백파와 초의의 선사상 논쟁 재검토 –삼종선과 이종선을 중심으로

Abstract

I will re-examine zen thought debate between Baekpa and Choeui, focusing on three kinds zen and two kinds zen. Baekpa and Choeui's claims are all criticizing the prevailing theory in the late Joseon Dynasty. The prevailing theory in the late Joseon Dynasty is that tathāgata zen is connected to theoretical zen, and patriarch zen is connected to extraordinary zen, so patriarch zen is superior to tathāgata zen. In this way, the prevailing theory in the late Joseon period is based on two kinds zen. In response, Baekpa insists on three kinds zen in Seonmunsugyeong(禪文手鏡), which are patriarch zen, tathāgata zen, and theoretical zen. Baekpa's argument is to criticize the prevailing theory in the late Joseon Dynasty and to present a new content. However, a logical problem arises when Baekpa criticizes the prevailing theory of the late Joseon Dynasty. That is, what Baekpa presents as the basis for criticism is not verified by the argument from the scriptures or the recorded saying of zen masters. And Choeui criticizes Baekpa's three kinds in Seonmunsabyeonmaneo(禪門四辨漫語) and presents two kinds zen from a new perspective. In other words, Choeui's two kinds zen also criticizes the prevailing theory in the late Joseon Dynasty and presents his own new views. To put it concretely, Choeui says that tathāgata zen and patriarch zen are not different in terms of the essence of teachings. This is a criticism of the argument presented in the prevailing theory in the late Joseon Dynasty, that is, the perception that patriarch zen is superior to tathāgata zen.