초기불교와 대승불교 -단절인가, 계승인가?

김성철(Kim, Sung Chul) 불교학연구회 2017 불교학연구 Vol.50 No.-

대승불전이 석가모니 부처님의 직설인지 여부에 대한 의문은 대승불교의 출현 이후 계속되어 온 문제였다. 무착의 ≷대승장엄경론≸에서는 여덟 가지 근거를 들어 대승이 불설이라고 주장하지만, 현대 불교학의 관점에서 볼 때 그 가운데 어느 하나 타당한 것이 없다. 대승불전은 모두 후대에 창작, 편집된 위경(僞經)으로 부처님의 직설이라고 할 수없다. 티벳의 경우는 뗄마(gTer Ma)라는 이름의 위경이 계속 출현하여 정경(正經)으로서 역할을 하며 대승불전 역시 뗄마의 일종으로 간주한다. 그런데 현존하는 한역 아함경이나 빠알리 니까야의 경문 역시 부처님의 교설 그대로인 것은 아니다. 이들 초기불전의 가르침이 부처님의 직설에 근접하긴 하지만 아쇼카왕 비문의 기록이나 그 성립시기에 비추어 볼 때 이 역시 부처님의 가르침이라고 확정할 수는 없는 것이다. 이렇게 불교의 근본을 추구해 들어가는 작업은 마치 양파 까기와 같다. 그러나 초기불전에서 그 전거를 찾을 수 있고 사성제의 교리에 어긋나지 않으면 불설로 인정한다는 기준을 세울 경우 대승불전의 가르침 역시 불설로 수용된다. 예를 들어 대승불전의 보살은, ≷본생담≸ 에 등장하는 석가모니의 전신(前身)을 불자들이 추구해야 할 보편적이고 이상적인 인간상으로 확장한 것이며, 타방불토사상은 초기불전과 아비달마교학의 삼천대천세계설의 논리적 귀결이며, 반야경의 법공사상은 법의 방편성을 가르친 뗏목의 비유와 그 취지를 같이 한다. 또 이들 세 가지 대승교리는 불교의 핵심인 사성제의 가르침과도 어긋 나지 않는다. 일반적으로 “껍질을 벗기고 벗겨도 본질이 나오지 않는다.”는 부정적 의미 에서 어떤 일을 양파에 비유하곤 한다. 그런데 긍정적으로 해석하면 양파의 경우 벗겨 지는 껍질들이 모두 양파의 육질(肉質)이고 본질(本質)이다. 대소승의 불전들은 바로 이런 양파와 같으며 현재 동아시아 불교계에서 신봉하는 대승불전들 대부분은 각 시대와 지역과 문화에 부응한 법신불(法身佛)의 대기설법으로 불교의 본질이 담겨 있다.Prajñāpāramitāsūtra is a philosophical transformation of the simile of a raft in early Tripiṭaka. Generally we use the analogy of peeling an onion as a vain effort. There is no substance or core in the center of an onion. However if we think in a positive way, each layer is the real substance. An onion is composed of substantial peels. Likewise, most Mahāyāna Sūtras are substantial peels of the Buddha s teachings. From the beginning of Mahāyāna Buddhism, it has been a question whether the Mahāyāna-sūtras are Gautama Buddha s real teachings or not. In Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra-śastra, Asaṅga presented eight reasons to prove Mahāyāna-sūtras as the Buddha’s real teachings. But any of those reasons can t be accepted by most of modern scholars. Since the Mahāyāna-sūtras are composed and edited lately long after the Buddha’s Nirvāṇa, they cannot be considered to be his direct teachings. In Tibet, ‘gTer Ma’ has been created and served as an authentic canon of Buddhist scriptures. Also the early Buddhist scriptures like Chinese Āgama or Pāli Nikāya are not exactly what the Gautama Buddha said. The efforts of searching the Buddha s real teaching is compared to unraveling the peels of an onion. In fact, we cannot find the Buddha s direct words even in early Tripiṭaka. So we should establish criteria for judging authenticity of Buddhist scriptures. First of all, the teachings of a Buddhist scripture can be referred to early Tripiṭaka. Secondly, the philosophies or thoughts of that scripture should coincide with Four Noble Truths. Then, the Mahāyāna-sūtras can be accepted as the Buddha’s real teachings. The sources of most Mahāyāna thoughts can be found in early Tripiṭaka. The ideal of Bodhisattva is extracted from the previous life of Gautama Buddha in Jātaka. The existence of extraterrestrial Buddha s land is a logical consequence of the theories of Trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu and Impermanence. The theory of emptiness in

무이(無二, advaya)의 중도적 의미

김현구(Kim, Hyun-Gu) 동국대학교 불교문화연구원 2016 佛敎學報 Vol.0 No.74

이 논문의 주된 목표는 중관학파의 중도와 초기 유가행파의 무이 개념에 함축된 철학적 의미를 본질주의와 허무주의의 극복이라는 관점에서 제시하는 것이다. 우리는 형이상학적 원리 또는 실체론을 주장하는 입장을 존재론적 본질주의라고 부르며, 가치의 기준을 제시할 수 없는 입장을 허무주의로 규정한다. 사실 중도가 무엇을 위한 논증이었나를 다시 살펴보면 존재론적 본질주의와 가치론적 허무주의를 양 극단으로 인식하고, 존재론과 가치론의 딜레마를 연기설로 해결하려 했던 것으로 보인다. 따라서 중도의 철학적 탐구는 존재론과 가치론의 문제를 한 자리로 가져와, 연기설을 통해 일체 현상의 발생 근거를 설명함으로써 실체성을 거부하고 가치론적 허무주의에 대응한 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 다시 말해 『중론』에서 제시하는 중도관은 본질주의로 대표되는 상견과 허무주의로 대표되는 단견을 거부하는 입장이다. 더불어 양극단에 대한 비판이 『중론』 전체에서 이루어지고 있다는 점에서 『중론』의 철학적 태도가 분명히 반본질주의적이라는 것은 확인된다. 반면 허무주의에 대한 거부가 과연 성공적으로 이루어졌는가는 의구심을 가져볼 필요가 있다. 사실 21세기 철학에서 가장 뜨거운 이슈는 실체론을 비판하면서도 가치론적 허무주의에 효과적으로 대처하는 것이다. 이러한 논의가 중관학파와 유가행파 사이의 논쟁에서 구성되었다는 점에서 현대 철학의 딜레마를 해결하는 길이 발견되어질 것으로 기대한다. 그런데 우리가 이 길을 가기 위해 선택할 수 있는 방법은 많지 않다. 왜냐하면 본질주의 비판이 곧바로 허무주의를 거부하는 것이 아니라, 오히려 반본질주의 자체가 가치론적 허무주의로 간주될 수 있기 때문이다. 결국 본질주의와 허무주의를 극복하는 길이란 제일원리와 형이상학적 실재를 거부하면서도 나와 타자 사이의 인식 현상의 객관성을 담보하는 것을 노정한다. 이 글에서는 인식적 공공성을 담보하는 길로서 『섭대승론』에 나타난 유가행파의 관점인 무이설에 근거해 의타기성을 하나의 대안으로 제시하였다. 왜냐하면 인식현상의 객관성은 일체의 대상세계에서 찾아지는 것이 아니라, 우리의 미혹과 번뇌가 창발(創發)하고 있는 우리의 의식세계 즉 인식적 토대에서 발견되고 있기 때문이다. 그래서 필자는 우리의 인식이 펼쳐지는 장을 의타기성으로 보았으며, 그것이 누구에게나 보편적인 경험의 관점에서 염오와 청정의 근거라고 보았다. 다만 그 경험의 개인적 한계성 때문에 각자의 경험만이 있을 뿐이며, 우리는 타자의 경험 내용을 우리의 경험과 그 의미를 통해 추정할 수 있는 조건만이 같다고 제시하였다. 결론적으로, 필자는 이 지점이 형이상학의 영역에서 확보되어야할 것이 아니라, 새로운 언어철학적 방법론에 의해 의식의 기능적 측면에서 찾아야한다고 주장하였다. 또한 의타기성에 대한 무이적 관점에 본질주의와 허무주의 극복을 위한 중도적 사유가 함축되어 있다고 주장하였다. The main aim of this paper is to explain that the meaning of the philosophical implications on the concept of non-duality(advaya) in early-Yogācāra and the concept of the middle way(madhyamā-pratipad) in Madhyamaka from the lens of overcoming the essentialism and nihilism. We can call the idea of the metaphysical principle or the substantialism as the ontological essentialism and the position, can not present the standard of value, as the nihilism. Looking back to what the argumentation of the middle way was, it is likely to regard the ontological essentialism and axiological nihilism as the two extremes and try to solve the dilemma of the ontology and axiology through the view of the epistemology. Therefore, the philosophical investigation base on the middle way gathering the problems of the ontology and axiology sounds like that refuse to the substantialism and respond to the nihilism by explaining the ground of the phenomenons through the dependent arising(pratītyasamutpāda). That is, the position of denying the annihilation represented as the nihilism and the permanent represented as the essentialism is the view of the middle way in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Through this critique of the two extremes in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the view of the middle way is clearly confirmed the anti-essentialism, whereas the rejection of the nihilism by the middle way is doubted. The hottest philosophical issue in the 21st century is to effectively cope with the nihilism while criticizing the substantialism. Since the same debate was discovered in the argument between Madhyamaka and early-Yogācāra, I anticipate that this debate can give us the way to solve the dilemma of the modern philosophy. There are not many ways for us to be able to choose, because criticizing the essentialism does not directly connect to the rejection of the nihilism and the anti-essentialism itself can be considered as the nihilism. After all, to beyond the essentialism and nihilism is to seek for the objectivity of the recognition phenomenon in between me and others and to deny the metaphysical existence or the first principle. So, we can consider the dependent nature(paratantrasvabhāva) as the cognitive commonality based on non-duality, the perspective of early-Yogācāra in Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Because the objectivity of the recognition phenomenon cannot not be found in the objective world and our delusions and defilements should be presented through our consciousness emerged as the cognitive commonality. Therefore, I have found the field of our daily mental activity in the dependent nature and thought it as the original source of our delusion and defilements in terms of ubiquitous experience. There are just retrained individual experiences by the limitation of the experience. We can reach the agreement that we can only estimate other’s experiences through our experiences and its meanings. I claim that this agreement can not be secured in the area of the metaphysics, but in the functional aspects of consciousness as a new philosophical approach. This also implies the evidence of the assertion of the middle way to beyond the essentialism and nihilism.

초기불전의 갖가지 서술양상에 나타난 현법락주現法樂住의 의미와 위상

김준호 대동철학회 2024 大同哲學 Vol.107 No.-

현법락주(現法樂住, diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra)는 불교명상을 의미하는 용어로 잘 알 려져 있다. 초기불전에서 가장 정형적인 서술형태는 사선정四禪定을 성취한 경지를 표현하 는 말에서 나타난다. 사선정의 성취를 ‘현법락주’ 개념으로 고정하는 것은 선정체험의 중요 성을 강조하려는 해석으로 보인다. 따라서 정형구로 확립된 ‘사선 성취=증상심增上心=현 법락주’의 구도와는 다른 서술양상을 분석하면 현법락주로써 선정체험을 중시하는 관점과 는 다른 시선을 찾아낼 수 있다. 이 과정에서 정형구와 다른 서술양상 분석에 집중하여, 문 맥에 따라 ‘현법락주’ 개념의 의미를 다각적으로 파악하는 데 힘쓸 것이다. 특히 니까야와 대응하는 한역 아함경과 비교분석하는 연구방법을 채택한다. 분석결과는 다음과 같다. 첫 번째는 개인이 누리는 즐거움과 타자의 존재이다. 지금 즐거움을 누린다는 ‘현법락 주’의 가치는 타자의 존재와 공유되지 못하는 문제점이 있다. 타자와의 관계에 대한 태도 나 자세가 분명한 지향점을 갖추고 확립되지 않는다면 그 의미가 퇴색된다는 관점이다. 두 번째는 마하가섭이 두타행을 계속하는 이유에서 드러난 것처럼, ‘현법락주’와 ‘대중들에 대한 연민’ 두 가지다. 수행자로서의 목적은 개인의 즐거움에 안주하는 태도에 있는 것이 아니라 다른 이들도 자신과 마찬가지로 자유로운 마음에 토대한 즐거움 또는 행복한 삶을 영위하기를 바라는 마음까지 포함된 것임을 말해주고 있다. 세 번째로 고요함을 기준으로 현법락주의 의미를 밝히면, ‘현법락주’의 의미를 ‘시끄럽 게 떠들고 소란을 피우는 행위에서 벗어난 상태’ → ‘고요함을 지켜 거기에 머무르는 상태’ → ‘명상에 머무르는 상태’ 등으로 그 추이를 정리해보았다. 이를 통해 ‘고요함에 머무름’ 이 ‘즐거움에 머무름’이고 자기향상의 길을 추구하는 데 유용한 도구가 된다는 사고는 다 르지 않겠지만, ‘즐거움에 머무름’을 ‘현법락주’라는 용어를 내세워서 명상중심으로 해석하 는 데는 분명한 차이가 있음을 밝혔다. 네 번째로 ‘사선성취=현법락주’라는 도식에 속하지 않으면서 특정한 명상수행의 성취 결과를 현법락주로 규정하는 경우를 분석하였다. 이 유형에서는 정념정지가 중요한 명상 법으로 나타났다. 현법락주와 정념정지가 결합되는 방식은 오취온의 무상/고/무아관 → 현 법락주와 정념정지, 사선 성취 → 현법락주와 정념정지, 출입식삼매 → ‘현법락주와 정념 정지 세 가지로 나타났다. 이것은 니까야에서 ‘사선성취=현법락주’라는 정형구와는 달리 또 다른 명상법의 중요성은 물론 정학이 아닌 지혜를 중시하는 관점에 이르기까지 현법락 주 의미를 둘러싸고 다양한 해석이 나타났음을 말해주는 대목이다. Diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra is a well-known term meaning Buddhist meditation. The most formal form of description in early Buddhist texts is the expression of the state of achieving the four jhāna. The fixation on the concept of ‘diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra’ as the achievement of the four jhāna appears to be an interpretation intended to emphasize the importance of the jhāna experience. Therefore, if we analyze the described aspect that is different from the structure of ‘achievement of the four jhāna=excellent state of mind(adhicitta)=diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra, established by formal phrase, we can find a perspective different from the perspective that emphasizes jhāna experience as diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra. In this process, we will focus on analyzing described aspects different from those of formal phrase and strive to understand the meaning of the concept of ‘diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra’ in various ways depending on the context. In particular, we adopt a research method of comparative analysis with the Nikāya and the corresponding Chinese translation of the Āgama. The analysis results are as follows. The first is the pleasure enjoyed by individuals and the existence of others. The value of ‘diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra’ of enjoying pleasure now has the problem of not being shared with the existence of others. If the attitude or posture toward relationships with others is not established with a clear orientation, its meaning will fade. The second, as revealed in the reasons why Mahakasyapa continues to practice Dhūta, are two things: ‘diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra’ and ‘Compassion for the people.’ This shows that the purpose of a practitioner is not to settle for personal pleasure, but also includes the desire for others to enjoy a free-minded life or a happy life just like oneself. Thirdly, if we reveal the meaning of diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra based on tranquility, the meaning of diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra can be defined as a state of being free from making noise and making a fuss → a state of staying calm and staying there → a state of staying in meditation, etc. Through this, the idea that ‘staying in silence’ is ‘staying in joy’ and is a useful tool in pursuing the path of self-improvement is not different, but ‘staying in joy’ is centered on meditation by putting forward the term diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra. It was revealed that there is a clear difference in interpretation. Fourth, we analyzed cases in which the achievement result of a specific meditation practice is defined as diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra without belonging to the schema of ‘achievement of the four jhāna=diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra’. In this type, satisampajāna appeared to be an important meditation method. The way in which diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra and satisampajāna are combined is the view of impermanence/suffering/non-self of five aggregates → diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra and satisampajāna, achievement of four jhāna → diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra and satisampajāna, ānāpāna-samadhi → diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra and satisampajāna. It appeared in three ways.

高麗前期 佛敎 敎團의 전개 양상 -‘業’과 ‘宗’의 용례를 중심으로-

박광연 한국중세사학회 2012 한국중세사연구 Vol.0 No.34

This study aims for grasping how Buddhism in the Goryeo Dynasty tried to communicate with society. It attempted to examine the characteristics and the changing face of the Buddhist orders in the early Goryeo Dynasty through utilizing lots of accumulated research outcomes regarding a particular order in a specific period and extant historical records including epigraphs. It is impossible to get the full story of the Buddhist community in the early Goryeo Dynasty only through the study of ‘eob’(school:業) and ‘jong’(order:宗). But I think this study can be one means of understanding the characteristic of the religious body. What is dealt with in this treatise can be summarized as follows. At a certain point after the acceptance of Buddhism a group which was professionally engaged in Buddhism might have formed and it might have been controlled by the nation. It is difficult to discuss when this incidents started to happen;nevertheless, the term indicating the first emerging Buddhist order was “Hwa’eomeob”(Hwaeom school:華嚴業). This term “Hwa’eomeob” is found firstly in an epigraph in the 9th century, and it was also used intactly in the early Goryeo Dynasty. It seems that various eobs (schools) coexisted, the representative examples of which were “Hwa’eomeob”, “Yuga’eob”(Yogâcāra school:瑜伽業), “Yuleob”(Vinaya school:律業), “Bibasa’eob”(Vibhāṣā school:毗婆沙業). We can see that eob was an official name of the Buddhist order in the early Goryeo Dynasty in that in the titles of monks’ monuments established in the early 12th century there are the expressions “Dae’yuga’eob”(Great Yogâcāra school:大瑜伽業) “Daehwa’eomeob”(Great Hwaeom school:大華嚴業) indicating which eob the monks belonged to. In 1036 (the second year of King Jeongjong) tests for receiving precepts were carried out differently according to eob; along with this, through the epigraphs in the early 11th century where an eob’s name and a temple’s name were written side by side we can see that the custom of clarifying which eob a temple belonged to was prevalent. Together with this, the consciousness of discrimination between religious bodies gradually grew in the Goryeo Buddhist community. Such change was accelerated through being interlinked with the interests of political forces and through the establishment of the Cheontae order. In the 12th century, we can find the expressions “bonjong”(this order:本宗), “tajong”(the other orders:他宗), “iljong”(one order:一宗) and “jejong”(many orders:諸宗) in monks’ epitaphs, which shows the emphasis of distinction between one’s order and the other orders. Additionally, as a designation of a religious body not ‘eob’ but ‘jong’ started to be used. ‘Jong’ as a name of an order was firstly used in the expression “Ja’eunjong”(Ja’eun order:慈恩宗) appearing in an epitaph founded in 1117(the 12th year of King Yejong). Besides, we can find “Jogyejong”(Jogye order:曹溪宗) in the name of the monument “dansok-sa daegam guksabi”(Monument for the National Preceptor Daegam of Dansok Temple:斷俗寺大鑑國師碑) in 1172(the second year of King Myeongjong), which shows that the name ‘jong’ had been formulated. We can properly understand the usage of the name “Jogyejong” when we place it in a historical context of the revival of Seon order and a sense of rivalry between the Jogye order and the Cheontae order. Regarding the Korean Buddhist orders (denomination), there are diverse discussions over their formative years and their characteristics. Although this treatise did not deal with that issue directly, I hope it will be a foundation for further discussions. This study aims for grasping how Buddhism in the Goryeo Dynasty tried to communicate with society. It attempted to examine the characteristics and the changing face of the Buddhist orders in the early Goryeo Dynasty through utilizing lots of accumulated research outcomes regarding a particular order in a specific period and extant historical records including epigraphs. It is impossible to get the full story of the Buddhist community in the early Goryeo Dynasty only through the study of ‘eob’(school:業) and ‘jong’(order:宗). But I think this study can be one means of understanding the characteristic of the religious body. What is dealt with in this treatise can be summarized as follows. At a certain point after the acceptance of Buddhism a group which was professionally engaged in Buddhism might have formed and it might have been controlled by the nation. It is difficult to discuss when this incidents started to happen;nevertheless, the term indicating the first emerging Buddhist order was “Hwa’eomeob”(Hwaeom school:華嚴業). This term “Hwa’eomeob” is found firstly in an epigraph in the 9th century, and it was also used intactly in the early Goryeo Dynasty. It seems that various eobs (schools) coexisted, the representative examples of which were “Hwa’eomeob”, “Yuga’eob”(Yogâcāra school:瑜伽業), “Yuleob”(Vinaya school:律業), “Bibasa’eob”(Vibhāṣā school:毗婆沙業). We can see that eob was an official name of the Buddhist order in the early Goryeo Dynasty in that in the titles of monks’ monuments established in the early 12th century there are the expressions “Dae’yuga’eob”(Great Yogâcāra school:大瑜伽業) “Daehwa’eomeob”(Great Hwaeom school:大華嚴業) indicating which eob the monks belonged to. In 1036 (the second year of King Jeongjong) tests for receiving precepts were carried out differently according to eob; along with this, through the epigraphs in the early 11th century where an eob’s name and a temple’s name were written side by side we can see that the custom of clarifying which eob a temple belonged to was prevalent. Together with this, the consciousness of discrimination between religious bodies gradually grew in the Goryeo Buddhist community. Such change was accelerated through being interlinked with the interests of political forces and through the establishment of the Cheontae order. In the 12th century, we can find the expressions “bonjong”(this order:本宗), “tajong”(the other orders:他宗), “iljong”(one order:一宗) and “jejong”(many orders:諸宗) in monks’ epitaphs, which shows the emphasis of distinction between one’s order and the other orders. Additionally, as a designation of a religious body not ‘eob’ but ‘jong’ started to be used. ‘Jong’ as a name of an order was firstly used in the expression “Ja’eunjong”(Ja’eun order:慈恩宗) appearing in an epitaph founded in 1117(the 12th year of King Yejong). Besides, we can find “Jogyejong”(Jogye order:曹溪宗) in the name of the monument “dansok-sa daegam guksabi”(Monument for the National Preceptor Daegam of Dansok Temple:斷俗寺大鑑國師碑) in 1172(the second year of King Myeongjong), which shows that the name ‘jong’ had been formulated. We can properly understand the usage of the name “Jogyejong” when we place it in a historical context of the revival of Seon order and a sense of rivalry between the Jogye order and the Cheontae order. Regarding the Korean Buddhist orders (denomination), there are diverse discussions over their formative years and their characteristics. Although this treatise did not deal with that issue directly, I hope it will be a foundation for further discussions.

우빠니샤드와 초기불교에서 업과 윤회

이거룡(Lee, Geo- lyong) 불교학연구회 2011 불교학연구 Vol.29 No.-

본 논문은 우빠니샤드(Upaniṣad)와 초기불교에서 업과 윤회의 이론이 형성되고 전개되는 과정을 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이 과정에서 논의의 초점은 우빠니샤드에서 형성된 업과 윤회의 이론이 어떻게 초기불교에서 변용(變容)되는가 하는 점이다. 특히 업과 윤회의 주체 문제가 논의의 초점이다. 우빠니샤드의 업설과 윤회설이 초기불교로 수용되면서 우빠니샤드전통과 불교 사이에 가장 중요한 논점은 윤회의 주체 문제였기 때문이다. 필요에 따라서는 우빠니샤드와 초기불교뿐만 아니라, 베단따(Vedānta)나 부파불교의 견해를 참고하였다. 윤회의 주체 문제에 대한 우빠니샤드전통과 초기불교의 입장은 다음 3가지 질문을 중심으로 비교 고찰하였다. 1) 초기불교는 윤회의 주체를 부정했는가? 그렇지 않다. 석가모니 붓다는 엄연히 윤회를 전제로 설법을 했으며, 초기불전에는 윤회의 주체를 인정하는 것으로 이해될 수 있는 구절이 여럿 있다. 2) 윤회의 주체를 인정하는 입장은 무아설과 양립불가능한가? 그렇지 않다. 무상한 오온(五蘊)의 집합을 윤회의 당체로 간주하는 것은 무아설과 서로 모순되지 않는다. 미세신(微細身, sūkṣa-śarīra)을 윤회의 주체로 간주하는 우빠니샤드전통은 오온의 상속으로 윤회를 설명하는 불교와 큰 차이가 없는 것으로 보인다. 3) 아뜨만(Ātman, 我)을 인정하는 우빠니샤드전통은 윤회의 주체를 논리적으로 설명할 수 있는가? 윤회의 주체문제를 논리적으로 설명함에 있어서는 두 전통 모두가 어려움을 안고 있다. 불교는 ‘새(鳥) 없는 비행(飛行)’을 설명해야 하는 어려움이 있는 반면에, 우빠니샤드전통은 ‘날지 못하는 새의 비행’을 설명해야 하는 어려움이 있다. The doctrine of karma and saṃsāra (the realm of rebirth and karmic retribution) has several functions in Indian thought. It provides causal explanations for the phenomena of life, serves as a foundation for ethical and religious understanding, and rationalizes the commitment to seek liberation from a painful and unsatisfactory worldly existence. This research looked into the formation and development of the doctrine of karma and rebirth (saṃsāra) in theUpaniṣads and Early Buddhism, focusing on the differences between the doctrines, especially with regard to the agent of karma and rebirth, which were formed during what is called the Axial Age in India. In fact, various schools of Indian thought disagreed over the nature of the karmic agent. Furthermore there were constant disputes between Hinduism and Buddhism concerning this matter, because the Buddhist idea of non-self (anātman) seemed to be incompatible with that of Ātman in the Upaniṣads. This essay considers with the matter of the agent of karma and rebirth in Upaniṣads and early Buddhism in terms of three questions. 1) Did Early Buddhism negate the agent of karma and rebirth? The essay finds this to not be so. As is evident from the early Buddhist texts, the sermons of the Buddha presupposed the doctrine of karma and rebirth, and in those texts we can find out several verses affirming the agent of karma and rebirth. 2) Is the theory of non-self (anātmavāda) incompatible with the viewpoint which agrees with the agent of karma and rebirth? Again, this essay finds this to not be so. As jīvātman (individual self) or sūkṣma-śarīra (subtle body) in theUpaniṣads play the role of the agent of karma and rebirth, so the organic unity of pañcaskhanda (the five groups of elements) of early Buddhism can be regarded as the agent. 3) Taking the standpoint of the Upanisadic theory of Ātman, can the problem of the agent of karma and rebirth be explained from start to finish? Here again, it is not so. As in Buddhism there is difficulty in explaining ‘a flying without affirming the existence of a bird’, so in Upanisadic traditions there is a knotty point to explain, that is ’a flying of bird which cannot fly.

초기 류마티스 관절염 환자에서 폐 질환 발생의 빈도와 연관인자

김성일 ( Sung Il Kim ),곽임수 ( Im Soo Kwak ),박순규 ( Soon Kew Park ),나하연 ( Ha Yeon Rha ) 대한류마티스학회 2000 대한류마티스학회지 Vol.7 No.1

Objective: To determine the frequency and associated factors of physiologic abnormalities indicative of lung disease in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Thirty-six early RA patients(mean age 43±12 years, 30 females, disease durations less than 12 months, mean duration 5±3 months), who had not been treated with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), were studied. Clinical, laboratoy and radiologic variables such as age, sex, smoking history, past lung disease history, drug medication history, rheumatoid factor positivity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), CRP and chest radiography, were undertaken. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed in all patients and results for PFTs were expressed as percentage of predicted values for each individual adjusted for age, sex, and height. Lung disease was defined as one or more of the followings should be present, 1) forced vital capacity (FVC) <80% for predicted, 2) diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide (DL(CO)) <80% for predicted, 3) forced expiratory flow from 25% and 75% of vital capacity (FEF 25-75%) <80% for predicted. Statistical comparisons were made using Student`s t test or chi-square test as appropriate. Results: All patients had normal chest radiography. Rheumatoid factor was positive in 21 patients (58%), smokers were 5 patients (14%), ESR and CRP were increased in 16 (44%) and 17 patients (47%). Ten patients (28%) had lung disease and included FVC<80% in 4, DL(CO)<80% in 4 and FEF 25-75%<80% in 6 patients. There was no significant predictor of lung disease. Conclusion: The frequency of lung disease in early RA by PFTs was 28% and there was no significant predictor of lung disease.

유전자 편집기술에 관한 초기 유식사상적 관점- 인간 배아줄기세포를 중심으로 -

정경진 보조사상연구원 2020 보조사상 Vol.56 No.-

In November 2018, the birth of twin girls from embryos whose genes had been altered using CRISPR gene­editing technology took place for the first time in China. As Nature’s Chief Features Editor Rick Monastersky said in an interview, it is a scientific event that will be remembered for forcing us to congront questions about “who we are, where we have come from, and where we are going?” However, there is currently a law on the medical use of human ES cells, but I do not think that the bioethics discourse that supports it has been fully carried out not only in the Buddhist community but also in society. In the early Yogācāra, which studied the structure of human consciousness, the origin of life forming is considered to be ālayavijñāna. In this essay, we would like to consider the main question of ‘Is human ES cells human beings?’ and the problem of violating the Ten Precepts such as ‘not to kill’ and ‘not to lie’ in the study of gene­editing targeting human ES cells, from the point of view of the early Yogācāra. Especially from the standpoint of the Yogācāra philosophy that acknowledges the four stages of existence and the five stages of embryo in the womb, human ES cells are considered human beings. And today’s cutting­edge medical technology, the CRISPR gene­editing, confirms that is has been thoroughly improved in the pursuit of human interests, and points out that these research cases cannot be altruistic behaviors because they appear to be a violation of both ‘not to kill’ and ‘not to lie’. 유전자 편집기술로 유전자를 변형시킨 배아로부터 아이가 태어나는 일이 2018년 11월 중국에서 처음으로 일어났다. 네이처 편집담당자 릭 몬스타스키(Rick Monastersky)가 인터뷰에 남긴 말처럼 “우리가 누구이고, 어디서 왔으며, 그리고 어디로 가고 있는가?”라는 어려운 질문에 직면하게 하는 기억에 남겨질 과학적 사건임은 분명하다. 그러나 현재 인간 배아줄기세포의 의학적인 사용에 대하여 법률은 정비되어가고 있지만 그를 뒷받침하는 생명윤리담론은 불교계는 물론 사회적으로 충분히 형성되었다고 보기는 어렵다. 인간의 식(識)의 구조를 고찰한 불교의 초기 유식사상에서는 생명체를 형성시키는 근원을 아뢰야식(阿賴耶識, ālaya­vijñāna)이라고 간주한다. 본고에서는 인간 배아줄기세포를 대상으로 하는 유전자 편집연구에 있어서 ‘인간 배아줄기세포는 인간일까?’라는 주된 문제와 더불어 불살생계와 불기어계라는 십선계의 위범의 문제를 초기 유식사상적 관점에서 연구·고찰하고자 한다. 특히 사유(四有)와 태내오위(胎内五位)설을 인정하는 대승 유식사상의 관점에서 인간 배아줄기세포는 인간으로 간주된다. 또한 오늘날의 최첨단의료기술인 크리스퍼 유전자가위는 철저하게 인간의 이익을 추구하는 방향으로 개선되어 왔음을 지적하고 이러한 연구사례들은 불살생계와 불기어계를 위범하는 것으로 보이기 때문에 이타행이 될 수 없음을 지적한다.

한국 불교학 40년 연구성과와 과제: 초기불교

황순일 한국불교학회 2013 韓國佛敎學 Vol.68 No.-

한국에서 초기불교의 연구는 1980년대 고익진 교수님의 노력을 통해서 하나의 독립적인 분야로 도약했다. 많은 경우에 있어서 초창기의 초기불교 연구는 일본 불교학계의 깊은 영향 아래 있었으며 일본불교학의 연구 성과를 수용하면서 발전했다. 하지만 1980년대 후반부터 인도와 서구에 유학하고 돌아온 학자들을 중심으로 1800년대 중반이후 지속적으로 축적되어온 서구의 불교학 연구 성과들이 한국에 소개되면서 국내의 초기불교연구는 전환기를 맞이하게 된다. 그리고 빨리경전을 비롯한 인도어를 중심으로 한 서구의 초기불교학 성과들이 중요하게 다루어지기 시작했고 붓다 당시의 명상으로 간주되기 시작한 남방불교권의 위빳사나 명상에 대한 관심이 고조되었다. 2000년대 이후부터 국내에서는 서구의 불교학이 가지는 한계에 대한 반성이 일어나면서 서구의 불교학을 극복하고 새로운 방법으로 초기불교를 연구하려는 방향이 모색된다. 아마도 이러한 경향 하에서 학문적인 엄밀성을 추구하면서도 역사주의적 측면에 치우치지 않는 가장 한국적인 불교학이 앞으로 자리 잡게 될 것으로 보인다. Studies on Early Buddhism in Korea was started during the1980s under the honest effort of Professor Ko Ikjin in the Collegeof Buddhism in Dongguk University. With his endeavor EarlyBuddhism began to be regarded as a separate field of BuddhistStudies in Korea. In the early stage of studies in Early Buddhism,Korean academia was under the heavy influence of JapaneseBuddhist scholarship. However, this tendency was step by stepchanged when Korean scholars had studied abroad to India or toWestern countries returned and toke a post in various Universities. They introduced the well-accumulated outcomes of WesternBuddhist scholarship equipped with philological clarity as well ashistoricism. Under the influence of Western studies on EarlyBuddhism, Vipassana meditation popular among South and SoutheastAsia as well as in the West began to be regarded as Early BuddhistMeditation in Korea. Whether it is true or not it has indeed sparkedthe serious studies of Buddhist meditation in Korea. During the last10 years, there had been new tendencies to study Early Buddhismin unique Korean way after realizing problems and side effects ofWestern Buddhist scholarship. In this trend, scholars accepts livingBuddhism as it is and study Buddhist text and tradition withphilological clarity yet without historicism.

중서부지역 무문토기시대 전기의 시간성 재고 — 14C연대 분석을 중심으로

황재훈 한국고고학회 2014 한국고고학보 Vol.92 No.-

By critically reviewing the results of typological analysis and other relativechronological methods, this paper evaluates available radiocarbon dates andemphasizes the co-existence of typical Early Mumun (plain-coarse) Periodassemblage types or cultures in the midwestern region of the Korean Peninsula. The current chronology, based on a typological arrangement of potteryrim types and designs, does not correspond with the archaeological evidenceindicated by overlapping features, artifact associations and radiocarbon dates. Different types of pottery designs considered thus far as time markers were infact found to be associated with each other and overlapping features do notcoincide with the current chronology. The supposed process of degenerationor gradual disappearance of pottery design is not supported by the stratigraphicexcavations, while the pottery remains of several different designs wereunearthed in association. The evaluation and analysis of a substantial amountof radiocarbon dates accumulated so far do not support the current chronologywhich emphasizes sequential and lineal change. While several assemblage types or cultures, namely the Gakhyeong PotteryCulture, Garak-dong Culture, Misa-ri Culture and Yeoksam-dong Culture,coexisted in midwestern Korean Peninsula during the Early Mumun Period, theyunderwent dynamic changes in terms of their social boundaries.

고려전기 불교 교단과 승과(僧科)

박광연 한국불교선리연구원 2022 禪文化硏究 Vol.33 No.-

The monk's examination system, which began during the reign of King Gwangjong (reign 949-975), was transformed in the midst of political and social changes in the early Goryeo Dynasty (918-1170). At the beginning of the monk's examination, there were no distinction of preliminary examination and main examination. However, in 1084 (the first year of Seonjong), the preliminary examination began. The fact that the preliminary examinations of the two sects were first conducted in the same year indicates that the monk's examination was operated under the leadership of the state. For over 100 years from the time of King Mokjong, monk's examination was conducted at Wangnyunsa Temple. Later, it was held at Gwangmyeongsa Temple in 1084 and Bongeunsa Temple in 1101. The background of the change of the location of the monk's examination was the king's permission for the request of the Zen order and the state - led establishment of the Tiantai sect. On the other hand, the monk's examination of the Tiantai order is a sect's examination(宗選). In the confusion of the Buddhist world in the first half of the 12th century, the operation of the monk's examination gradually moved away from state leadership. 광종(재위 949-975) 때 승과 시행 초기에는 예비시험과 본시험의 단계가 갖춰져 있지 않았다. 1084년(선종 원년) 유가업과 선종에서 승과 예비시험을 시행한기록이 있다. 두 교단의 예비시험이 같은 해에 처음 실시되었다는 점에서 승과운영에 미친 국가의 영향력을 확인할 수 있다. 목종 때부터 1백 년 이상 왕륜사에서 승과를 실시하였다. 1084년 광명사 승과에서 선종 승려로서는 최초로 학일이 합격하였고, 1101년(숙종 6) 봉은사에서천태종 대선이 처음 개최되었다. 승과 장소가 바뀐 배경에 선종 교단의 요구에응한 국왕의 허락, 숙종과 의천에 의한 천태종 건립과 천태종 대선의 실시라는사건이 있었다. 한편 천태종 대선은 교단별 승과 즉 종선(宗選)의 성격을 지닌다. 12세기 전반 불교계의 혼란 속에서 승과 운영이 국가 주도에서 점차 벗어나게되는데, 이는 구족계 수계의 변화와도 흐름을 같이 한다.