi, li-kuan is well explained in Sui-Tzu-I San-Mei. The Sui-Tzu-I San-Mei is the practical method through which a practitioner contemplates the four phases of his mind, its arising, staying, changing, and disappearing and finally realizes the truth of emptiness. For Chih-I, Li-Kuan is not a direct intuition of the truth without experiential intermediaries. Judging from the above, we may say that Chih-I's Yuan-Tun Chih-Kuan is the practical theory of Buddhism that is firmly grounded in Mahāyāna thought.

명・청 시기 조선과의 지적 교류 ― 이탁오와 조선 후기 실학을 중심으로 ―

신용철 명청사학회 2023 명청사연구 Vol.- No.60

The Republic of Korea and Peoples Republic of China entered into diplomatic relationships in 1992, a century after the Chinese-Japanese War in 1895. The year of 1992 is exactly 600 years after Joseonnasty was established in 1392. The Republic of Korea went through an unfortunate period for a century due to the Japanese occupation of Korea and Korean War. There is a criticism in our society that ‘while the facilities are modern, the system stays in the 19th century and the thoughts remain in the Middle Ages’. The Middle Ages here refer to the Joseon Dynasty. Some calls it a ‘person of Joseonin the Western clothes’. Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910) existed during the period of Ming and Qing Dynasties in China. The negative effects of Confucianism, or Neo-Confucianism, which dominated Joseon are often mentioned. Many Korean as well as foreign scholars also consider Joseon as a typical Confucianist nation. In the 16th century, Li Chih came into light in China, a Yangmingist scholar who opposed to studying theory without practice. Li challenged Confucianism and the Theory on Philosophical Continuation of the scholars in the Song Dynasty. He respected the capabilities of women, who were discriminated against, and thought highly of the popular literature. Li was a staunch Yangmingist who severely criticized the Neo-Confucianism of Chu His (朱熹,1130-1200). This study explores the impact the ideology of Li Chi had on the Practical Science of Joseon Dynasty. First, this paper studies Li Su-Kuang, a practical scholar who accepted Catholicism after the Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592. This study also discusses Huh Gyun (許筠, 1569-1618), who wrote Hong Gil Dong and criticized the class system of Joseon through politics and literature. He also wrote a poem called Read on Li’s Fensu (焚書). Park Ji Won (1737-1805) is another practical scholar who wrote The Story of the Noblemen and The Story of Huh Saeng. Jeong Da San (丁茶山, 1762-1836), a well-known practical scholar, cites Li Chih’s Critics for Four Books in his interpretation of the Confucius Scriptures. Li Geun Chang (1853-1898), a Yangmingist scholar from Ganghwa Island, composed a long poem called Li Cho Wo during the late period of Joseon Dynasty. Lastly, Shingling Literature Theory 性靈文學論 had an impact on the popular literature, such as The Story of Three Kingdom (三國志)and The Heroic Story of Shuei-hu. Huh Gyun accepted the ideology of Li Chih, while Jeong Da San differed from the traditional Confucius studies by citing Li Chih in his interpretation of the Confucian Scriptures. Li Geun Chang highly praised the ideology of Li Chih. The mainstream thoughts of Confucianism in Joseon Dynasty was Neo-Confucianism. Yangmingism had a difficulty in taking a place on its own; however, various individuals accepted the ideology of Li Chih, allowing some diversity in the scholarly scene.

한국과 태국의 『삼국지』수용 비교 시론

티엔티다탐즈른깃 ( Tientida Thamcharonkij ) 한국어교육학회 2005 국어교육 Vol.0 No.116

특집논문 : 한국(韓國) 화엄사상(華嚴思想)의 성립과 전개에 보이는 몇 가지 경향성(傾向性) -지엄(智儼)과 원효(元曉), 지엄(智儼)과 의상(義湘)의 대비를 통해서-

석길암 ( Gil Am Seok ) 동아시아불교문화학회 2013 동아시아불교문화 Vol.0 No.13

본 논문은 以前 思想의 融合과 分化라는 기본적 관점에 의거하여, 화엄사상의 성립을 印度 佛敎思想에 대한 中國의 初期 연구사에 이어지는 동아시아 불교의 2차적 반응이라는 측면과 韓國 華嚴思想 특유의 경향 성이 형성되는 과정이라는 측면의 두 가지 관점에서 검토한 것이다. 검 토의 과정에서 주로 대상이 된 것은 智儼, 元曉, 義湘, 法藏이라는 네명 의 華嚴家들이 사상을 융합하고 다시 분화시켜 나가는 키워드들이다. 그 결과 한국 화엄사상에 보이는 몇 가지 특징적인 경향성을 다음과 같이 정리할 수 있었다. 첫째, 원효의 화엄사상은 지론종 교학의 활용에 소극적인 점, 『대승기 신론』을 적극 활용하고 있는 점, 그리고 신유식학에 대한 반응이 적극 적이었다는 점을 지적할 수 있을 것이다. 반면 지엄과 원효의 두 스님 모두 섭론학을 적극 활용하고, 삼계교의 영향에 긍정적이었다는 것은 동일하다. 둘째, 의상은 지엄에게 직접 배웠지만, 지론종과 선종의 사상에 더욱 경도된 특징을 보여준다. 셋째, 화엄사상의 성립과정에서 나타나는 지엄과 원효의 차이는 신라 불교와 長安佛敎에 있어서 사상전개 단계의 차이이기도 했다고 생각된 다. 넷째, 의상계 화엄의 강렬한 禪的 경향성은, 화엄과 선의 관계에 있어 서 중국불교와는 다른 한국불교만의 독특한 양상을 낳는 계기로 작용했던 것으로 생각된다. Based on the fundamental aspect of fusion and division of former thoughts, this paper studies the following two aspects; the aspect that the foundation of huayen is the second-order reaction of East Asian Buddhism led by early research history of Indian Buddhism idea, and the aspect that it is the process of formation of unique tendency of Korean huayen ideology. The main keyword of this study is fusion and division of thoughts of four huayen ideologists; Jium, Wonhyo, Uisang, Fazang. As a result, a few unique tendency in Korean huayen thought could be found as follows. First, it could be pointed out that Wonhyo`s huayen ideology was passive about using Di lun order`s(地論宗) teaching and learning system, but actively utilized ``Dashengqixinlun(大乘起信論)``, and responded very positively to neo-wei shi studies (neo-mind-whole studies, 新唯識學). On the other hand, the two bhikkhus, Jium and Wonhyo, both positively used she lun studies(攝論), and thought of the effect of san jie jiao(三階敎) as very positive. Second is that even though Uisang was one of Jium`s disciples, he showed more interest in di lun sect and the zen sect. Thirdly, the difference in Jium and Wonhyo in the process of the foundation of huayen ideology can be considered as the difference in the development of the ideology of Shinla Buddhism and Jangan Buddhism Lastly, the strong tendency of zen in Uisang`s faction of huayen has gave an opportunity to raise an unique character in Korean buddhism, different from Chinese buddhism in the relationship between Huayen and Zen.

선초(鮮初) 정치변혁과 정교(政敎) 이데올로기에 대한 연구: 정도전과 권근을 중심으로

고요한 ( Yo Han Go ) 교육철학회 2009 교육철학연구 Vol.46 No.-

본 연구는 선초(鮮初)의 변혁된 정치상황을 배경으로 대두된 정치(국가)와 교육의 관계(政敎)를 바라보는 두 가지 상반된 견해에 대하여 해석학적-현상학적 연구방법으로 각각의 정당성을 분석하고, 이것이 오늘날 우리 사회에서 올바른 교육정책을 수립하는데 어떤 시사점을 제공하는가에 대하여 고찰하는 것이 목적이다. 선초 주자성리학을 정교 이데올로기로 채택한 사대부들은 크게 이색 계열과 정도전 계열로 나뉘며, 각각 항산(恒産) 및 사공(事功) 우선의 공리주의 정교론과 항심(恒心) 및 교양 우선의 인격주의 정교론으로 반목(反目)한다. 정도전을 중심으로 항산(恒産) 및 사공의 중요성을 주장하는 경세가(經世家)들은 강력한 중앙집권적 교육제도를 통하여 시용(施用, 혹은 公利 및 實用)적이고 전문적인 교육이 이루어져야 한다고 주장하였다. 그들은 학자들이 학문과 교육을 하는 이유란 당대의 상업(相業)에 유용하며 민생의 안정을 도모하기 위한 것이라고 함으로써 교육과 정치(국가)의 적극적인 상보성을 강조한다. 반면에 권근을 중심으로 항심(恒心) 및 도덕성의 중요성을 주장하는 도학자(道學者)들은 우리가 학문과 교육을 하는 이유란 선량한 마음을 체현(體現)하여 누구나 도덕적, 인격적, 윤리적인 존재로 살아야 할 필요성이 먹고 사는 문제보다 더 우선하기 때문이라고 역설한다. 또한 뚜렷하게 구분되는 것은 아니지만 항산을 중시하는 정교이데올로기는 성리학과 사공학(事功學)을 아우르는 위인지학(爲人之學)을 강조하는 반면, 항심을 우선시 하는 정교이데올로기는 성리학 순혈(純血)지향의 위기지학(爲己之學)을 다소 강조하는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구를 통해 얻은 시사점은 최고 치자(治者) 혹은 정권의 유력자(有力者)들이 어떤 정교 이데올로기를 취하느냐에 따라 국가교육의 전모(全貌)가 크게 달라진다는 점이다. 그러나 어떤 입장을 취하든 주자성리학을 기반으로 하는 선초의 정교 이데올로기는 국가교육을 통한 육재(育材)와 올바른 용인(用人)의 중요성을 강조하였듯이 오늘날 `지속가능한 가치를 기반으로 하는 교육의 이론과 실천에 대하여 무엇을 어떻게 탐색해 나가야 하는가`의 문제의식에 대한 중요한 시사점을 제공하고 있다. This Study focus on the problem of Yi dynasty`s political education in radical political change(鮮初). The purpose of this dissertation is to analyse political education thought of the Sadaebu(士大夫) and investigate some suggestion in our political condition. This paper studied through hermeneutical-phenomenological method on concerned text. There are two paradigm on political education in early Yi dynasty. Two current existed in the Sadaebu`s political position and viewpoint. but each position and viewpoint on man and society has a same academism, that is, neo-confucianism(朱子性理學) which adapted as their own political philosophy. Each paradigm was named as Yi Saek(李穡)` order and Jung Do Jeoun(鄭道傳)`s order. Jung`s order asserted state-controlled education system and contents for national invest in the meaning of practical utility. On the contrary, Yi`s order asserted province-centered education system and curriculum. Jung`s political ideology for education based on the Hang San(恒産) which hold a prominent position to Hang Sim(恒心). According to his political idea and national concern, the purpose of national education is cultivating and selecting a person holding an administrative position for practical utility. On the contrary, according to Yi`s political ideology based theory of prominent Hang Sim(恒心), the imaginary manhood of national education was the cultivated man with moral, ethic, personalized humanism. The idea of Yi`s political education were individualism or personalism of education, and Jung`s propaganda were a kind nationalism, pragmatism of education. In spite of the two paradigm differed in their strategy for educational reform, they were the same position in that both pursued a political and socio-economical order based on neo-confucianism. Now, we acquired a lesson through critical analysis for the past political idea. That is, a power holder in socio-economical status may consider the conditions and values of national education which concerned with people` usual life.