향운(香雲) 정태혁 박사의 학문과 실천 -배우며 생각하며 수행하며 전념한 후학 양성-

정승석 ( Seung Suk Jung ) 인도철학회 2014 印度哲學 Vol.0 No.42

향운 정태혁 박사가 후학을 위해 개척하거나 개발한 학문적 업적의 특색을 세 방면으로 개괄할 수 있다. 첫째, 불교 연구에서 범어와 서장어를 통해 원전에 의거한 해석을 시도했다. 이것은 한문으로 번역된 2차 자료에만 의지하여 불교를 연구하던 종래의 풍토를 일신한 계기가 되었으며, 이로써 국내 불교학의 신기원을 이루었다. 둘째, 국내의 인도철학 분야를 개척하면서 특히 불교와 인도철학의 비교 연구에 주력하여, 이 같은 학풍을 실질적으로 주도했다. 셋째, 요가를 비롯한 인도 문화에 대한 이해를 토대로 밀교 연구의 새로운 지평을 열었다. 향운은 국내의 불교학계에서는 밀교를 학문적연구 대상으로 심도 있게 고찰한 최초의 학자로 인정된다. 향운의 학문과 삶을 일괄하자면, 그는 중관학을 기점으로 밀교를 섭렵하면서 불교의 이념을 수행으로 실천하는 학문과 삶을 견지해 왔다고 말할 수 있다. 이 과정에서 그는 중도를 요가와 밀교의 수행법으로 실천함으로써 불교의 이상을 실현하고자 노력하였다. The characteristics of Dr. Jung Tae-Hyuk`s scholastic achievements for the future use can be divided into three categories. First, Dr. Jung (whose literary name is Hyangwoon) attempted to translate into Korean primary materials in Buddhist Studies such as Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, which he believed to be the right way to study Buddhism. He opened the door to the new way of Buddhist Studies by publishing the first Buddhist grammar books in Korea such as Standard Sanskrit and Basic Tibetan. His new way of study Buddhism as a momentum made lots of Korean scholars leave the conventional way of studying Buddhism that depended only on Chinese texts and begin to read texts in Sanskrit and Tibetan. It is the impact of Hyangwoon`s pioneering work that young scholars these days consider learning Sanskrit and Tibetan as a necessary and basic step of Buddhist Studies. Secondly, Hyangwoon pioneered the field of Indian philosophy in Korea, especially when he focused on comparative studies between Buddhism and Indian philosophy. Under his substantial leadership, Dongguk University formed the department of Indian Philosophy in order to pro mote Buddhist Studies with better understanding of Buddhism in relation to Indian Philosophy that provided cultural soil for Buddhism. Through his comparative studies Hyangwoon gave a lead in attaining the purpose of the department. Lastly, Hyangwoon opened up new horizons in studying Tantric Buddhism (Vajrayana) with his full understanding of Indian cultures. Because Tantric Buddhism is integrated with the elements of Hindu culture, it is a prerequisite for Tantric studies to fully understand Hinduism. Due to their lack of sufficient understanding of Hinduism, few scholars in Korea had been exploring Tantric Buddhism until Hyangwoon discovered the core of Mahayana Buddhism in Tantric Buddhism and applied his energy to reveal the original significance of Tantric Buddhism in both theory and practice. Therefore, we can call him the founding father of Tantric studies in Korea. To sum up Hyangwoon`s life and work, it can be said that his scholastic projects started from studying the Madhyamika and ranged over an extensive literature of Tantric Buddhism, so as to carry the principles of Buddhism into practice. In his lifetime, he endeavored to realize the ideal of Buddhism by following the Middle Way with his practice of Yoga and Tantric practices. The Middle Way that Hyangwoon incessantly drew attention to means the way of life to actually practice one`s recognition of the Sunyata(Emptiness) in order to achieve realization. He believed Yoga and Tantric practices to provide dynamics for one`s practice of the Middle Way. In Hyangwoon`s philosophy, therefore, Yoga and Tantric practices were the most affirmative methods for the path of the Middle Way.

쉬바 성전파의 신학에서 속박의 의미

정승석(Jung Seung-Suk) 한국종교학회 2002 宗敎硏究 Vol.27 No.-

삼국유사에 구사된 범어 음역의 원류

정승석 ( Seung Suk Jung ) 인도철학회 2009 印度哲學 Vol.0 No.26

In the case of Samgukyusa, which is a famous history book dealing with stories handed down from the era of the Three Kingdom Period, the words transliterated into Chinese from Sanskrit are found frequently in two articles named respectively Eosanbulyeong and Daesanomanjinsin. There in Eosanbulyeong, some transliterated words are mentioned, such as nara(訶羅), nagal(那竭), nagalga(那竭呵), nageongara(那乾訶羅), manasa(摩那斯), bulpabuje(弗婆浮提). It is not comparatively difficult to assume their original language(Sanskrit) through investigating various examples. Among these, nara(訶羅), nagal(那竭), nagalga(那竭呵), and nageongara(那乾訶羅) are all understood as the single name of a place, and they can be reconstructed to be the transliteration of nagarahara. Among others, manasa(摩那斯) is the name of dragon primarily, and its Sanskrit original is manasvin. But describing particularly its meaning as fish, the author(Ilyeon) of Samgukyusa relates it with the name of `the temple Maneosa`(萬魚寺), which has the meaning of `Ten thousand fishes`. Then, it is possible to trace the final source of these transliterations back to the scripture named Guanfo Sanmei Hai Jing(觀佛三昧海經), especially to the story about an image of Buddha in this text. Besides, the most suitable Sanskrit for bulpabuje(弗婆浮提) is assumed to be puspabhuti. On the other hand, the original Sanskrit words of the transliterations such as garapajwanang(呵라婆佐낭), dalyedaguya(達례치구야), nangasaganang(낭伽희伽낭), and dalyenosana(達례盧舍那) enumerated in the article of Daesanomanjinsin can not be easily identified. Though the author adds the meaning of these transliterations, it is impossible to conjecture their origins from the examples of general transliteration system. For my part, it is very plausible to guess from the texts of dharani that those five words would be a sort of dharani. Because the first word, garapajwanang(呵라婆佐낭) is in accord with the dharani built up five letters in utility. Moreover the article of Daesanomanjinsin states that those transliterated words are directly connected with the faith in Manjusri. If the word garapajwanang originates from dharani, then it would shed light to the source and origin of the rest words. The Buddhist technical terms had been apt to be transformed or misrepresented in Korea of the past. In the present investigation I take some examples from Samgukyusa and try to understand diverse practical aspects of the text. This paper is a small step toward the deeper understanding of this important text by doing some contributions to the transliterations, so far ignored or misunderstood among the historians of Samgukyusa.

인도 철학에서 자아 개념의 공유와 차별 -베단타의 일원론과 상키야의 이원론을 중심으로-

정승석 ( Seung Suk Jung ) 인도철학회 2012 印度哲學 Vol.0 No.36

The refection on the ``I`` from the ancient time in Indian philosophy is just a quest of the self. Speaking in a broad way, it is also a part of reflecting on and investigating human personality. Its origin may be traced in the Veda as aja, tanu, and Sarira, which are three constituents of human personality connected closely with Upanisadic speculations in a later period. Of these we are inclined to attach weight to aja and tanu as the preceding notions corresponding to the self and the soul respectively. Aja corresponds to Atman identified with Brahman. By the way, this aja together with aja, or the feminine of aja described in Upanisads are also regarded as scriptural authorities in support of Samkhya dualism. In this case, Purusa is compared to aja, and Prakrti is compared to aja. Therefore aja is a constituent of human personality corresponding to the predecessor of the self called Atman or Purusa. Meanwhile, according to the Veda, the subtle structural unit which carries the mental faculties of the personality is called tanu. Moreover tanu is characterized as what is restored to man when he has died and his physical body has been burnt and his personality dissolved. Thus it accords with the so-called soul, and also we can consider itas the notion corresponding to the predecessor of jiva, or the individual self. Besides, to the extent that tanu is the subtle structural unit which carries the mental faculties of the personality, it may also be the predecessor of the transporting (ativahika) or subtle (suksma) body which is held by Samkhya. Lastly, sarira is what is composed of the five gross elements, and refers to the body which is the visible and tangible physiological organism. Of three layers of human personality as above, we may say that aja tallies further with the self of Vedantic notions and tan? Tallies further with the subtle body of Samkhya notions. While in the case of the monism of Ved?nta materiality is not in consideration at all about the notion of the soul, in the case of the dualism of Samkhya the notion of the soul which belongs to the categories of materiality is taken into consideration. However, we cannot say that the cognition relating to the self between Vedanta and Samkhya is different remarkably. Though the difference of both is caused by each ontology between Vedanta and Samkhya, it also can be weaken by the theory of reflection at the level of epistemology. In other words, the self of Vedanta can act as if it were an individual self, and Buddhi of Samkhya can cognizes as if it were Purusa. This is possible through the theory of reflection. After all, what reveals itself definitely as a common idea between Vedanta and Samkhya is just Buddhi. The individual pseudo-self is represented in both sides by that Buddhi which is the consciousness of activity. The Buddhi is not only the knowing subject which serves as the soul, but also can be called as another names, that is to say vijnanatman, anta atman, jivatman, and so on. Meanwhile, as far as the notion of the self is concerned, the subtle body of Samkhya is a typical idea to be differentiated from Vedanta. But based on the advaita of vedakara, the subtle body is nothing but the result of ignorance (avidya), and it is only upadhi of the self. Atman identified with Brahman, namely a state of liberation in Vedanta, is realized by being free from ignorance mistaking the upadhis for the self. The isolation of Purusa, namely a state of liberation in Samkhya, is realized by being free from ignorance mistaking the Buddhi which leads the subtle body for the self. The logic for liberation held in whether Vedanta or Samkhya is the same. We can say that the different ideas between Vedanta and Samkhya revert back into the same logic for liberation. Accordingly, however vehemently the different ideas have been discussed, what can be weaken by the common ideas behind them would be the notion of the self in Indian philosophy.

무아 윤회의 반불교적 예증

정승석(Seung Suk Jung) 인도철학회 1995 印度哲學 Vol.5 No.-

N/A

윤회관에서 미세신 개념의 전개

정승석(Seung Suk Jung) 인도철학회 1996 印度哲學 Vol.6 No.-

N/A

인도 신화의 고행주의적 전개

정승석(Seung Suk Jung) 인도철학회 1997 印度哲學 Vol.7 No.-

N/A

요가 철학과 불교에서 업론의 대응

정승석(Seung Suk Jung) 동국대학교 불교문화연구원 2001 佛敎學報 Vol.- No.38

영혼에 관한 인도 철학의 세 가지 관점

정승석(Jung Seungsuk) 신학과사상학회 2011 가톨릭 신학과 사상 Vol.- No.67

무아와 윤회의 양립 문제

정승석(Seung Suk Jung) 인도철학회 1994 印度哲學 Vol.4 No.-

N/A