천태학에서 바라본 대행의 불교학 – 천태 오시교상과 대행설법을 중심으로 –

Abstract

After Buddhism was introduced to China, a system of Buddhist scriptural studies was established based on systematic organization and classification of Buddha’s teachings during the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Dubbed the “Little Sakyamuni of China,” Tiantai Zhiyi integrated the traditional Chinese classification of Buddha’s teachings into the “five periods and eight teachings,” thereby establishing a gateway to Tiantai teachings. Zhiyi analyzed the Hinayana and Mahayana teachings given by the Buddha based on Buddha’s clarification contained in the chapter titled “The Sole Purpose of Buddha’s Appearing in the World” of the Lotus Sutra. He also classified into five periods the teachings Buddha gave from the time of his enlightenment until his nirvana. In this way the division of the “five periods and eight teachings” comprehensively organized the teachings represented in the Buddhist scriptures which had been developed by then, thus providing a good guide for understanding Buddha’s teachings. This paper employs this view of Tiantai studies to explore the characteristics of Buddhist studies developed by Daehaeng and the system of her teachings. As my methodology, I looked into her Dharma talks from three aspects: how her Dharma talks reflect the doctrinal characteristics of the scriptures from the five periods; how they understand the character of the teachings given during the five periods; and how they represent the significance of the teachings given during the five periods. Daehaeng’s Dharma talks seen from the perspective of Tiantai studies have the following characteristics. First, Daehaeng’s Dharma talks extensively embraced the teachings the Buddha gave during those five periods. Her teachings embraced not only the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, Āgama Sūtras, Vimalakīrti Sūtra, Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Lotus/Nirvāṇa Sūtras of the five periods but also the Pure Land teaching. Second, Daehaeng’s Buddhist studies neither argued for any characteristics of teachings from the five periods nor contended that a teaching differed from another during the five periods; nor did she advocate any specific doctrinal significance of any teaching of the five periods. Thus, she was not partial to any Buddhist religious or scholastic tradition. Third, Daehaeng’s Dharma talks mainly consisted of interpretations of her own experiences of personal comprehension and not on knowledge gleaned from education or learning in Buddhist studies. Fourth, Daehaeng’s Dharma talks attempted to understand Buddhist studies from the perspective of Seon. Therefore, Daehaeng’s Buddhist studies embrace traditional Buddhist studies extensively, and her Dharma talks were based on both her personal experiences and comprehension, which advocate neither any specific religious tradition nor any scholastic school.