|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
『카타 우파니샤드』의 행복치유론에 대하여 - 베단타적 해석을 중심으로=Theory of Happiness and Healing in Kaṭha Upaniṣad: Focused on Vedāntic Interpretation |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
金浩星 (著)=Kim, Ho-Sǒng (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
인도철학=印度哲學=Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.50 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2017 |
|---|
| ページ | 191 - 229 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 印度哲學會 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://krindology.com/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | Korea [韓國] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 韓文=Korean |
|---|
| ノート | 저자정보: 동국대학교 불교대학 교수 |
|---|
| キーワード | 행복= happiness; 치유= healing; 아트만= ātman; 아난다=ānanda; 수카; 다르마; Vedānta; Nachiketas; Kaṭha Upaniṣad |
|---|
| 抄録 | 이 글은 무엇이 행복인지, 또 어떻게 하면 행복할 수 있는지에 대한 하나의 대답을 텍스트로 삼아서 재해석해 보고자 한 것이다. 대상으로 삼았던 ‘하나의 대답’은 힌두교의 문헌인 『카타 우파니샤드』였다. 다만 ‘행복치유’를 ‘행복과 치유’의 의미로 이해해서, 행복론 이외에 치유론도 살펴보고자 하였다. 소년 나치케타스에게 주어진 죽음의 신 야마의 세 가지 선물을 세 가지 차원의 행복이라고 보고서, 행복론을 분석하였다. 그리고 그 배경서사 속에서 치유되어야 할 존재로서의 아버지와 소년의 존재를 헤아렸다. 힌두교, 특히 베단타철학의 입장에서 『카타 우파니샤드』의 행복치유론을 살펴본 뒤, 그것에 대하여 의문을 제기하였다. 과연 인도-힌두교적 컨텍스트에서 나온 행복치유론을 지금의 한국사회에서 어느 정도 수용가능할 것인지를 묻기 위해서였다. 여기서 특히 문제가 된 것은, 형이상학적 차원에만 치우쳐서 물리적 차원의 일을 소홀히 하는 출가주의적 태도였다. 그리고 그것은 똑같이 힌두교의 텍스트이지만, 『마누법전』에 나타나 있는 것과 같은 재가주의적 태도와도 모순되는 것으로 비평하였다.
What is happiness and how can I be happy? What kind of answers are expected when we raise this question to Hinduism? I sought to answer this question referring to KU, which is one of the middle Upaniṣad. Try to think about self(ātman,), that is ultimate happiness. In TU this is attained through the fifth self, the delight(ānanda). In KU this is suggested by the third wish/happiness. Thus Vedanta philosophy’s basic position is that finding self itself is achieving mokṣa. In Hinduism, achieving mokṣa is viewed as a ultimate goal a person should pursue. This is not the interest that people naturally have. People pursue fulfilling love, materials/money and struggle with obligation/burden that a man has. And when these external conditions are fulfilled it is called happiness. The issue is two different dimensions of happiness – in KU this is suggested as three types, but you can see a sharp contrast when excluding the second wish/happiness. Achieving mokṣa that is finding self is metaphysical and rising above the mundane world. However, things like love, material, money, and obligations are physical and mundane. In what relationship are these two different dimensions of values? First look at KU’s position. When Nachiketas proposed three wishes, those three wishes were presented as all necessary. Therefore, physical and metaphysical dimensions are horizontal and symbiotic relationship. However, in Yama’s perspective, it looks like he implied that the third happiness is superior, and the first and second can be replaced by the third happiness. The issue of two dimensions is not restricted to the theory of happiness. It is also same for the theory of healing. If you can earn happiness from achieving mokṣa, can itself earn healing? or can you earn happiness from healing? It is undoubtful that achieving nirvana means healing. If you look at the writings about finding self, if was suggested that finding self is abandoning both extremes of happiness and sadness, or overcoming sadness. However, at the same time, there is a room to interpret it as happiness via healing that is healing via psychological and yogic training. Nakamura Hajime has not overlooked at this point.
|
|---|
| 目次 | I 머리말. 192
II 서사 구조와 세 가지 소원. 196
III 행복치유론의 함의(含意). 205
IV 행복론에 대한 비평. 217
V 맺음말. 223
|
|---|
| ISSN | 12263230 (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 137 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2023.10.22 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2023.11.11 |
|---|
 |
Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac)での検索をお勧めします。ＩＥではこの検索システムを表示できません。
|
|
|
