 |
|
| 頓漸論諍이 남긴 숙제=Assignment from Controversies about Don and Jeom in Buddhism | ||
| 作者 | 이덕진 (著)=Lee, Duck-jin (au.) |
|---|---|
| 出處題名 | 보조사상=普照思想=Journal of Bojo Jinul's Thought |
| 卷期 | v.20 n.0 |
| 出版日期 | 2003.08 |
| 頁次 | 53 - 85 |
| 出版者 | 普照思想研究院 |
| 出版地 | Korea [韓國] |
| 資料類型 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
| 使用語言 | 韓文=Korean |
| 附註項 | 저자정보: 창원전문대학 |
| 關鍵詞 | 지눌; 종밀; 성철; 頓悟漸修; 知; 本覺眞心; 解體; 構築; 空寂靈知; 解悟; 知解; 證俉; 見性成佛; 三關突破 |
| 摘要 | Existing controversies about Don(頓) and Jeom(漸) in Buddhism have several significant assignments. First, the relationship in Don-o-jeomsu(頓悟漸修) thinking between Jongmil(宗密) and Jinul(知訥) Are the conventional viewpoints of our academic world around Buddhism valid in the earth, which have considered Don-o-jeomsu thinking of Jinul and Jongmil as identical with each other without any doubt? What is something identical and different in their thinking? Secondly, from Jongmil's thinking, we can find some clues of Neo-Confucian thinking system. Thus, is there such tendency shown in Jinul's thinking as well? In other words, assuming that domestic Buddhist circles might offer a flexible thinking system to help accept Neo-Confucianism in the end of Koryo dynasty in a little smoother ways, we may wonder if the clues might be just originated from Jinul. Thirdly, we may reflect on ourselves about the question that there are two different faces in Korean Buddhism as posed by the late Buddhist priest Seongcheol(性徹). In his lifetime, Seongcheol would say that contemporary Korean Buddhism has a tendency to tell Gong-an-seon(公案禪) from the angle of Don-o-donsu(頓悟頓修) externally, while following Hwa-eom-seon(華嚴禪) from the angle of Don-o-jeomsu(頓悟漸修) internally, and the origin of such structural inconsistency might derive from Jinul. Obviously. it is somewhat exaggerated that Seongcheol insisted Jinul brought such inconsistency into Korean Buddhism. However, on the supposition that we might have a consensus of opinion about the fact that the tradition of contemporary Korean Zen Buddhism could be located and traced only within the framework of ancient Chinese Imjaejong(臨濟宗), although such supposition is not feasible in practice, we need to listen to some arguments posing that Jinul's Zen principles are somewhat deviated from the Imjaejong and even the tradition of Josaseon(祖師禪). Fourthly, there are functional relationships between Jinul's Don-o-jeomsu and Ganhwaseon(看話禪) thinking. In other words, we may wonder if Jinul's Ganhwa Gyeongjeol-mun(看話徑截門) really completed previous theory of Don-o-jeomsu. In 『Theory of Ganhwa Gyeol Eui(看話決疑論)』, Jinul insisted on Ganhwa Gyeongjeol-mun. And from certain angle, this argument turned over the Theory of Don-o-jeomsu at first hand, Jinul had insisted on tenaciously in his 『Jeolyo(節要)』. Therefore, it indicates that he annulled the Theory of Don-o-jeomsun as pointed out by Seongcheol. |
| 目次 | I. 들어가는 말 3 II. 知訥의 頓悟漸修 思想 3 III. 現代 韓國佛教에서의 頓漸論諍 11 IV. 돈점논쟁이 남긴 숙제 17 |
| ISSN | 12297968 (P) |
| 點閱次數 | 46 |
| 建檔日期 | 2023.02.28 |
| 更新日期 | 2023.02.28 |
建議您使用 Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) 瀏覽器能獲得較好的檢索效果，IE不支援本檢索系統。
