頓漸論諍이 남긴 숙제

• 영문명: Assignment from Controversies about Don and Jeom in Buddhism
• 발행기관: 보조사상연구원
• 저자명: 이덕진(Lee Duck-Jin)
• 간행물 정보: 『보조사상』보조사상 제20집, 53~85쪽, 전체 33쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 불교학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2003.08.01

영문 초록

Existing controversies about Don(頓) and Jeom(漸) in Buddhism have several significant assignments. First, the relationship in Don-o-jeomsu(頓悟漸修) thinking between Jongmil(宗密) and Jinul(知訥) Are the conventional viewpoints of our academic world around Buddhism valid in the earth, which have considered Don-o-jeomsu thinking of Jinul and Jongmil as identical with each other without any doubt? What is something identical and different in their thinking? Secondly, from Jongmil's thinking, we can find some clues of Neo-Confucian thinking system. Thus, is there such tendency shown in Jinul's thinking as well? In other words, assuming that domestic Buddhist circles might offer a flexible thinking system to help accept Neo-Confucianism in the end of Koryo dynasty in a little smoother ways, we may wonder if the clues might be just originated from Jinul. Thirdly, we may reflect on ourselves about the question that there are two different faces in Korean Buddhism as posed by the late Buddhist priest Seongcheol(性徹). In his lifetime, Seongcheol would say that contemporary Korean Buddhism has a tendency to tell Gong-an-seon(公案禪) from the angle of Don-o-donsu(頓悟頓修) externally, while following Hwa-eom-seon(華嚴禪) from the angle of Don-o-jeomsu(頓悟漸修) internally, and the origin of such structural inconsistency might derive from Jinul. Obviously. it is somewhat exaggerated that Seongcheol insisted Jinul brought such inconsistency into Korean Buddhism. However, on the supposition that we might have a consensus of opinion about the fact that the tradition of contemporary Korean Zen Buddhism could be located and traced only within the framework of ancient Chinese Imjaejong(臨濟宗), although such supposition is not feasible in practice, we need to listen to some arguments posing that Jinul's Zen principles are somewhat deviated from the Imjaejong and even the tradition of Josaseon(祖師禪). Fourthly, there are functional relationships between Jinul's Don-o-jeomsu and Ganhwaseon(看話禪) thinking. In other words, we may wonder if Jinul's Ganhwa Gyeongjeol-mun(看話徑截門) really completed previous theory of Don-o-jeomsu. In 『Theory of Ganhwa Gyeol Eui(看話決疑論)』, Jinul insisted on Ganhwa Gyeongjeol-mun. And from certain angle, this argument turned over the Theory of Don-o-jeomsu at first hand, Jinul had insisted on tenaciously in his 『Jeolyo(節要)』. Therefore, it indicates that he annulled the Theory of Don-o-jeomsun as pointed out by Seongcheol.

목차

Ⅰ. 들어가는 말

Ⅱ. 知訥의 頓悟漸修 思想

Ⅲ. 現代 韓國佛敎에서의 頓漸論諍

Ⅳ. 돈점논쟁이 남긴 숙제

Abstract