공과 여래장, 그리고 한마음

Abstract

This study introduces the flow of Buddhist thought in terms of the diversity of Buddhist tenets. The study explores the concept of personalism (pudgalavādin) advocated by the Sāṃmitīya School and Vātsīputrīya School—two Buddhist schools that exerted powerful influence beginning in the 4th century—and indicates that the concept of personalism originated from the context of the precepts and the path to enlightenment, as well as from the simple perspective that an agent of action receives the results of their actions. This study also states that the discussions that began from this simple perspective was criticized by other Buddhist schools as advocating the concept of a fixed and permanent “self,” a position contradicting the concept of “non-self.” This study also discusses Paramārtha(眞諦), who belonged to the Sāṃmitīya School, and who promoted three concepts expounded “by the Awakening of Mahayana Faith, āmalavijñāna, tathāgatagarbha, and thusness (tathatā)” I suggest that these concepts are possibly connected to some degree to the concept of personalism taught by the Sāṃmitīya School and Vātsīputrīya School. This study suggests that the following three Mahayana Buddhist teachings are contradictory to the Sarvāstivāda School’s contention that “all dharmas have intrinsic nature.” The first of these Mahayana teachings is the concept of non-self. The second is the concept of mahāyānistic illusionism as expounded by the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines), which can be construed as the “non-substantial existence of dharmas.” The third is the Mādhyamikans’ teaching that “all dharmas are inherently empty.” This study further indicates that Baoxing lun (Ratnagotravibhāga) expressed the concept that “nonessential afflictions are empty,” unlike the Mādhyamikans who contended “all dharmas are inherently empty of substantial nature.” Perhaps the history of Buddhism has strived to maintain balance and equilibrium by the following arguments: by emphasizing “non-self” when “distinct self” was stressed; by emphasizing “distinct self” when “non-self” was stressed; by emphasizing “absence of intrinsic nature” when “intrinsic nature” was stressed; and by contending “afflictions are empty” when “all dharmas are empty” was contended. Lastly, Daehaeng(1927-2012)—a powerful leader who advocated timely agendas like “Buddhism for Ordinary People” and “Buddhism for Daily Life,” and established a new type of practice community—spread her practice far and wide tailored to ordinary people with her signature keywords “Juingong” and “Hanmaum,” which is noteworthy.