Korean | English

pISSN : 1975-2660

2020 KCI Impact Factor : 0.17
Aims & Scope
The Geumgang Center for Buddhist Studies (GCBS) is an institute of Buddhist Studies at Geumgang Universtity in Korea. It was founded in 2003 CE to comprehensively study various fields related to Buddhist Studies and culture and to develop Korean Buddhist studies to a world-class level. In 2007, GCBS was selected and financed by the National Research Foundation (NRF) as a 10 year project, named the Humanities Korea Project. Our agenda being, “Inspection of the Cultural Processes of Formation, Transformation and Reception with regard to the Buddhist Classical Languages and their Texts.” Since then, we have released a volume titled, “The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners. Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet”, which was co-published by Harvard University in the Harvard Oriental Series Vol. 75, and so on.  We publish out academic journal called Critical Review for Buddhist Studies (CRBS) twice in a year(April 30th/ October 31th).
Seunghak Koh

(Geumgang Univ.)

Citation Index
  • KCI IF(2yr) : 0.17
  • KCI IF(5yr) : 0.13
  • Centrality Index(3yr) : 0.787
  • Immediacy Index : 0.0

Current Issue : 2021, Vol., No.30

  • The Complexity of Establishment and Transmission in the Faju jing (法句經)

    Kim, Seong Ock | 2021, (30) | pp.9~30 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    The Faju jing (法句經) is one of the most representative Buddhist scriptures. Since the Buddha’s teachings have been selected and assimilated, it is clear that this scripture contains the core essence of Buddhism. However, when we go into the details, we realize that it is not as simple as was thought. Above all, we are confronted with the fact that among the various manuscripts found in India and Central Asia, the original Faju jing cannot be ascertained. This sūtra was established during the long history of Buddhism and was disseminated in various languages across the wide area. In addition, the internal history of Buddhism, defined by division into sub-schools, made it more complicated. From the Pāli Dhammapada, Sanskrit Dharmapada, Gāndārī Dharmapada, Patna Dharmapada to the Udānavarga, the various forms of the Indian version of the Faju jing are very complex. In the case of Faju piyu jing (法句譬喩經), Chuyao jing (出曜經), and Faju yaosong jing (法集要頌經), which are considered to be of the same lineage as the Faju jing in Chinese translations, there are also complications. It does not seem to be easy to reveal the source of the first 500 verses and the newly acquired 13 chapters (with 250 verses) in the Chinese translation of this sūtra, which can be found in the preface of the Faju jing. Moreover, it seems almost impossible to determine ‘the earliest’ and ‘the most original’ form. The existing form of the Faju jing must have gone through a series of processes in which other verses, of the same kind, were sometimes added and sometimes omitted in the process of establishing and transmitting the sūtra. During the process, it seems that the flexible attitude of Buddhists toward ‘Buddhavacana’ acts as a major factor. The major versions and fragments of Dhammapada, Dharmapada, and Udānavarga have been considered to be of the same lineage, despite the obvious differences in the arrangement of verses and chapters. In this regard, the unique characteristics of Indian and Buddhist texts, which do not allow for the original form to be determined, should be fully considered.
  • The Tathāgatagarbha Theory of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra

    kimjunwoo | 2021, (30) | pp.31~55 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    Laṅkāvatārasūtra (LAS) combines tathāgatagarbha with ālayavijñāna in the expression of ‘tathāgatagarbha which is called ālayavijñāna’, ‘ālayavijñāna which is called tathāgatagarbha’, ‘tathāgatagarbhālayavijñāna’. In this paper, I examined the theory of LAS based on the kṣaṇikaparivarta contained within LAS in which these expressions appear. First, by analyzing the meaning of the expression ‘tathāgatagarbha which is called ālayavijñāna’, I examined the existing theory that tathāgatagarbha is identified with ālayavijñāna in LAS. And based on the fact that it is the tathāgatagarbha infused by prapañcavāsanā that is called the ālayavijñāna, rather than the tathāgatagarbha itself, I deduced that LAS doesn’t identify tathāgatagarbha with ālayavijñāna. Next, I argued that tathāgatagarbha is anāsravavāsanā, which exists in the ālayavijñāna. The reason for this is that, first, the tathāgatagarbha that is infused by prapañcavāsanā consists of anāsravavāsanā and pravṛttivijñānavāsanā. Among them, prapañcavāsanā corresponds to pravṛttivijñānavāsanā and tathāgatagarbha corresponds to anāsravavāsanā. Second, the anāsravavāsanā is recognized as asaṃskṛta in LAS. Third, Bodhiruci translates the asaṃskṛta, which refers to anāsravavāsanā, into 真如如來藏. Finally, I argued that tathāgatagarbha is accepted to resolve the contradiction of ālayavijñāna as the agent of saṃsāra in LAS. To be the agent of saṃsāra, one must not be momentary. But ālayavijñāna is momentary in the system of Vijñānavādin. In LAS, ‘tathāgatagarbha which is called ālayavijñāna’ is the agent of saṃsāra. And at the time tathāgatagarbha is used as a continuity which is essential to the agent of saṃsāra. From this, it is revealed that LAS accepted the tathāgatagarbha to resolve the contradiction of ālayavijñāna as the agent of saṃsāra.
  • Sthavira Śrīlāta’s View of Dependent Origination (Pratītyasaṃutpāda) -In regard to the interpretation of the two formula of Dependent Origination, if X exists, then Y exists (asmin satidam bhavati) etc.-

    Kwon Oh Min | 2021, (30) | pp.57~89 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    This paper aims to discuss the patriarch of Sautrāntika, Sthavira Śrīlāta’s view of dependent origination through the lens of the interpretation of the two formulas, “if X exists, then Y exists (asmin satidam bhavati) and if X arises then Y arises (asyotpādād idam utpadyate),” cited in the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra by Saṃghabhadra. Sarvāstivāda understood the pratītyasamutpādasūtra as the perfect one (nitārtha) while Sthavira identified it as the being imperfect one (neyārtha). The reason being that although the pratītyasamutpāda of 12 branches is only applicable to sentient beings, the two formulas are applicable to sentient and non-sentients being (namely sarvam saṃskṛta), and also take the form of presenting (uddeśa: 摽) and interpreting topics (nirdeśa: 釋). As a result, he was able to criticize Sarvāstivāda’s theory of dependent origination based on the stage of reincarnation (avasthā) and momentariness (kṣaṇika). Sthavira therefore stipulated that the two formulas indicate that the phenomenon (saṃskṛtadharmas) occurs in various conditions, but again presented two interpretations based on his theory of causal inheritance (因果相續). First, the previous formula is indicates the abiding (sthiti) of the phenomenon. In other words, the phenomenon is streamed as a causality without disconnection. The following formula indicates that these causalities are not a simultaneous but a series of sequential-continuous arising (utpāda). Second, Sthavira interpreted the two formulas on the basis of the theory of kṣaṇabhaṅga (刹那滅) and abhūtvā bhāva (本無今有). In this context the previous one means that when the effect exists, there is a destruction of the cause. In that case, the effect arise from the extinction of cause, namely non- existence. And dhus the sutra states the following. “This (=cause) arises then that (=result) arises.” Meanwhile, Badhanta Rāma, Sthavira’s disciple, interpreted the two formulas according to the theory of a seed, i.e. saṃtatipariṇāmaviśeṣa. He describes it as a causality based on immediate cause (sākṣāt-hetu), and indirect cause (pāraṃparyam-hetu), respectively. In conclusion, Sthavira and his sect (Sautrāntika) interpreted the two formulas of Dependent Origination based on their main doctrine, the theory of anudhātu (隨界)/bīja (種子). In particular, the interpretation of the Sthavira reflects the fact that the Sautrāntika’s unique theory of causal inheritance based on sequential-causality, and this explanation corresponds with those who claim that only a moments exist (kṣaṇika).