돈황본 『단경』과 포스트휴먼 영성의 조견(照見)
A Mutual Illumination of the Dunhuang Platform Sutra and Posthuman Spirituality
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본논문은프란체스카페란도의포스트휴먼영성(posthuman spirituality)및그의불교해석과선종을대표하는돈황본『단경』의 사상을비교하며,두사상이공유하는비이원적사유의접점과차이를탐구한다.이는불성과영성,경전대신사물론,불이와탈-이원론의세부분으로구성된다.먼저2장에서는『단경』의불성과페란도의영성을비교한다.불성과영성은타자와구별되는독립적인자기·주체와이를바탕으로하는자타 등의이원성을지니지않는다는점에서는유사할수있다.그러나『단경』의불성은대승불교의공사상을바탕으로법신불의성품을논하는반면,페란도의영성은자기,주체를해체하는방식으로서존재에내재한단일성을말하는차이를보인다.3장에서는『단경』과신-유물론을살펴본다.심신이원론,물질과정신의이분법은근대데카르트적 사고로불교에는이러한구분이없으며이는혜능의법의구현인『단경』에서도명확하게드러난다.신-유물론역시물질과정신을포괄하고자하나,이는서양철학의자기·주체담론및존재론,인식론내에서전개된다는점에서차이가있다.마지막으로 4장에서는이원성에대한『단경』과페란도의영성을확인한다.『단경』은중생과부처, 번뇌와보리등대립항이실재하지않는불이(不二)를말하며,이를수증의핵심으로제시한다.이와달리,페란도는휴머니즘의이원적대립항에대한인식을중시하며,종래 인식을해체하는새로운언어를중시한다.선종과포스트휴머니즘사이에는서로다른 사상적맥락이있으며,이원성에관한일견유사한입장에도해석의차이가존재한다.
Abstract
This paper compares the Dunhuang Platform Sutra’s Chan thought with Francesca Ferrando’s posthuman spirituality and Buddhist interpretations, exploring contact points and differences in non-dualistic thought. It is structured in three parts:Buddha-nature and spirituality,the Platform Sutra versus new materialism, and non-duality and post-dualism. Chapter 2 contrasts the Platform Sutra’s Buddha-nature with Ferrando’s posthuman spirituality.Both lack duality of self and other based on independent subjects. However,the Platform Sutra’s Buddha-nature discusses Dharmak ya based on Mahay na emptiness,while Ferrando’s spirituality speaks of inherent unity through self/subject deconstruction.Chapter3examines the Platform Sutra and new materialism. While modern Cartesian dualism of mind/body is absent in Buddhism and the Platform Sutra, new materialism, despite encompassing matter and spirit, operates within Western philosophical discourse on self/subject,ontology,and epistemology.Chapter 4 addresses non-duality in the Platform Sutra and Ferrando’s spirituality.The Platform Sutra posits non-duality where oppositions like sentient beings/Buddhas are unreal, making this central to realization. Ferrando, conversely, stresses recognizing humanistic dualistic oppositions and new deconstructive language. Despite similar duality stances, Chan and posthumanism have distinct philosophical contexts and interpretive differences.