Site mapAbout usConsultative CommitteeAsk LibrarianContributionCopyrightCitation GuidelineDonationHome        

CatalogAuthor AuthorityGoogle
Search engineFulltextScripturesLanguage LessonsLinks
 


Extra service
Tools
Export
조선시대 선사상연구의 현황과 몇 가지 논점에 대하여=A Study on Zen Philosophy during the Joseon Dynasty and viewpoint
Author 정영식 (著)=Jeong, Young-sik (au.)
Source 선학=禪學=Journal of Seon Studies
Volumev.47 n.0
Date2017.08.30
Pages37 - 68
Publisher韓國禪學會
Publisher Url http://www.seonstudy.org/seon/
LocationKorea [韓國]
Content type期刊論文=Journal Article
Language韓文=Korean
Note저자정보: 고려대장경 연구소
Keyword조선시대 선종=zen of Joseon Dynasty; 임제종=Imjaejong; 진아; 정토사상=thought of pure land; 유심정토=yushimjeongto; true self
Abstract지금까지 조선시대 선에 관한 연구는 주로 역사학계에서 이루어졌고, 선 ‘사상’을 다룬 연구는 많지 않다. 필자는 조선시대 선사상을 연구하는데 있어서 다음의 3가지를 주장하고자 한다.
첫째. 보조지눌의 선은 임제종을 정통으로 생각했던 조선시대의 선종과 모순하지 않는다. 종래 학계에서는 지눌은 돈오점수, 선교겸수를 주장하는 반면 조선시대에는 돈오돈수, 사교입선을 주장했기 때문에 양자는 서로 모순한다고 생각되어 왔다. 그러나 필자가 볼 때 사교입선과 돈오돈수는 임제종의 중심주장이 아니다. 그것은 교에 대한 선의 우위를 주장하는 ‘선전도구(propaganda)’에 지나지 않는다. 둘째. 조선의 일부 승려들은 ‘불멸하는 진아(眞我)’를 믿었다. 필자가 볼 때 이는 잘못된 생각이다. 하지만 임제종의 사상 속에는 이러한 오해를 불러일으킬 만한 소지가 있다. 임제종에서 말하는 무위진인(無位眞人), 소소영영(昭昭靈靈)이 ‘불멸하는 진아’라고 생각되어, 이것이 감각, 지각작용을 일으킨다고 생각되어 왔다. 셋째. 선승이 객관적 정토를 믿는 것은 모순하지 않는다. 혜능이 심즉정토(心則淨土)를 주장한 이래 조사선에서는 유심정토(唯心淨土)를 강조하여 서방정토의 실재를 부정하는 경향이 강하였다. 그러나 조사선이 선의 전부는 아니며, 혜능 이전의 선에서는 정토사상을 받아들여 염불하는 선승들이 많았다.

Most research on ‘Zen(禪)’ during Joseon Dynasty have been undertaken by historians, and few studies have dealt with its philosophical aspect, and stayed in the scope of research conducted by Takahashi Toru(高橋亨) in ‘Yijobulgyo(Buddhism in Joseon Dynasty)’ and Nukariya Kaiten(忽滑谷快天) in ‘Joseonseongyosa(History of Zen Buddhism in Joseon Dynasty)’ during the period of Japanese colonization. In investigating Zen Buddhism in Joseon Dynasty, I attempt to raise three arguments as below.
First, Zen Buddhism by priest Bojojinul(普照知訥) does not contradict Zen Buddhism in Joseon Dynasty that regarded Imjejong(臨濟宗) as legitimate. In the past, researchers largely thought that the two contradicted each other because priest Jinul advocated the idea of sudden enlightenment(donojeomsu; 頓悟漸修), while the idea of more gradual enlightenment and completing ‘Gyo(敎)’ to move up to the realm of ‘Zen(禪)’(頓悟頓修, 捨敎入禪) was advocated in Joseon Dynasty. However, in my opinion, the latter does not capture the core idea of Imjejong. They are merely a propaganda that argues for the superior status of ‘Zen’ over ‘Gyo’. These two cannot be separated, and yet, too much emphasis has been put on the idea of ‘sagyoibseon(捨敎入禪)’, particularly in Zen discourses(禪論爭) during the late Joseon period, and it came to be misinterpreted as a core idea of Imjejong.
Second, some Buddhist priests during Joseon Dynasty believed in a ‘true self that never dies,’ which I think is a misleading idea. Yet there are reasons for this misunderstanding in philosophy of Imjejong. Muwijinin Sosoyoungryeong(無位眞人, 昭昭靈靈) was interpreted as a ‘true self that never disappears’ and thus rouses perception and cognition.
However, in general, Buddhism regards knowledge obtained by perception as delusion(妄想) or mere sensibleness(分別). Thus, muwijinin Sosoyoungryeong that rouses perception is not a true self but merely fleeting. Even if there is something like a ‘true self’, it would be wrong to argue that ‘a person may die but the true self never dies.’ Third, it is not a contradiction that Zen priests believed in a physical dimension of ‘pure land(淨土).’ Since priest HuiNeng(慧能) argued that our mind is the very pure land(心則淨土), Josaseon(祖師禪) emphasized the idea of yushimjeongto(唯心淨土) and strongly opposed to the idea of seobangjeongto(西方淨土). However, Josaseon does not represent all Zen ideas, and many Zen priests accepted and prayed for the ‘pure land’ before priest HuiNeng. Moreover, ‘Zen’ and ‘pure land’ have much in common philosophically(禪觀思想). Presumably, Buddhist priests in Joseon Dynasty prayed for the pure land of seobangjeongto as it was difficult to reach enlightenment through Zen practice and thus they instead wished to be accepted in the pure land after death.

Table of contents국문 초록 37
Ⅰ. 서론 38
Ⅱ 본론 38
1. 조선시대 선연구의 현황 38
2. 조선시대 선의 논점 43
Ⅲ. 결론 64
참고문헌 66
Abstract 67
ISSN15980588 (P)
Hits69
Created date2022.05.24
Modified date2022.05.24



Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE

Notice

You are leaving our website for The full text resources provided by the above database or electronic journals may not be displayed due to the domain restrictions or fee-charging download problems.

Record correction

Please delete and correct directly in the form below, and click "Apply" at the bottom.
(When receiving your information, we will check and correct the mistake as soon as possible.)

Serial No.
640903

Search History (Only show 10 bibliography limited)
Search Criteria Field Codes
Search CriteriaBrowse