원효와 唯心淨土說 -『無量壽經宗要』의 大意를 중심으로 -
Wǒnhyo and the Theory of Pure Land within Mind - Focused on the Chapter of Comprehensive Meaning in Muryangsu-gyǒng chongyo(Doctrinal Essentials of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra) -
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Many scholars has asserted that Wǒnhyo’s thought is the Theory of Pure Land within Mind(唯心淨土). But it is mistake. This article aims to prove those viewpoints wrong. Their only one ground is a sentence from the chapter of Comprehensive Meaning(大意) in Muryangsu-gyǒng chongyo(『無量壽經宗要』), which says that “The impure field and the pure country comes from One Mind, and saṁsāra and nirvāṇa has same destination.” Many scholars didn’t consider the context which ‘the problematic sentence’ has been told entirely. I think it is necessary for scholars to consider its context for understanding the contextual meaning correctly. For this reason, the important thing is to grasp the turning point between first paragraph and second paragraph. Unfortunately, all translators whom I investigated took mistakes. ‘A problematic Sentence’ of second paragraph is not the context to preach the way to the Pure Land, whether the theory of Pure Land within Mind or Pure Land in Western World. It has an ontological connotation in which every sentient beings has a non-dual Buddhahood. The problem is that every sentient being can’t stay on it and flows unto the way of saṁsāra. Fortunately, there is a way to come back to Buddhahood by two Buddhas. It is the way to the Pure Land and the reason to preach Muryangsu-gyǒng(『無量壽經』). From this standpoint, I ascertained that viewpoint of ‘the problematic sentence’ tells the theory of Pure Land within Mind is incorrect. Because ‘the problematic sentence’ is not the context to propose the theory of Pure Land in Mind but the starting point to the theory of Pure Land in Western World(他方淨土). Of course, the compromise between the theory of Pure Land in Mind and the teory of Pure Land in Western World is also incorrect.
Abstract
Many scholars has asserted that Wǒnhyo’s thought is the Theory of Pure Land within Mind(唯心淨土). But it is mistake. This article aims to prove those viewpoints wrong. Their only one ground is a sentence from the chapter of Comprehensive Meaning(大意) in Muryangsu-gyǒng chongyo(『無量壽經宗要』), which says that “The impure field and the pure country comes from One Mind, and saṁsāra and nirvāṇa has same destination.” Many scholars didn’t consider the context which ‘the problematic sentence’ has been told entirely. I think it is necessary for scholars to consider its context for understanding the contextual meaning correctly. For this reason, the important thing is to grasp the turning point between first paragraph and second paragraph. Unfortunately, all translators whom I investigated took mistakes. ‘A problematic Sentence’ of second paragraph is not the context to preach the way to the Pure Land, whether the theory of Pure Land within Mind or Pure Land in Western World. It has an ontological connotation in which every sentient beings has a non-dual Buddhahood. The problem is that every sentient being can’t stay on it and flows unto the way of saṁsāra. Fortunately, there is a way to come back to Buddhahood by two Buddhas. It is the way to the Pure Land and the reason to preach Muryangsu-gyǒng(『無量壽經』). From this standpoint, I ascertained that viewpoint of ‘the problematic sentence’ tells the theory of Pure Land within Mind is incorrect. Because ‘the problematic sentence’ is not the context to propose the theory of Pure Land in Mind but the starting point to the theory of Pure Land in Western World(他方淨土). Of course, the compromise between the theory of Pure Land in Mind and the teory of Pure Land in Western World is also incorrect.
참고문헌 (22)
- 정용미, "원효의 淨土사상에 있어서 淨土往生의 논리와 수행체계", 동아시아불교문화, (6), pp.191~237 (2010), 동아시아불교문화학회
- 고영섭, "분황 원효의 생애와 사상" (2015), 운주사
- 김현희, "원효의 정토사상에서 慧와 信의 의미 ‒ 「무량수경종요」를 중심으로 ‒", 한국불교학, (82), pp.99~129 (2017), 한국불교학회
- 김영미, "원효와 혜능의 사바즉정토(娑婆卽淨土)", 동아시아불교문화, (40), pp.303~334 (2019), 동아시아불교문화학회
- "한국불교전서", ~
- 한명숙, "미륵상생경종요 외", pp.231~233 (2017), 동국대학교출판부
- 김문선, "원효의 『무량수경종요』와 『아미타경소』는 어떻게 다른가 - 저술 목적과 내용을 중심으로-", 보조사상, (60), pp.117~151 (2021), 보조사상연구원[DOI]
- 김영태, "한국불교 고전명저의 세계", pp.33~ (1994)
- 양은용, "원효연구논총", pp.1059~ (1987), 국토통일원조사연구실
- 이기영, "한국불교연구", pp.419~ (1983), 한국불교연구원
- 정목, "원효의 무량수경종요" (2015)
- 원효, "미륵상생경종요 외" (2017), 동국대학교출판부
- 김원중, "虛詞辭典" (1989), 현암사
- 義海, "淨土宗全書 續第7卷" (1974), 山喜房佛書林
- 김호성, "원효 정토사상의 몇 가지 양상들 - 『불설아미타경소』 오역(誤譯) 사례를 중심으로 -", 보조사상, (59), pp.109~146 (2021), 보조사상연구원[DOI]
- 원효, "미륵상생경종요 외", pp.185~ (2017), 동국대학교출판부
- 민중서림 편집국, "漢韓大字典", pp.815~ (2003), 민중서림
- "대정신수대장경", ~
- 한명숙, "미륵상생경종요 외", pp.256~ (2017), 동국대학교출판부
- 白坡亘璇, "육조대사법보단경요해", pp.75~ (2012), 정우서적
- 田村芳郞, "日本佛敎學會年譜", pp.17~31 (1976), 일본불교학회
- 김호성, "원효가 민중들에게 권유한 염불의 정체성 : 愛宕邦康의 「元曉撰『無量壽經宗要』硏究方法改革論」 비판", 신라문화, 58, pp.333~355 (2021), 신라문화연구소
