Korean | English

pISSN : 1975-2660

2020 KCI Impact Factor : 0.17
Home > Explore Content > All Issues > Article List

2010, Vol., No.8

  • 1.

    A Survey of the Studies on Korean-Japanese Buddhist Exchanges from 7th-9th Century

    Choe Yeonshik | 2010, (8) | pp.9~41 | number of Cited : 9
    Abstract PDF
    Though Buddhist exchanges between Silla and Japan were very vigorous, notably during the 7th and 8th centuries, much of the details have not yet been studied exhaustively. This is not only due to the paucity of historical records, but also a certain lack of interest in the topic. However, already during the 1970s, the contours of relation between Silla and early Japanese Buddhism beagn to emerge. Thus, during this period it became clear that the collection of treaties had been transmitted by monks who had studied in Silla, and a more general interest in the general impact of Silla Buddhism on Japanese Buddhism arose. Afterwards, research was conducted on the process of changes concerning the belief in Shotoku Taishi and other topics, such as the formation of a body of scriptures and developments in the production of statues, all under the influence of Silla Buddhism. Furthermore, through the study of manuscript documents it was found that the establishment of Todaiji and the formation of the Avatamsaka sect(Hwa’eom jong) tradition in the middle of the 8th century likewise occurred under the influence of Silla Buddhism. In the 1980s, studies appeared which, based on ancient Japanese materials, shed light on the deatails of the relation between Silla Buddhism and Japanese Avatamsaka sect(Kegon shu). As a result, it became clear that during the latter half of the 8th century Japanese Avatamsaka sect was influenced by Wonhyo and Taehyeon as much as by the Chinese master Fazang and that in 9th century also Uisang’s thought was received. On the other hand, although it has been pointed out that also other Nara traditions, notably the Yogācāra tradition(Hosso shu), had a close relation with Silla Consciousness-only thought in both centuries, no substantial research on this phenomenon has been done. Given the importance of Consciousness-only thought in both countries, these currents should be given more attention. Although already quite a few substantial studies on the Buddhist exchange between the two countries have appeared, the results have not yet fully known to the general audience. Both countries still understand Buddhist history from the angle of their own traditions. However, as the pertaining materials are very limited this approach likewise has clear limitations. The comparison of Silla and Nara Buddhism will be very instrumental for advancing the understanding of the individual traditions in both countries.
  • 2.

    A Study on the Haṭhayoga Literatures - based on 13th-16th c. Literatures

    Younggil Park | 2010, (8) | pp.43~104 | number of Cited : 3
    Abstract PDF
    From the dawn of 9 – 12 centuries through the apogee of 15th century to 17th century, the amount of the Haṭhayoga literature is supposed to have been enormous. Since 1890, however, there have been publications of about 30 works until now, the entire scale of the literature still incomprehensible. Recently, the publication of the Descriptive Catalogue of Yoga Manuscripts at Kaivalyadhama of Lonavla has enabled us to surmise the approximate scale of the literature. Including manuscripts in various Āśrams, whose catalogues still not open to the public, other manuscripts missing even in catalogues, and private collections still to be located, however, above 100 texts remain dormant in closed areas. Therefore, research on the Haṭhayoga literature, including excavations of texts and textual criticism of them, is urgently needed. Besides, the study on the Haṭhayoga literature has been limited severely until now. For the 100 years until now, there have been publications of about 10 research works of academic worth, while there has not been even rough introduction of the literature, excluding the early and popular texts of Gorkṣanātha. This article, first of all, purports to deal with the characteristics and main contents of the Haṭhayoga literature, investigating their construction from 13th century to 16th century.
  • 3.

    Essay on *Kumāraśarman(鳩摩羅設摩)’s Wensong(文頌, kāvya) and *Śaṇḍīlya(扇帙略)’s Lunmen(論門, *vāda-marga)

    Kwon Oh Min | 2010, (8) | pp.107~165 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    In the history of Buddhist thought, Sautrāntika/Dārṣṭāntika is still behind a veil. This assay is the speculation of their origin and development through *Kumāraśarman’s Wensong(文頌) and *Śaṇḍīlya’s Lunmen(論門) referred by Saṃghabhadra. Following are summaries. 1. Saṃghabhadra referred *Kumāraśarman’s Wensong and *Śaṇḍīlya’s Lunmen in the nuance that they’re Sthavira Śrīlāta’s previous master(so to speak pūrvācārya) on the Abhidharmanyāyānusāraśāstra, as he reproached the Śrīlāta’s critique to the theory of five cause of the Sarvāstivāda. 2.1. According to the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣaśāstra Wensong(文頌) is beyond the truth because it is discussion of style which explain tripiṭaka of the holy truth by the worldly metaphors(dṛṣṭānta), or which is like a hymn to Buddha that poet himself integrated in exaggerating metaphors. And according to the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya the latter one is translated words of ‘kāvya’. 2.2. In light of these Wensong is the worldly truth distinguished the holy truth, so to speak metaphors, fable etc style like a Kumāralāta’s Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā( or Mahālaṁkārasūtraśāstra) or kāvya style like a Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita. Thus kavi(文頌者) *Kumāraśarman which Saṃghabhadra referred could be inferred that it is forerunner of Dārṣṭāntika, Sthavira Śrīlāta etc. 3.1. *Śaṇḍīlya is referred in an episode of sthāpanīya-vyākaraṇa(a question which one should not answer), in the course of discussing about four kinds of dialogue methods(四種問記) in the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣa. And *Śaṇḍīlya’s definition of question in his treatise(śāstra) is quoted in the course of discussion talking about dialogue methods between Saṃghabhadra and someone(Rāma, according to Yaśomitra etc) in the Abhidharmanyāyānusāra. 3.2. A Lunmen(論門) according to Harivarman, mean ways of discussion, and his the theory of Two Truth(二諦說) is based on the way of worldly common(世間門) and the way of ultimately truth(第一義門) which are one of ways. Following this “Self exist”(saṁvṛti-satya) or “Self do not exist” (paramārtha-satya), those words are all possible. 3.3. *Śaṇḍīlya also says that none of them aren’t denied based on two meanings in his definition of question. (So his Lunmen too could be about ways of discussion/dialogue.) Rāma who told this also said “Self can be what exist or what do not exist”, Harivarman and Kumāralāta explained these through metaphor of ‘tiger put his cub on his mouth(牝虎銜子)’ 4.1. Dārṣṭāntika on the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣa neither did only use metaphor(dṛṣṭānta) nor did use a lot more metaphor than any other sects, although they criticized Sarvāstivāda’s holy truth(tripiṭaka) by the metaphors. Nevertheless they were called Dārṣṭāntika is because it originated from kavi like *Kumāraśarman. 4.2. Dārṣṭāntika on the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣa and the Abhidharmanyāyānusāra has no little discordance. Saṃghabhadra also call Dārṣṭāntika not only in singular term but also in specific term and generic term, or indicate Sthavira Śrīlāta as ‘some present Dārṣṭāntika’. So Dārṣṭāntika on the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣa is not Sautrāntika directly, and Dārṣṭāntika also maybe not the singular pedigree. 4.3. Presumably, in Dārṣṭāntika there are at least ① kavi(文頌者) pedigree of worldly metaphors(dṛṣṭānta) which succeed to *Kumāraśarman- Kumāralāta/Aśvaghoṣa, ② pedigree that emphasize a method of discussion/ dialogue which succeed to *Śaṇḍīlya-Vasumitra(the author of Paripṛcchā)- Harivarman(-Rāma), ③ Sautrāntika pedigree which succeed to *Kumāraśarman/ Śaṇḍīlya-some Dārṣṭāntika on the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣa-Sthavira Śrīlāta-Sthavirapākṣika such as Rāma/Vasuvarman. Although these three have different pedigrees and views, they had common basis, ‘Dārṣṭāntika’, so their relevance may not be denied. 4.4. However considering their prominent tendency, Kumāralāta and Aśvaghoṣa continuously succeeded tendency of Wensong(kāvya), a worldly metaphors(dṛṣṭānta). In contrast to Harivarman claiming ‘all existence are empty(一切皆空)’ according to the way of ultimately truth, Sthavira Śrīlāta’s sect denied theory of Buddha-śāsana of the Sarvāstivāda, and called themselves as Sautrāntika under the motto of ‘we only take the sūtras which revealed by Buddha himself as a valid means of cognition’.
  • 4.

    Re-presentation of the Hagiography of Buddha as an East-Asian Development of Buddhism: In the Chapter of Wonhyo’s Unboundedness in the Samguk Yusa

    Gil-am Seok | 2010, (8) | pp.167~190 | number of Cited : 2
    Abstract PDF
    In a cultural contact, the process of cultural assimilation and indigenization is a natural phenomenon, which often appears in the case of Buddhism as a religious tradition through the re-presentation of the hagiography of Buddha. This re-presentation enhances the consciousness of the ‘Buddha who have come near us’, thus counterbalancing cultural distance and seeking effectiveness in religious edification and salvation. Re-presentation of the hagiography of Buddha as a cultural process appears as a natural phenomenon in any region where Buddhism is transmitted. This article purports to investigate the assimilation process of Buddhism in the middle ancient and last ancient periods of the Silla dynasty, dividing the features of the re-presentation of the hagiography of Buddha according to direct re-presentation and indirect re-presentation. Symbolized as the period of ‘holy bones’(聖骨) in Ilyon’s Samguk Yusa (Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms), the middle ancient period shows the features of the intentional assimilation of Buddhism in the Silla society. The Silla people in this period paid attention rather on the accompanying thought of a wheel-turning sage king than on the proper hagiography of Buddha in its religious dimension. The construction of the giant golden Buddha statue and the nine-story pagoda in the Hwangryongsa temple, the legend about the stone for Sitting Kassapa Buddha, and the enhancement of the consciousness of the country in relation with Buddha emphasize the wheel-turning sage king as another feature of the Buddha, which in turn comes to be identified with the Silla kings of holy bones. However, the chapter of Wonhyo’s Unboundedness shows the characteristics of the re-presentation of the hagiography of Buddha as a proper feature of Buddhism as a religion. The characteristics of indigenization of Buddhism at the beginning of the last ancient period of Silla dynasty might be summarized as follow according to the chapter of Wonhyo’s Unboundedness. First, the recordings at the last ancient period in the Samguk Yusa are heavily focused rather on individual practice and faith than on national features of Buddhism. Second, not relying on adopting the legend of the wheel-turning sage king, the direct re-presentation of the hagiography of Buddha forms the main content of the biographical writings. That is, not indirect but direct reflection of Buddha is attempted, which suggests that this period might be already considered as the period of not reception but indigenization. Third, in comparison with monks of middle ancient period, the monks of Wonhyo’s period show more frequently their relatedness with the biographies of Chinese monks through the re-presentation of them. To illustrate, the chapter of Wonhyo’s Unboundedness not only re-presents the hagiography of Buddha but also shows some features that might be compared with famous monks of China (for example, Kumarajiva and Jingyingsi Huiyuan 淨影寺 慧遠), while the monk Hyegong (惠空), famous for his carrying a straw basket on his back, is said to have considered himself as the reincarnation of the Chinese monk Sengzhao (僧肇). Fourth, as the chapter of Wonhyo’s Unboundedness emphasizes the edification of the people, the famous monks at the beginning of the last ancient period, in comparison with the monks at the middle ancient period with their orientedness toward courtly or politico-social engagement, focus their attention on practice and edification of the people in their biographies. While their relation with the court should also catch our attention as all those periods belong to the kingly stage, the recordings on monks of Wonyo’s period in the Samguk Yusa are considered to have been written not in their political context but in their Buddhist or religious context even in facts related with the court.
  • 5.

    A Study of Adhimukti - Focusing on the Yaśomitra’s Commentary -

    Ha Young Su | 2010, (8) | pp.191~220 | number of Cited : 2
    Abstract PDF
    As for adhimukti, there are nearly 30 kinds of translations in chinese translation, and therefore it is not easy to have a consistent understanding for adhimukti. In this study, I am going to examine the concept of adhimukti, focusing on the Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and the commentary of Yaśomitra, Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmkośavyākhyā. ‘Adhimukti’ was presented as one of mahābhūmikas(mental states, 十大 地法) in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Commenting on adhimukti, Yaśomitra introduced it’s three aspects. However, it is not so clear what those three aspects of adhimukti mean. In this study, I would try to illuminate what those adhimuktis are indicated. Of course, a considerable researches already have been accumulated about adhimukti. However, a comprehensive study for adhimukti commented by Yaśomitra is not hardly found, except for Hajime Sakurabe(桜部 健,1973). The main method used in this study is to examine examples of adhimukti in the relevant literatures. In addition to this, the scholastic identity of Yaśomitra is need to be considered. Through this study, it would be clear that Yaśomitra is showing a various aspects of adhimukti. And we could know that one of them is deeply connected with Mahāyāna Buddhism.
  • 6.

    Vasubandhu’s Critique of the Substantial View of Atoms(paramāṇu) and its Epistemological Implications

    박창환 | 2010, (8) | pp.221~292 | number of Cited : 5
    Abstract PDF
    Bimal Krishna Matilal (1986:242), a renowned Indian philosopher, once maintained thus: “Even the color‐expanse is only a phenomenon, for that is not the ‘ultimately real’ entity. The ‘ultimately’ reals (also called the ‘substantially’ reals) are the atomic constitutes of these phenomena or sensibilia. Our familiar chair has, therefore, first to be resolved into (or ‘dissolved’ into) a set of familiar sensibilia, and then the gross sensibilia are in turn resolved into a cluster of atomic sensibilia.” This article is designed to critically review this claim and set a foundation for the reconstruction of Vasubandhu’s (i.e., Kośakāra) view of sense‐perception with special reference to the role of the notion of ‘atom’ (paramāṇu) therein. For this purpose this article will examine a few of paramāṇurelated passages throughout AKBh. In short, the kind of ultimate reality (paramārthasat) that Vasubandhu conceived of is in effect opposite to what Matilal claims; the ultimate real for him are not substance‐atoms (dravyaparamāṇu) but individual dharmas constituted of assembled atoms (saṃghātaparamāṇu). In other words, for Vasubandhu ultimately real are dharmas which are the basic categories or constituents of our sense‐experiences such color (rūpa), sound (śabda). Vasubandhu does not accept the Vaiśeṣika view of substance‐atoms (dravyaparamāṇu). He only acknowledges assembled atoms (saṃghāta󰠏 paramāṇu) in so far as they are able to collectively constitute dharmas (the objects of our sense‐perception). This entails that Vasubandhu understands atoms only as the smallest but still visible units of properties like dharmas. That is, Vasubandhu drastically reinterprets the notion of an atom in a way in which it can be suited to his view of dharma (property)‐centered phenomenalism. The kind of interpretation put forth above can be buttressed throughout paramāṇu‐related discussions in the AKBh. In the AKBh II‐22ab Vasubandhu defines a paramāṇu as the smallest unit of material‐complex (saṃghātarūpa), which is still recognizable by our sense‐perception. This definition is in stark contrast to the Vaiśeṣika or Vaibhāṣika view of a paramāṇu as an indivisible infinitesimal unit (bhedaparyanta) of material (rūpa) which is beyond our sense‐perception (atīndriya). The peculiar characteristics of Vasubandhu’s presentation of paramāṇu as above lie in the fact that he rejects the notion of an atom as an indivisible smallest entity of material, which is only theoretically assumed, defining a paramāṇu as an actually visible particle which can constitute our empirical world of sense‐objects(dharmas). This is in line with Vasubandhu’s understanding of ‘ultimate real’ (paramārthasat) in the AKBh VI‐4, in which he explicitly declares that dharmas with their own characteristics (svabhāva) are ultimate real, but not atoms themselves. In the AKBh I‐43d Vasubandhu criticizes the Vaibhāṣika notion of paramāṇu as an irreducible but still resistant smallest unit of material as nonsensical in that one cannot explain the arising of the world by accumulating such partless (niravayava) atoms. With reference to Vasubandhu’s critique of the Vaibhāṣika notion of paramāṇu, Yaśomitra says in AKVy: “The master (ācārya) [critically] examines this [issue] with the intention of arguing that [the notion of] an atom cannot be established” (paramāṇvapariniṣpattiṃ vaktukāmaḥ ācāryo vicārayati). Yaśomitra further says that the kind of paramāṇu that Vasubandhu thought of is like a bean as observed in a pile of beans (māṣarāśi). This example also shows that the kind of paramāṇu that Vasubandhu supports is like a small particle with parts (sāvayava) from which the gross world can arise. In the AKBh III‐100ab Vasubandhu says that he does not acknowledge the existence of the atoms of four fundamental material elements (mahābhūta) separate from dharmas such as color, smell, taste, touch when they arise together in the realm of desire (kāmadhātu). This clearly shows that Vasubandhu only accepts dharmas, i.e., properties, but not dharmins, i.e., substrata to which properties belong. This corroborates our view that Vasubandhu defines assembled atoms (saṃghātaparamāṇu) as a paramāṇu with a view to explaining the arising of the world of sense‐objects (dharmas) from these quality/property‐atoms and thereby rejects the Vaiśeṣika or Vaibhāṣika notion of a substanceatom (dravyaparamāṇu). Vasubandhu’s rejection of the substantial notion of paramāṇu indicates that at the stage of the AKBh he already held a phenomenalistic view of the world, which admits only dharmas or properties, a position which is to be condemned by non‐Buddhist sides as characteristically Buddhist later on.