|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
조론(肇論)에서의 반야(般若)와 공(空)개념 성격 고찰=The Analysis of the Concepts of Prajñā and Śūnya in Zhao-lun |
|
|
|
| Author |
허인섭 (著)=Hur, In-sub (au.)
|
|---|
| Source |
불교학연구=Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | v.11 |
|---|
| Date | 2005.08 |
|---|
| Pages | 258 - 294 |
|---|
| Publisher | 불교학연구회=佛教學研究會 |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://www.kabs.re.kr/
|
|---|
| Location | Daegu, South Korea [大邱, 韓國] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 韓文=Korean |
|---|
| Keyword | 중국불교=Chinese Buddhism; 조론=Zhao-lun; 반야=Prajñā; 공= Śūnya; 용수=Nāgārjuna; 승조=Seng-zhao |
|---|
| Abstract | This paper aims at disclosing the influence of Neo-Taoist idea on Zhao-lun.In oredr to get the philosophical characteristics of Zhao-lun, this paper introduces the differences between the classical Taoism and Neo-Taoism. The most important difference between them is that Neo-Taoism shows a simple reductionism and a Chinese mode of metaphysical thinking, which are similar to western ones. This differences is important to analyze some delicate statements having two fold aspects formed to be influenced by both classical and Neo-Taoist idea.
In analyzing the above treatise, it must be firstly notified that the Chinese people in Wei-Chin period could not acknowledge clearly the similar and the different aspects of Buddhism and Taoism. It resulted in a serious misunderstanding among Chinese Buddhists regarding the original Indian Buddhist concepts, prajñā or śūnya, etc.Zhao-lun was also written in this period and could not be an exceptional one to overcome completely the limitation of the spirit of the times. Secondly, it needs to clarify the original meaning of śūnya and how Chinese Buddhist scholars transformed its meaning according to the Taoist or Neo-Taoist way of thinking. In this period, the concept of śūnya was understood as an fundamental nothingness which frequently mentioned in Wang-pi's work. This way of understanding has maintained in the history of Chinese Buddhism.
However, this paper suggests that the concept of śūnya should be understood in the context of the history of Indian philosophy. In spite of that the concept of śūnya cannot be an ontological one, it has been interpreted ontologically or metaphysically not only by Chinese Buddhist monks but also by modern western philosophers. This paper points out that śūnya is a synonym of anātma and should be understood in the light of the theory of 'dependent arising'(緣起). By comparing the original meaning of śūnya and prajñā as the above with those seen in Zhao-lun, it discloses that Seng-zhao understood those concepts ontologically under the influence of Neo-Taoism. |
|---|
| Table of contents | I. 서론 258
II. 승조 시대의 사상적 배경 261
1. 위진현학(魏晋玄學)적 사유의 특성 262
1) 선진도가(先秦道家)의 세계 이해방식 263
2) 왕필(王弼) 현학의 사상적 특성 265
2. 도가와 불교의 개념 혼용 문제 267
1) 도·불(道·佛)의 개념적 사유 한계 이해와 그 극복방식의 차이 267
2) 연기론의 도가적 이해 양상 269
III. 조론의 중국불교적 특성 271
1. 공(空) 개념 이해의 일반적 문제점 272
2. 조론에서의 반야와 공 개념 이해방식 사례 분석 282
1) 반야무지론(般若無知論)에서의 반야 개념 282
2) 물불천론(物不遷論)에서의 존재 개념 285
3) 부진공론(不眞空論)에서의 공(空) 개념 287
IV. 결론 290 |
|---|
| ISSN | 15980642 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 252 |
|---|
| Created date | 2021.04.15 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2021.04.16 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
