|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
薦福承古, 覺範慧洪 그리고 普照知訥의 三玄門 해석=Different Interpretations of Linji Yixuan(臨濟義玄)’s Three Marvelous Gates(三玄門) by Jianfu Chenggu(薦福承古), Juefan Huihong(覺範慧洪) and Bojo Jinul(普照知訥) |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
鄭榮植 (著)=Jeong, Yeong-shik (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
한국불교학=韓國佛教學
|
|---|
| 巻号 | v.54 n.0 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2009.08 |
|---|
| ページ | 5 - 34 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 한국불교학회 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://ikabs.org/
|
|---|
| 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 불교문화연구원 연구교수 |
|---|
| キーワード | 삼현문=The Three Marvelous Gates; 천복승고=Jianfu Chenggu; 각범혜홍=Juefan Huihong; 보조지눌=Bojo Jinul; 선림승보전=Biographies of Jewellike Monks in the Chan Family |
|---|
| 抄録 | 임제의현에 의해 제시된 三玄門은 선의 교판이라고 할 수 있다. 그런데, 삼현문을 體中玄ㆍ句中玄ㆍ玄中玄으로 체계화시킨 것은 薦福承古이다. 천복승고는 체중현에 화엄을, 구중현에 간화선을, 현중현에 良久ㆍ黙言ㆍ棒ㆍ喝등의 작용을 배대시키고 있다. 한편, 『禪林僧寶傳』에서 覺範慧洪은 ‘承古의 三失’을 비판하는데, ‘承古의 三失’이란 ① 三玄三要를 玄沙師備의 三句로 이해한 것. ② 巴陵顥鑑의 三轉語를 비난한 것. ③ 自己를 兩種으로 나눈 것이다. 그러나, 혜홍의 승고비판은 편파적이라고 생각되는데, 예를 들면 승고가 자기를 空劫時自己와 今時日用自己로 나눈 것은 體와 用의 측면에서 말한 것이지, 반드시 자기를 양종으로 나누었다고는 할 수 없기 때문이다.
한편, 지눌은 『禪林僧寶傳』에서의 승고의 삼현문해석에 기초하여 자신의 견해를 확립하는데, 승고와는 달리 대혜의 간화선을 삼현문보다 뛰어난 것으로 위치지우고 있는 것이 독창적이다. 또한 ‘만약 화두를 참구하는 사람이 화두를 破病語, 全提語로서 이해한다면 구중현에 떨어지지만, 言句를 떠나 이해한다면 화두는 十種病을 부수는 무기가 될 수 있다’고 주장하고 있다.
The Three Marvelous Gates(三玄門) which were originated from Linji Yixuan(臨濟義玄) is said to be a doctrinal taxonomy(敎判) of Chan(禪) tradition. It was Jianfu Chenggu(薦福承古) who systemized the concept of the Three Marvelous Gates as Marvel in the Essence(體中玄), Marvel in the Phrase(句中玄) and Marvel in the Marvel(玄中玄). He related Huayan(華嚴) with the Marvel in the Essence, Gongan Chan(公案禪) with the Marvel in the Phrase, and Seon(Chan) masters’ skillful usage like waiting for a good while(良久), silencing(黙言), striking with a stick(棒) and shouting(喝) with the Marvel in the Marvel. In Biographies of Jewellike Monks in the Chan Family(禪林僧寶傳) Juefan Huihong(覺範慧洪) criticized Chenggu’s three mistakes(承古三失), which were ① His misunderstanding of the
Three Marvels and Three Essentials(三玄三要) as Xuansha Shibei(玄沙師備)’s Three Phrases(三句) ② His criticism of Haojian(顥鑑)’sThree Cryptic Sayings(三轉語) ③ His assertion to make a division of self into two. But, I think Huihong’s criticism on Chenggu was unfair because Chenggu’s division of self into the one in the eons of nothingness(空劫時自己) and the one functioning at the present time(今時日用自己) was made just in terms of essence(體) and function
(用). It can’t be said to be a real division.
Bojo Jinul(普照知訥) established his own perspective on the basis of the Chenggu’s interpretation of the Three Marvelous Gates as described in Biographies of Jewellike Monks in the Chan Family(禪林僧寶傳). What is innovative in Jinul’s interpretation is that he considered Dahui Zonggao(大慧宗杲)’s Gongan Chan(公案禪) more excellent than the Three Gates, which was different from Chenggu’s. He continued to state that if a huatou(hwadu) practitioner understands huatou as a phrase for healing diseases(破病語) or a phrase for showing the whole thing(全提語), then he will necessarily fall into the Marvel in the Phrase; if he understands it as something beyond words and phrases, then the huatou will become a tool for repelling the Ten Kinds of Diseases(十種病). |
|---|
| 目次 | Ⅰ. 서론 6
Ⅱ. 본론 8
1. 천복승고의 삼현문해석 8
2. 각범혜홍의 승고비판 14
3. 보조지눌의 삼현문해석 21
Ⅲ. 결론 29 |
|---|
| ISSN | 12250945 (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 78 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2021.11.22 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2021.11.22 |
|---|
 |
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。
|
|
|
