명상도서관

- 자료유형학술지논문
- 저자명이덕진(Lee Duck-Jin)
- 학회/출판사/기관명보조사상연구원
- 출판년도2003
- 언어한국어
- 학술지명/학위논문주기보조사상
- 발행사항20호 53-85 (33 pages)
- ISBN/ISSN
- 소개/요약Existing 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).
TOP