The history of Buddhist philosophy evolves based on the exposition on the former thought/text by the scholars of the next generation. Such a chronological order has been maintained so far since the time of the Buddha. In a tradition that attaches great importance to its classical texts, such as Buddhist studies, greater attention will likely be paid to the work of interpreters who stay chronologically closer to the ancient text. This may have been unavoidable, though we cannot totally deny the fact that the contemporary interpretations have tended to be less valued. There seems to be a tacit presupposition that the ancient interpreters are spiritually far superior to our contemporaries. We cannot, however, simply overlook the merits of our current interpreters. One reason is that the volume of information they can collect and utilize is much more extensive than that of their predecessors. The other reason is the fact that the context of time and space of the ancient scholars is different from that of modern scholars. For these reasons, the contemporary expositors are able to produce a different outcome ― an important fact here aside arguing over the superiority ― which was not possible for the former interpreters. Therefore, it is necessary for us to pay attention to our contemporaries who share the same tine period with us. How did they precede their interpretation of the former ideas/text? Through the clarification process of this question, we can assure a coordinating point or starting line of our own. Bul-yeon Lee, Gi-Young, in this respect, is one of our contemporary interpreters who has been waiting to be recognized. Bul-yeon left a great volume of writings and theses. He followed the path, seeking after truth, equipped with the two wheels of study and practice. His life seems to be a full devotion itself. He has never failed to be attentive to anything, being always busily engaged in the advancement of the both wheels. As a scholar, he has displayed considerable achievements in the field of research. His contributions in the rediscovery and enhancement of the value of Korean Buddhism are especially noteworthy. Looking into his research on Korean Buddhism, Wonhyo is at the very center of it. In other words, he set up a standard of understanding Korean Buddhism through his study on Wonhyo. The main subject of this article is Bul-yeon’s study on Wonhyo. More precisely, I have made an attempt to make a closer observation of his main written work, The thought of Wonhyo, along with his articles on Wonhyo. First of all, I have tried synchronic analysis on his works related to Wonhyo, and I have attempted a diachronic evaluation of his position in the history of Wonhyo studies. The former suggests that a great deal of importance has been placed on the arguments of the hermeneutical circle between Wonhyo and reality the latter indicates that he is, actually, the one who rediscovered Wonhyo in the history of 20th century Korean Buddhism. I think the colligated/overall evaluation of him, covering the volume of his works, his influence on younger scholars, as well as his efforts to embody Wonhyo’s thoughts into practice, validates such points as suggested above. Based on such kinds of fundamental research and analysis, I was able to deduce that he was basically a hermeneutical interpreter. For verification, I have inspected Bul-yeon’s methodology of reading Wonhyo in two dimensions. One is to trace his critical statements on methodological attempts he disagrees with, which are scattered about here and there in his writings. As a result, first, he intended to cope with Jonghak(宗學), or traditional Gyohak(敎學); second, he rejected the modern scientific methodology; third, he was indifferent to modern philological methodology. I assume that he meant to indirectly display, through such kinds of negative statements, that his favorite methodology is hermeneutics. With a different perspective, I attempted the strategy of exh
目次
Ⅰ. 머리말 102 Ⅱ. 不然의 元曉硏究 槪觀 106 1. 共時的 分析 106 2. 通時的 자리매김 121 Ⅲ. 不然의 해석학적 방법론 124 1. 다른 방법론에 대한 對治論 125 (1) 宗學 내지 전통적 敎學의 극복 126 (2) 과학적 방법론에 대한 거부 129 (3) ‘문헌학’에 대한 무관심 131 2. 해석학적 순환의 顯示論 137 (1) 현실을 고려한 텍스트의 해석 140 (2) 텍스트에 입각한 현실의 조명 151 Ⅳ. 맺음말 164
