映湖堂 朴漢永과 尙賢居士 李能和의 학문태도와 연구방법

Abstract

This study was conducted to examine the academic attitude and research methodologies of Yeonghodang, Park, Han-yeong (1870-1948) and great teacher Sanghyeon, Lee Neung-hwa (1869-1943) who cooperated closely in the period of resistance and struggle against Japanese colonial rule at the end of the Joseon dynasty and at the beginning of the Daehan （大韓) and Korean Empire periods. They were both classical scholars and Buddhists who cooperated closely during the same era. Their academic foundation was Buddhism and they pondered more deeply than others on how to further the development of national studies and its expansion into Korea studies. Yeongho and Sanghyeon deeply explored the value and meaning of Buddhism. They focused their questioning on the “why” of Buddhism rather than the “what.” In other words, they asked why Buddhism existed. They were not concerned about such matters as the relationship between Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. That reflected the spirit of the times and the historic awareness of intellectuals who lived at the end of the Joseon dynasty and beginning of Daehan (大韓). It also reflected the spirit of the times and the historic awareness inherent in Buddhism. Thus, they maintained an objective academic attitude in inheriting traditions and accepting modernity. They also adopted and pursued new research methodologies. Thus, they emphasized a Taoist approach even in balancing the parallelism of Taoist law and doctrine which were the twin axes of Korean Buddhism at that time. That was consistent with the Buddhist view that attempted a unification with Taoism based on Taoist law after the Joseon dynasty. In that process, they showed the inheritance of literature, history and philosophical tradition.(The phrase “showed the inheritance” is unclear. I’m not sure what it means.) Yeongho and Sanghyeon devoted themselves to finding a way to revive the tradition (revive what tradition?) and search for a path to the modern age. They attempted to inherit and reproduce tradition and tried a broad humanistic approach to reveal the strengths and advantages of such inheritance and reproduction. That was their attempt to revive tradition and communication with the modern age.(This is STILL confusing. I think you want to say “preserve tradition” not reproduce it.) They exhorted the pursuit of enlightenment by publishing magazines and editorials. Yeongho criticized Buddhist spiritual culture and toadyism and maintained that Korean independence would inspire pride in the Buddhist history of the Joseon dynasty. On the basis of such an independent and historic stance, Yeongho established theories related to the methodologies of national historical science based on pursuit of the old and antique property (What do you mean by “property”?) and criticism of literature. Meanwhile, Sanghyeon suppressed his opinions and viewpoints in his books, displaying an academic attitude to ensure both objectivity and empiricality. Even today, many people read his books on Buddhist, Taoist and shamanist history, among others, which he wrote based on comparative religious studies and historic methodologies. These reflect his academic achievements which are attributable to those methodologies. Yeongho and Sanghyeon maintained their academic attitude supported with historical evidence and the methodology of comparative religious studies based on comparison and contrast. They also pioneered new research methodologies. Nonetheless, very few studies have been conducted on them. As we now live in a globalized society, it would be beneficial to embark upon more comprehensive full-fledged research on Yeongho and Sanghyeon. Then. Korean　studies would have even more solid substance and could be expanded further around the world.