임제선과 대행선의 비교를 통한 회통성 -대행선, 회귀回歸인가? 회통會通인가?-

Abstract

This study emphasizes that Daehaeng Seon is pioneering a new form of Seon by “reconciling traditional Seon” based on its own original, modern reinterpretation of traditional Seon. It does this by taking into account both the past and present situation, instead of a “simple return to traditional Seon” by following the ways of traditional Seon practice. In order to explore Daehaeng Seon’s originality and identity, this study compares Daehaeng Seon and Linji Chan. In Daehaeng Seon’s teaching of buddha nature, there are three types of reconciliation. First, there is reconciliation based on the concept of buddha nature. In the history of the Seon School, the concept of buddha nature has in the past been explained in terms of mind, nature, and cause. In Daehaeng Seon, the concept of buddha nature is taught based on the concepts of “One Mind (Hanmaum)” and “foundation (Juingong).” Second, by using the concept of Juingong ― another term forbuddha nature ― as the medium for the practice of entrusting, buddha nature and the medium of practice are unified. In this way Daehaeng Seon reconciles the concepts of buddha nature and practice. Third, Daehaeng Seon reconciles the concept of wisdom ― attained from awakening to one’s Juingong ― with the concept of compassion ― attained as the result of Juingong’s freedom and virtues. Daehaeng Seon reconciles its doctrine of practice in four ways. First, Daehaeng Seon reconciles, as being in an organic relationship, the practice elements of Linji Chan ― held in common with Daehaeng Seon ― with the practice elements of Daehaeng Seon. Second, based on the perspective that daily life is a part of Buddhist practice, Daehaeng Seon reconciles daily life with practice. Third, by reconciling the concept of faith with the sensation of doubt, Daehaeng Seon reconciles Linji Chan, which emphasizes faith, with Ganhwa Seon, which in turn emphasizes the sensation of doubt. Fourth, Daehaeng Seon employs the use of questions and answers to teach, but also emphasizes answering one’s own questions. In this way Daehaeng Seon reconciles these two ways of using questions and answers. In conclusion, one cannot grasp the full picture of Daehaeng Seon based only on its past. A complete picture is only revealed when one views the present along with the open-ended future, which gives us a novel perspective. Daehaeng Seon gives a refreshing newness to modern Korean Seon based on its own Seon philosophy ― which encompasses both past and present ― with original terminology. Daehaeng Seon’s quality of reconciliation poses for us an important question about what Korean Seon Buddhism should do to prepare for the future without holding on to the practice and understanding of traditional Chinese Chan Buddhism.