보조의 화엄교학의 수용과 비판 - 연기문과 성기문에 대한 해석을 중심으로 - (Bojo's Acceptance and Criticism on the doctrine of the Avtamsaka)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 보조사상연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 보조사상 / 20호 / 9 ~ 33페이지
· 저자명 : 인경

초록

Bojo's thoughts on the doctrine of Hua-Yen finds in the complete and sudden attainment of Buddhahood. The preceding studies claimed that Bojo criticized the conventional doctrine of chinese Hua-Yen school. They asserted that the representative of chinese Hue-Yen, Hsien-Sheou and Chend-Kuan grasp the dharmadhatu as the conditional origination, on the other side Bojo understanded it the nature-arising theory.
But the purpose of this paper is to reveal Bojo never criticized conventional doctrine of Hua-Yen school. For this purpose, We need the detailed annotation and the texual criticism. The results of these work is as follows; First, the questioner brings up a discussion appearing in Cheng-Kuan's commentary, all sentient beings are endowed with it(生生自有), each of them is endowed with the future fruition(當果自在), each individual is invested with the fruition immanent in all other beings(他果我在). But this quotations is not find in his works, Hua-Yen Ching Shu and Yen-i Ch'ao. In these text, these alternative appear as all sentient beings equally possess the cause(生等因有), this cause contains the fruition wisdom(因有果智), oneself and others are mutually interpenetrating(他果交徹). The important thing is that both concepts are similar but not same.
Second is Bojo's criticism on the practice method of Hua-Yen school. 'one awakens to the Vairocana dharmadhatu and then cultivates Samantabhadra's sea of practices.' This bojo's quotation also does not find in Hsien-Sheou and Cheng-Kuan's commentary. That is from the Hsien-mi yuan-t'ung ch'eng-fo hsin-yao chi by the Liao dynasty monk Tao-chen Fa-ch'uang.

영어초록

Bojo's thoughts on the doctrine of Hua-Yen finds in the complete and sudden attainment of Buddhahood. The preceding studies claimed that Bojo criticized the conventional doctrine of chinese Hua-Yen school. They asserted that the representative of chinese Hue-Yen, Hsien-Sheou and Chend-Kuan grasp the dharmadhatu as the conditional origination, on the other side Bojo understanded it the nature-arising theory.
But the purpose of this paper is to reveal Bojo never criticized conventional doctrine of Hua-Yen school. For this purpose, We need the detailed annotation and the texual criticism. The results of these work is as follows; First, the questioner brings up a discussion appearing in Cheng-Kuan's commentary, all sentient beings are endowed with it(生生自有), each of them is endowed with the future fruition(當果自在), each individual is invested with the fruition immanent in all other beings(他果我在). But this quotations is not find in his works, Hua-Yen Ching Shu and Yen-i Ch'ao. In these text, these alternative appear as all sentient beings equally possess the cause(生等因有), this cause contains the fruition wisdom(因有果智), oneself and others are mutually interpenetrating(他果交徹). The important thing is that both concepts are similar but not same.
Second is Bojo's criticism on the practice method of Hua-Yen school. 'one awakens to the Vairocana dharmadhatu and then cultivates Samantabhadra's sea of practices.' This bojo's quotation also does not find in Hsien-Sheou and Cheng-Kuan's commentary. That is from the Hsien-mi yuan-t'ung ch'eng-fo hsin-yao chi by the Liao dynasty monk Tao-chen Fa-ch'uang.

참고자료

· 없음