KJC Korea
Journal Central

The main purpose of this study is to proclaim the theory of dependent arising as a “mutual causality” accepted by the Mādhyamikas, with the process of social system emergence and constraint, and account for the “social reality” proposed by J. Searle as the concept of “designation by provisional naming”. According to Searle, the source of ‘status functions’ and ‘deontic powers’is revealed by social reality through the language used by its participants. However, assuming that social reality presupposes language, as he argues, he falls into the error of creating a circular argument due to the fact that language, as a means of communication, is also a social reality. Therefore, in order to overcome this circular argument it is necessary to explore a process of securing a status function, within a social system and social reality, based on the concept of ‘designation by provisional naming’, which is a metaphorical projection. Next, it is evident that deontic power, revealed through institutional fact, stems from cognitive competence, which is the longitudinal condition of the users of language. In fact, the Mādhyamikas are accused of being nihilistic with regard to axiology, by applying the emptiness of non-substantiality to all phenomena. This accusation of valueistic nihilism levelled against the Mādhyamikas is, however, based on the misapprehension that non-substantiality means relationships emerge from emptiness, and are therefore random. This randomness implies variability in which unpredictable variables can influence the phenomenon of existence. In actual fact, manifestation of phenomenon due to the interdependent relationship of non-substantial beings is the ultimate truth, and there is no chaos in the real world or in the area of value judgment. Therefore, this study reveals that if non-substantiality provides a space for the expansion of relationships, the concept of interdependence actually restricts relationship creation. It is therefore argued that non-substantiality and interdependence act as axes to stabilize social realities, revealing that the perspectives of the Mādhyamikas can solve philosophical issues.

Buddhism was introduced in China around the Han Dynasty. In the early days, it was mainly known to the imperial family and the public through the theory of Huang-Lao and the Fairy and Divination, which both were traditional Chinese ideologies. However, at the end of the Three Kingdoms social ideology was affected both directly and indirectly by the political turmoil, and emerged a new landscape. The moral concepts created based on Confucianism, which was originally the mainstream of ideology, began to waver, and other ideologies that existed in the past such as Taoism and Legalism revived. For the same reason, Buddhism also entered its own new turning point by emphasizing the similarity with Taoism rather than Huang-Lao and the Fairy and Divination. The image of Buddhism depicted in Ｍouzi was Buddhism at this time. In the text of Ｍouzi, a Chinese man named “Mouzi” was proficient in Confucianism, Taoism, and the theory of Fairy and Divination. From his young age, as during the Three Kingdoms’turmoil period, he began to believe and study Buddhism. He interpreted Buddhism with the concept of Taoism, and disprove Confucianism with the context of The Four Books and The Five Classics, the very own books of Confucianism’s. Last but not least, he took the initiative by criticizing the Fairy and Divination to advocated Buddhism. All above served as the foundation for Buddhism to become the mainstream of Chinese ideology. The image of Buddhism during the transition period depicted in Ｍouzi was a complex face of Buddhism representing that era.

The rulers of the Joseon Dynasty took away the power of the Buddhist community, which that it had held since the Goryeo Dynasty., but However, they did not ban the practice of Buddhism or forbid the people from practicing their faith. Nevertheless, However, the social environment for Buddhist monks in the Joseon Dynasty and later periods changed significantly, and so their religious life was bound to change. Until the mid-16th century, the state selected government-approved monks, through examinations, to manage the temples. In contrast, after the mid-16th century, Buddhism was a self-sustaining faith with no official support from the state., and Mmonks lived the life of an ascetic, taking on the burdens of various compulsory labor for Buddhist monk with a and their status was no different from that of the common people.The religious life of a monk, in the late Joseon Dynasty, generally lasted about 10 years., Dduring which this time he studied the scriptures, according to the Buddhist education curriculum, ar and then entered the Seon (Zen) Academy for a summer retreat and winter retreat, or practice of the Three Gates of Buddhist chanting. However, not all monks were great practitioners, so they were categorized as either a monk of high attainment, a good or a common monk., and Oonce they attained nirvana, they were often given the status of the Most Venerable Master, Yeombul-in (a chanting monk), Jwaseon-in (a zazen monk), or Pansa-in (a monk who is responsible for the administration or management of a temple, a scholar monk, or a layman). A layman was categorized as into either royalty, nobility, local officials, commoner people, or and slaves, and so there were differences in religious practice depending on their ability and status. The Royal Buddhist Temple was designated for the royal family designated the Royal Buddhist Temple to practice their faith, intellectuals prayed for merit through the transcription of sutras, and commoners and slaves participated in various rituals, such as the Ritual of the Te n Kings, the Ritual of the Land and Water Assembly, and the Forty-nine Days Ritual, performed at the temple. A layman’s prayer was usually for rebirth into paradise and longevity., but Ssince the Seven Stars (the Big Dipper) and the Mountain Spirits were believed to have special powers for longevity and curing diseases, temples actively built the hall of Seven Stars and the Mountain Spirits, after the 18th century, to accommodate folk beliefs.

This study examined the possibility of living a Buddhist life through analysing the Japanese Buddhist Layman Movement in modern times. The diversity and dynamism of Japanese Buddhism is already well known. And the phenomenon of layman Buddhism, which errupted like an active volcano in the modern era, in particular, shows a spirit of reform in Mahayana Buddhism. In this sense, Japanese Buddhist history can be seen as a process of identifying Buddhist indigeneity by making the teachings of the Buddha a legitimate path for laymen to follow. Phase 1 was utilization of the teachings of the Buddha for educating the people, by Prince Shōtoku (聖德太子), Phase 2 was establishment of the Complete Precepts by efforts, by Saichō (最澄), and Japanese monks in Tendai Buddhism (天台佛敎), and Phase3 was the appearance of medieval New-Buddhism. Since then, Haibutsu kisyaku (廢佛毁釋), which arose with the establishment of the modern nation, caused Buddhism to awaken. Accordingly, Buddhist education and academic development formed the basis for the Layman Buddhist Movement. The occurrences of layman Buddhism, in the modern era, are as follows: First, laymen like Ōuchi Seiran (大內靑巒) with thoughts of intermediate or holistic teaching (通佛敎) activities, appeared. Second, new religious bodies emerged, like those of renunciant practitioners that broke away from existing religious bodies, such as Tanaka Chigaku (田中智學)’s Society of Risshō Ankoku (立正安國會). Third, social movements, based on the teachings of the Buddha, formed in response to changing society, such as Girō Senoo (妹尾義郞)’s new Buddhism Youth Union. Issues revealed through the activities of layman Buddhism are as follows: First, how do the laymen’s interpretations of the teachings of the Buddha and their social practice correlate with those of traditional renunciants (those renouncing secular life to become a monk) or the religious bodies of renunciant practitioners. Second comes the question of how far it is possible for layman Buddhists to participate in politics? In what way can laymen’s social activities, based on the teachings of the Buddha, reveal the possibilities for living a Buddhist life? The characteristics of the practice of Engaged Buddhism, by Japanese layman Buddhists, are based on traditional religious bodies’ Buddhicization of laymen, various social countermeasures by the religious bodies of laymen, and the Mahayana Buddhism’s spirit of actual timing (時機相應). The Japanese Buddhist Layman Movement that arose during a period of social confusion is thought to offer great hope for present and future Buddhism.

This paper takes a narrative approach, looking at Chan master Shengyan’s (1931-2009) autobiographies, and historicizing his response to life and the circumstances of Chinese Chan Buddhism in the zeitgeist of the twentieth century. The time-honored Chan Buddhist tradition, in the tumultuous sociopolitical transition, struggled for a space in the age of reason and rationality; this perceived struggle on the larger religious and sociological scale was encapsulated in Shengyan’s own narration of his life, forming his personal and religious identities. My basic argument is that his Chan teachings were contingent on both his personal crisis and his perceived global crisis of a war-torn China. Against the backdrop of his individual struggles, the sociopolitical transformations of twentieth century China, the internal crisis of orthodoxy, and the external threat of non-Chinese forms of Buddhism in Taiwan, Shengyan envisioned Chan Buddhism as the doctrinal culmination and experiential fulfillment of the whole of Buddhism, manifested through creating the Dharma Drum Lineage.

The origin of the Chinese monastic’s precept of abstaining from meat is usually thought to be the Duan jiurou wen, proclaimed by Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty(梁武帝). The establishment of this precept was, however, not a one-time deal but the result of fierce debate between monastic and secular groups. The point of controversy was how to reconcile conflicts between the precepts of Sectarian Buddhism--which allowed monks to eat meat--and precepts in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra--which prohibited it. Emperor Wu’s decree to abstain from meat was ultimately adopted, but that was not solely from precepts in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra banning consumption of meat; it was also based on the Confucian concept of abstaining from killing (愼殺) and protecting life (護生), as well as a long-standing reverence and preference for vegetarianism by Chineseintellectuals.