학술논문
Systematic Buddhology와 『보리도차제론』
이용수 393
- 영문명
- Systematic Buddhology and Lam rim
- 발행기관
- 불교학연구회
- 저자명
- 김성철(Kim Sung Chul)
- 간행물 정보
- 『불교학연구』제3호, 155~179쪽, 전체 25쪽
- 주제분류
- 인문학 > 불교학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2001.12.01
5,800원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
The purpose of this paper is to propose a new methodology in the field of Buddhist studies.
Since the year of 1844, when Burnouf translated and published Saddharmapu??ar?kas?tra, Buddhism has been studied as a part of Humanities by western scholars. But if we make a comparison between the methods of studying Buddhism and those of Christianity, we can find some differences.
The methodology of Studying Christianity is called Theology. According to A. A. Hodge the fields of Theology are divided as follows; (1) Sciences auxiliary to the study of Theology like History, Archaeology, Philosophy, Comparative Religion etc., (2) Apologetics to prove the existence of God, (3) Exegetical Theology which is a kind of Hermeneutics, (4) Historical Theology which is a historical approach to Bible and church, (5) Practical Theology to apply the Revelation to our society and (6) Systematic Theology, the purpose of which is to explain Revelation systematically.
Philology and Comparative philosophy etc. are the methods of studying Humanities, and modern Buddhist scholars have been used such a scientific methods in studying Buddhism But as we saw above, in studying Christianity very different methods are used. In Christianity most of Theological subjects like creation, revelation, salvation and eschatology etc. are away from the criticism of modern Humanities which claim to stand for scientific objectivity and rationality. Moreover those subjects are systematically woven to make the frameworks of Christian faith. Of course we can say that such a narrow-mindedness would have been one of the causes of losing the persuasiveness of Christianity in western society.
On the contrary, in the field of modern Buddhist studies, only the objective and rational approaches have been used. If all the scholars could have agreed with each other on all subjects in Buddhist scriptures, there would not be any problem. But the results of "objective" approaches of modern scholars seem not to be better than worse. Modern Buddhist scholars asserts different opinions on same subject. And there is nobody acknowledged to have almighty authority in discerning which is the correct opinion. So in modern days most of Buddhists happen to meet with various conflict theories and are confused with them and consequently become wandering.
I think that one of the reasons for such problems in Buddhism is the lack of research for constructing Buddhist faith. In Christian Studies, Systematic Theology plays a major role. Systematic Theology is composed as a faith system based on Bible and it can be compared to spiritual house to live in. Until now various Systematic Theologies have been composed by many scholars who have deep faith in Christian tenets; Augustine, Paul Tillich, Khal Bhart and Emil Brunner are the representatives of Systematic Theologists.
But in modern Buddhist studies, there is nobody who strives to construct a "Systematic Buddhology" which should be used as a guide for Buddhists" religious life. What is worse is that most of Buddhist scholars regard the efforts of composing a Systematic Buddhology as nonacademic works. But can we imagine someone censuring Systematic Theologists like Paul Tillich etc. to be a nonacademic scholar?
It will be an urgent task of Buddhist scholars who have the faith in Buddhism to construct Systematic Buddhology to protect Buddhists" heart from the attack of modernized and scientific(?) Buddhology.
Then what should be the shape of Systematic Buddhology? In Lam rim(Byang chub lam rim chen mo) of Tsong kha pa(1357~1419 C.E.), we can meet systematically arranged Buddhist teachings. Almost all the teachings of Hinay?na and Mah?y?na treatises are rearranged according to practitioner"s spiritual level of mind. Through earnest practice of each steps recommended in Lam rim, the
Since the year of 1844, when Burnouf translated and published Saddharmapu??ar?kas?tra, Buddhism has been studied as a part of Humanities by western scholars. But if we make a comparison between the methods of studying Buddhism and those of Christianity, we can find some differences.
The methodology of Studying Christianity is called Theology. According to A. A. Hodge the fields of Theology are divided as follows; (1) Sciences auxiliary to the study of Theology like History, Archaeology, Philosophy, Comparative Religion etc., (2) Apologetics to prove the existence of God, (3) Exegetical Theology which is a kind of Hermeneutics, (4) Historical Theology which is a historical approach to Bible and church, (5) Practical Theology to apply the Revelation to our society and (6) Systematic Theology, the purpose of which is to explain Revelation systematically.
Philology and Comparative philosophy etc. are the methods of studying Humanities, and modern Buddhist scholars have been used such a scientific methods in studying Buddhism But as we saw above, in studying Christianity very different methods are used. In Christianity most of Theological subjects like creation, revelation, salvation and eschatology etc. are away from the criticism of modern Humanities which claim to stand for scientific objectivity and rationality. Moreover those subjects are systematically woven to make the frameworks of Christian faith. Of course we can say that such a narrow-mindedness would have been one of the causes of losing the persuasiveness of Christianity in western society.
On the contrary, in the field of modern Buddhist studies, only the objective and rational approaches have been used. If all the scholars could have agreed with each other on all subjects in Buddhist scriptures, there would not be any problem. But the results of "objective" approaches of modern scholars seem not to be better than worse. Modern Buddhist scholars asserts different opinions on same subject. And there is nobody acknowledged to have almighty authority in discerning which is the correct opinion. So in modern days most of Buddhists happen to meet with various conflict theories and are confused with them and consequently become wandering.
I think that one of the reasons for such problems in Buddhism is the lack of research for constructing Buddhist faith. In Christian Studies, Systematic Theology plays a major role. Systematic Theology is composed as a faith system based on Bible and it can be compared to spiritual house to live in. Until now various Systematic Theologies have been composed by many scholars who have deep faith in Christian tenets; Augustine, Paul Tillich, Khal Bhart and Emil Brunner are the representatives of Systematic Theologists.
But in modern Buddhist studies, there is nobody who strives to construct a "Systematic Buddhology" which should be used as a guide for Buddhists" religious life. What is worse is that most of Buddhist scholars regard the efforts of composing a Systematic Buddhology as nonacademic works. But can we imagine someone censuring Systematic Theologists like Paul Tillich etc. to be a nonacademic scholar?
It will be an urgent task of Buddhist scholars who have the faith in Buddhism to construct Systematic Buddhology to protect Buddhists" heart from the attack of modernized and scientific(?) Buddhology.
Then what should be the shape of Systematic Buddhology? In Lam rim(Byang chub lam rim chen mo) of Tsong kha pa(1357~1419 C.E.), we can meet systematically arranged Buddhist teachings. Almost all the teachings of Hinay?na and Mah?y?na treatises are rearranged according to practitioner"s spiritual level of mind. Through earnest practice of each steps recommended in Lam rim, the
목차
Ⅰ. 근대적 불교학의 형성과 그 문제점
Ⅱ. 조직신학에 비견되는 체계불학의 필요성
Ⅲ. 체계불학의 과제
Ⅳ. 『보리도차제론』의 체계불학
Ⅱ. 조직신학에 비견되는 체계불학의 필요성
Ⅲ. 체계불학의 과제
Ⅳ. 『보리도차제론』의 체계불학
해당간행물 수록 논문
참고문헌
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!