Pub Date : 2021-05-20DOI: 10.1163/25897179-12340008
Steven J. Heine
This paper critically examines the various ways a particularly puzzling line in Dōgen’s 道元 “Genjōkōan” 現成公案 fascicle has been interpreted by premodern sources, especially the Goshō commentary by Senne 詮慧 and Kyōgō 經豪, as well as modern commentators, including sectarian figures such as Nishiari Bokusan 西有穆山 and Kurebayashi Kōdō 榑林皓堂 seen in relation to non-sectarian philosophers such as Watsurji Tetsurō 和辻哲郎. The key passage on “riding a boat out to sea, where mountains can no longer be seen (yamanaki kaichū 山なき海中),” raises crucial issues concerning Dōgen’s approach to multi-perspectivism that have been generally been construed in terms of absolutist and relativist standpoints. My analysis of the scholastic debates also sheds light on the full history of commentaries on Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵 encompassing the late medieval and early modern periods.
{"title":"“When Mountains Can No Longer Be Seen”: A Critical History of Interpretations of an Ambiguous Shōbōgenzō Sentence","authors":"Steven J. Heine","doi":"10.1163/25897179-12340008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/25897179-12340008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper critically examines the various ways a particularly puzzling line in Dōgen’s 道元 “Genjōkōan” 現成公案 fascicle has been interpreted by premodern sources, especially the Goshō commentary by Senne 詮慧 and Kyōgō 經豪, as well as modern commentators, including sectarian figures such as Nishiari Bokusan 西有穆山 and Kurebayashi Kōdō 榑林皓堂 seen in relation to non-sectarian philosophers such as Watsurji Tetsurō 和辻哲郎. The key passage on “riding a boat out to sea, where mountains can no longer be seen (yamanaki kaichū 山なき海中),” raises crucial issues concerning Dōgen’s approach to multi-perspectivism that have been generally been construed in terms of absolutist and relativist standpoints. My analysis of the scholastic debates also sheds light on the full history of commentaries on Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵 encompassing the late medieval and early modern periods.","PeriodicalId":272024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chan Buddhism","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122070974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-22DOI: 10.1163/25897179-12340001
Juhn Y. Ahn
Today, Korean dharma lineages all trace themselves back to Seosan Hyujeong 西山休靜 (1520–1604). Although some claim that Hyujeong’s own lineage should be traced back to Taego Bou 太古普愚 (1301–1382), others claim that it should be traced back to Naong Hyegeun 懶翁慧勤 (1320–1376) instead. The present article will demonstrate that both claims are flawed. They fail to take an important fact into account: the assumptions that guided lineage practices in the fourteenth century were no longer guiding lineage practices in the seventeenth century, which is when both claims were first made. Attempts to trace Hyujeong’s lineage to either Taego or Naong mistakenly accept the veracity of seventeenth-century lineage claims and assumptions. In pre-seventeenth century Korea Seon masters who received dharma transmission in China officially recognized not only their Chinese Chan lineage but also their Korean Seon lineage(s). As shown in this article, there was nothing wrong with having two or more dharma lineages in Korea. Hyegeun is a good example. He claimed to have inherited two different dharma lineages and may have even had a third. Hyegeun’s lineage began to lose favor, this article argues, because it did not accord with the new assumptions that began to guide lineage practices in seventeenth-century Korea.
{"title":"Have a Korean Lineage and Transmit a Chinese One Too: Lineage Practices in Seon Buddhism","authors":"Juhn Y. Ahn","doi":"10.1163/25897179-12340001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/25897179-12340001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Today, Korean dharma lineages all trace themselves back to Seosan Hyujeong 西山休靜 (1520–1604). Although some claim that Hyujeong’s own lineage should be traced back to Taego Bou 太古普愚 (1301–1382), others claim that it should be traced back to Naong Hyegeun 懶翁慧勤 (1320–1376) instead. The present article will demonstrate that both claims are flawed. They fail to take an important fact into account: the assumptions that guided lineage practices in the fourteenth century were no longer guiding lineage practices in the seventeenth century, which is when both claims were first made. Attempts to trace Hyujeong’s lineage to either Taego or Naong mistakenly accept the veracity of seventeenth-century lineage claims and assumptions. In pre-seventeenth century Korea Seon masters who received dharma transmission in China officially recognized not only their Chinese Chan lineage but also their Korean Seon lineage(s). As shown in this article, there was nothing wrong with having two or more dharma lineages in Korea. Hyegeun is a good example. He claimed to have inherited two different dharma lineages and may have even had a third. Hyegeun’s lineage began to lose favor, this article argues, because it did not accord with the new assumptions that began to guide lineage practices in seventeenth-century Korea.","PeriodicalId":272024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chan Buddhism","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121304793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-22DOI: 10.1163/25897179-12340007
. .
{"title":"Introduction to the First Issue of the Journal of Chan Buddhism: East Asian and Global Perspectives","authors":". .","doi":"10.1163/25897179-12340007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/25897179-12340007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":272024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chan Buddhism","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123880652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：