In contemporary social life, religion and media cannot be said to be separated. Contrary to the long-lasting understanding that the two are independent from each other, the spheres of religion and media are closely intertwined. Dynamic and increasing connections have been observed and reported by a range of scholars. Indeed, the scholarly interest in the relationship is a fairly recent one. Only thirty years ago, religion was just a blindspot within media studies (Hoover and Venturelli 1996). Similarly, media were an overlooked issue in religious studies. However, the new millennium witnessed a fast-growing attention to the interactions in both fields, demonstrated by two simultaneously released pieces of literature. On the one hand, Journal of Media and Religion was launched in 2002 by a community of media scholars who had investigated the religious dimension of media-related phenomena. In the preface to the inaugural issue, the respected media scholar James Carey noted that ‘‘[N]one of these religious phenomena can be understood without reference to media that organize religious community, transcribe and embed religious belief, and create both collective memory and modern politics’’ (Carey 2002, 3). On the other hand, a year earlier, a group of religion researchers collected twenty-five articles in an edited volume entitled Religion and Media. Hent de Vries and Samuel Weber, the volume’s editors, summarized their efforts as confronting ‘‘the conceptual, analytical, and empirical possibilities and difficulties involved in addressing the complex issue of religion in relation to ‘media,’ that is to say, ancient and modern forms of mediatization such as writing, confession, ritual performance, film, and television, not to mention the ‘new technological media,’ of which the Internet is the most telling example’’ (de Vries and Weber 2001, vii).
在当代社会生活中，宗教和媒体不能说是分离的。与长期以来认为两者相互独立的理解相反，宗教和媒体领域紧密交织在一起。许多学者已经观察到并报道了动态和不断增长的联系。事实上，学术界对这种关系的兴趣是最近才有的。就在三十年前，宗教还只是媒体研究中的一个盲点（Hoover和Venturelli，1996年）。同样，在宗教研究中，媒体也是一个被忽视的问题。然而，在新的千年里，人们对这两个领域的相互作用的关注迅速增加，两篇同时发布的文献证明了这一点。一方面，《媒体与宗教杂志》是由一群媒体学者于2002年创办的，他们调查了媒体相关现象的宗教层面。在创刊号的序言中，受人尊敬的媒体学者James Carey指出，“这些宗教现象中的一种可以在不参考组织宗教团体、转录和嵌入宗教信仰、创造集体记忆和现代政治的媒体的情况下理解”（Carey 2002，3）。另一方面，一年前，一组宗教研究人员在一本名为《宗教与媒体》的编辑卷中收集了25篇文章。该卷的编辑Hent de Vries和Samuel Weber将他们的努力总结为，在解决宗教与“媒体”之间的复杂问题时，面临着“概念、分析和实证的可能性和困难”，也就是说，古代和现代形式的调解，如写作、忏悔、仪式表演、电影和电视，更不用说“新技术媒体”，互联网是其中最具说服力的例子”（de Vries和Weber，2001，vii）。
{"title":"Religion and Media: No Longer a Blindspot in Korean Academia","authors":"Jin Kyu Park, Kyuhoon Cho, Sam Han","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0010","url":null,"abstract":"In contemporary social life, religion and media cannot be said to be separated. Contrary to the long-lasting understanding that the two are independent from each other, the spheres of religion and media are closely intertwined. Dynamic and increasing connections have been observed and reported by a range of scholars. Indeed, the scholarly interest in the relationship is a fairly recent one. Only thirty years ago, religion was just a blindspot within media studies (Hoover and Venturelli 1996). Similarly, media were an overlooked issue in religious studies. However, the new millennium witnessed a fast-growing attention to the interactions in both fields, demonstrated by two simultaneously released pieces of literature. On the one hand, Journal of Media and Religion was launched in 2002 by a community of media scholars who had investigated the religious dimension of media-related phenomena. In the preface to the inaugural issue, the respected media scholar James Carey noted that ‘‘[N]one of these religious phenomena can be understood without reference to media that organize religious community, transcribe and embed religious belief, and create both collective memory and modern politics’’ (Carey 2002, 3). On the other hand, a year earlier, a group of religion researchers collected twenty-five articles in an edited volume entitled Religion and Media. Hent de Vries and Samuel Weber, the volume’s editors, summarized their efforts as confronting ‘‘the conceptual, analytical, and empirical possibilities and difficulties involved in addressing the complex issue of religion in relation to ‘media,’ that is to say, ancient and modern forms of mediatization such as writing, confession, ritual performance, film, and television, not to mention the ‘new technological media,’ of which the Internet is the most telling example’’ (de Vries and Weber 2001, vii).","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"10 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44594380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In contrast to the view of humanity as in a quest for truth between reason and animal nature in the Western philosophical tradition, between wholesomeness and unwholesomeness in Confucianism, and between stillness and motion in Daoism, proponents of Buddhism understand humanity as in a search for truth between impurity and purity, or in other terms, of being composed of an unoriginal actuality called "delusion" and an original potentiality called "enlightenment." To more briefly express this Buddhist framework of viewing humanity, we might say, "the mind-nature is originally pure but is contaminated by adventitious defilements." In this way, a mind that is originally pure is the "pure mind of self-nature" (prakṛti-prabhāsvara-citta); the transformation of original nature from this kind of pure mind of the self-nature to the most interior recesses of living beings is precisely "Buddha nature" (pulsŏng 佛性). To Wŏnhyo, that the essence of Buddha nature is the one mind means that the original nature of humanity is "Buddha nature as the one mind." Furthermore, it is harmonization between the dharma nature of "non-duality and emptiness" and the awakened nature of "nature understanding itself mysteriously." This refers to the heart of enlightenment through realization of Buddha nature, which is precisely emptiness. Accordingly, to Wŏnhyo, the original nature of human beings is "Buddha nature as the one mind," and that can be known as being "Buddha nature by means of emptiness."
{"title":"Human Nature and Buddha Nature in Wŏnhyo","authors":"J. W. Kim, R. Mcbride","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0001","url":null,"abstract":"In contrast to the view of humanity as in a quest for truth between reason and animal nature in the Western philosophical tradition, between wholesomeness and unwholesomeness in Confucianism, and between stillness and motion in Daoism, proponents of Buddhism understand humanity as in a search for truth between impurity and purity, or in other terms, of being composed of an unoriginal actuality called \"delusion\" and an original potentiality called \"enlightenment.\" To more briefly express this Buddhist framework of viewing humanity, we might say, \"the mind-nature is originally pure but is contaminated by adventitious defilements.\" In this way, a mind that is originally pure is the \"pure mind of self-nature\" (prakṛti-prabhāsvara-citta); the transformation of original nature from this kind of pure mind of the self-nature to the most interior recesses of living beings is precisely \"Buddha nature\" (pulsŏng 佛性). To Wŏnhyo, that the essence of Buddha nature is the one mind means that the original nature of humanity is \"Buddha nature as the one mind.\" Furthermore, it is harmonization between the dharma nature of \"non-duality and emptiness\" and the awakened nature of \"nature understanding itself mysteriously.\" This refers to the heart of enlightenment through realization of Buddha nature, which is precisely emptiness. Accordingly, to Wŏnhyo, the original nature of human beings is \"Buddha nature as the one mind,\" and that can be known as being \"Buddha nature by means of emptiness.\"","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"29 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44336256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:The Christian spirituality of Cardinal Sou-hwan Kim (1922–2009) was informed by the cultural resources of Korea, especially by classical Confucianism. This study examines facets of his Christian appropriation of the Confucian ethico-religious tradition in order to bring to light a specific texture of the hybridity of his "Confucian-Christian" spirituality. In so doing, it hopes as well to offer a case study of the hybrid nature of Korean Christian spirituality itself. Kim inherited the Korean Catholic heritage with its sense of compatibility and complementarity with Confucianism. Building upon it and encouraged by Vatican Council II, he assimilated Confucian resources as far as he could so as to enrich and strengthen his Christian spirituality. Thus, Confucian spirituality flowed into and fused with his contemporary Catholic spirituality. This study highlights salient Confucian traits as lived qualities of Kim's Confucian-Christian spirituality. As a Korean Christian, he doubtlessly reflected on himself in the light of the exemplary pattern of Confucius' spiritual growth as a cultural standard and mirror. This study thus dwells on intriguing parallels between Confucius' and Kim's spiritual profiles. It also stresses that in his mature public career, Cardinal Kim used well-known Confucian adages to drive home his points in a culturally meaningful way, sometimes addressing specific socio-political situations of Korea. His deliberate choice of Confucian themes is indicative of primary concerns in his life and spirituality. His use reflects, moreover, a dual concern present in both Confucian and contemporary Catholic spirituality: "personal/religious" and "social/political."
{"title":"Cardinal Sou-hwan Kim's Spirituality and Confucian Cultural Context: How Hybrid is Kim's Confucian-Christian Spirituality?","authors":"P. Pak","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The Christian spirituality of Cardinal Sou-hwan Kim (1922–2009) was informed by the cultural resources of Korea, especially by classical Confucianism. This study examines facets of his Christian appropriation of the Confucian ethico-religious tradition in order to bring to light a specific texture of the hybridity of his \"Confucian-Christian\" spirituality. In so doing, it hopes as well to offer a case study of the hybrid nature of Korean Christian spirituality itself. Kim inherited the Korean Catholic heritage with its sense of compatibility and complementarity with Confucianism. Building upon it and encouraged by Vatican Council II, he assimilated Confucian resources as far as he could so as to enrich and strengthen his Christian spirituality. Thus, Confucian spirituality flowed into and fused with his contemporary Catholic spirituality. This study highlights salient Confucian traits as lived qualities of Kim's Confucian-Christian spirituality. As a Korean Christian, he doubtlessly reflected on himself in the light of the exemplary pattern of Confucius' spiritual growth as a cultural standard and mirror. This study thus dwells on intriguing parallels between Confucius' and Kim's spiritual profiles. It also stresses that in his mature public career, Cardinal Kim used well-known Confucian adages to drive home his points in a culturally meaningful way, sometimes addressing specific socio-political situations of Korea. His deliberate choice of Confucian themes is indicative of primary concerns in his life and spirituality. His use reflects, moreover, a dual concern present in both Confucian and contemporary Catholic spirituality: \"personal/religious\" and \"social/political.\"","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"185 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49409278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Korean Religions in Relation: Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity ed. by Anselm K. Min (review)","authors":"Halla Kim","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"221 - 226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47607477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:One of the most important doctrines in Buddhism is anātman, which denies the existence of a self. However, if there really is no self, then how can we say that there are any wrongdoers? In turn, we could even question whether it makes any sense to repent of our sins, if there is no agent behind anything. This issue is particularly vexing from a Western philosophical standpoint, which generally emphasizes moral agency as an important aspect of ethics. However, the Korean monk Wŏnhyo (617–686) claimed that only on the basis of the doctrine of non-self and universal emptiness could we properly practice repentance while avoiding dogmatism and self-righteousness. In his view, liberation from suffering can only be achieved through a deep understanding of the nature of emptiness. This understanding can only be reached by rejecting the reality of the six sense-objects and therefore seeing the world as a kind of illusion. However, such a vision does not imply that we must step "outside" of the world—on the contrary, we must embrace illusion and reality as being the same. Understanding and accepting this radically non-dualistic metaphysical view results in an ethics where genuine compassion is generated spontaneously.
{"title":"Towards a Buddhist Ethics of Emptiness: Wŏnhyo on Transgression and Repentance in the Mahayana Repentance of the Six Senses","authors":"Eun-su Cho","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:One of the most important doctrines in Buddhism is anātman, which denies the existence of a self. However, if there really is no self, then how can we say that there are any wrongdoers? In turn, we could even question whether it makes any sense to repent of our sins, if there is no agent behind anything. This issue is particularly vexing from a Western philosophical standpoint, which generally emphasizes moral agency as an important aspect of ethics. However, the Korean monk Wŏnhyo (617–686) claimed that only on the basis of the doctrine of non-self and universal emptiness could we properly practice repentance while avoiding dogmatism and self-righteousness. In his view, liberation from suffering can only be achieved through a deep understanding of the nature of emptiness. This understanding can only be reached by rejecting the reality of the six sense-objects and therefore seeing the world as a kind of illusion. However, such a vision does not imply that we must step \"outside\" of the world—on the contrary, we must embrace illusion and reality as being the same. Understanding and accepting this radically non-dualistic metaphysical view results in an ethics where genuine compassion is generated spontaneously.","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"31 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42545757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Wŏnhyo (617–686) is best known within the Korean tradition as pilgrim, philosopher, mystic, thaumaturge, proselytist, and even touchstone of Korean unification ideology. But all these roles pale next to his importance as a commentator. In this proclivity, Wŏnhyo emulates intellectuals active within most traditional civilizations, where much of spiritual and religious understanding was conveyed through commentarial writing. Wŏnhyo's range of scholarly endeavor covered the whole gamut of East Asian Buddhist materials and the hundred or so works attributed to this prolific writer, over twenty of which are extant, find no rivals among his fellow Korean exegetes. The vast majority of Wŏnhyo's works are explicitly commentaries, and even those writings which are not are still strongly exegetical in character. The East Asian Buddhist tradition itself also treats Wŏnhyo principally as a commentator, as seen, for example, in the Song Gaoseng zhuan's (Song biography of eminent monks) inclusion of Wŏnhyo's biography in the section on "doctrinal exegetes" (yijie), together with a number of other Korean scholiasts who played important roles in the development of the learned schools of Sinitic Buddhism. In his virtuosity at manipulating the commentarial form, Wŏnhyo may be viewed not simply as a paragon of Korean scholarly achievement but as someone who was emblematic of the highest achievements of the Sinographic Buddhist tradition as a whole. This paper will explore the characteristics of Korean Buddhist commentary and examine the question of why Wŏnhyo used scriptural exegesis as the main vehicle for conveying his philosophical and spiritual insights.
{"title":"Wŏnhyo: Buddhist Commentator Par Excellence","authors":"Robert E. Buswell","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Wŏnhyo (617–686) is best known within the Korean tradition as pilgrim, philosopher, mystic, thaumaturge, proselytist, and even touchstone of Korean unification ideology. But all these roles pale next to his importance as a commentator. In this proclivity, Wŏnhyo emulates intellectuals active within most traditional civilizations, where much of spiritual and religious understanding was conveyed through commentarial writing. Wŏnhyo's range of scholarly endeavor covered the whole gamut of East Asian Buddhist materials and the hundred or so works attributed to this prolific writer, over twenty of which are extant, find no rivals among his fellow Korean exegetes. The vast majority of Wŏnhyo's works are explicitly commentaries, and even those writings which are not are still strongly exegetical in character. The East Asian Buddhist tradition itself also treats Wŏnhyo principally as a commentator, as seen, for example, in the Song Gaoseng zhuan's (Song biography of eminent monks) inclusion of Wŏnhyo's biography in the section on \"doctrinal exegetes\" (yijie), together with a number of other Korean scholiasts who played important roles in the development of the learned schools of Sinitic Buddhism. In his virtuosity at manipulating the commentarial form, Wŏnhyo may be viewed not simply as a paragon of Korean scholarly achievement but as someone who was emblematic of the highest achievements of the Sinographic Buddhist tradition as a whole. This paper will explore the characteristics of Korean Buddhist commentary and examine the question of why Wŏnhyo used scriptural exegesis as the main vehicle for conveying his philosophical and spiritual insights.","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"131 - 160"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42543377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The year 2017 marks the 1,400th anniversary of the birth of Wŏnhyo 元曉 (‘‘Break of Dawn’’; 617–686), a towering figure in the Korean religious and intellectual firmament. Wŏnhyo was an important vaunt courier in the development of Korean Buddhism and it is no exaggeration to say that it was he who created the Silla tradition of the religion. Indeed, few others have exerted the depth and breadth of influence over the subsequent development of Korean Buddhism as did Wŏnhyo. His oeuvre is among the largest in the entire Korean intellectual tradition, comprising some one hundred works, of which over twenty are extant. His influence extended beyond the Korean Peninsula to both China and Japan, and his writings continue to inspire the current generation of intellectuals in Korea, Asia, and the West. Wŏnhyo has received a great deal of scholarly attention, with scores of books and thousands of articles written about him in both Asian and European languages. This extensive attention to Wŏnhyo and his works stems from the wide range of Wŏnhyo’s own scholarly interests. Wŏnhyo wrote on essentially everything on Buddhism then available to him in the Silla kingdom and mastered the vocabulary, doctrines, and major arguments of most of the influential strands of the contemporary Sinitic Buddhist tradition. His frequent use of terminology drawn from Abhidharma texts, Madhyamaka, Chinese Dilun and Yogācāra materials, Huayan, and Indian Vinaya and Chinese preceptive materials challenges the resources of any modern scholar and demands that we no longer approach him just from within the narrow confines of religious developments on the Korean Peninsula. Instead, his scholarship requires we view his work from broad regional and disciplinary perspectives, contextualizing the various filiations of his thought within developments going on around him across the East Asian region. Indeed, the vast store of ideas found in his extant works is best understood within the confluences of the disparate streams of Buddhist thought in seventh-century East Asia, a situation of which he was fully aware and made distinguished efforts to explicate.
{"title":"The 1,400th Anniversary of Wŏnhyo's Birth: A Special Issue","authors":"Robert E. Buswell, Eun-su Cho","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0000","url":null,"abstract":"The year 2017 marks the 1,400th anniversary of the birth of Wŏnhyo 元曉 (‘‘Break of Dawn’’; 617–686), a towering figure in the Korean religious and intellectual firmament. Wŏnhyo was an important vaunt courier in the development of Korean Buddhism and it is no exaggeration to say that it was he who created the Silla tradition of the religion. Indeed, few others have exerted the depth and breadth of influence over the subsequent development of Korean Buddhism as did Wŏnhyo. His oeuvre is among the largest in the entire Korean intellectual tradition, comprising some one hundred works, of which over twenty are extant. His influence extended beyond the Korean Peninsula to both China and Japan, and his writings continue to inspire the current generation of intellectuals in Korea, Asia, and the West. Wŏnhyo has received a great deal of scholarly attention, with scores of books and thousands of articles written about him in both Asian and European languages. This extensive attention to Wŏnhyo and his works stems from the wide range of Wŏnhyo’s own scholarly interests. Wŏnhyo wrote on essentially everything on Buddhism then available to him in the Silla kingdom and mastered the vocabulary, doctrines, and major arguments of most of the influential strands of the contemporary Sinitic Buddhist tradition. His frequent use of terminology drawn from Abhidharma texts, Madhyamaka, Chinese Dilun and Yogācāra materials, Huayan, and Indian Vinaya and Chinese preceptive materials challenges the resources of any modern scholar and demands that we no longer approach him just from within the narrow confines of religious developments on the Korean Peninsula. Instead, his scholarship requires we view his work from broad regional and disciplinary perspectives, contextualizing the various filiations of his thought within developments going on around him across the East Asian region. Indeed, the vast store of ideas found in his extant works is best understood within the confluences of the disparate streams of Buddhist thought in seventh-century East Asia, a situation of which he was fully aware and made distinguished efforts to explicate.","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"5 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48995386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:"State-protection Buddhism" (Ch. huguo Fojiao, K. hoguk Pulgyo 護國佛敎), the idea that Buddhism protects the state from various natural as well as societal difficulties, was widely accepted in premodern East Asia. Not a few East Asian rulers who adopted Buddhism as a state ideology expected such Buddhist deities as the four heavenly kings (Skt. lokapāla, Ch. si tianwang, K. sa ch'ŏnwang 四天王) to protect the state as a result of their faith in "state-protection" scriptures, such as the Golden Light Sutra (Ch. Jinguangming jing, K. Kŭmgwangmyŏng kyŏng 金光明經). Although state-protection Buddhism has been approached focusing on its political aspect, from the Buddhist doctrinal viewpoint, state protection refers to none other than "Dharma protection" (Ch. hufa, K. hobŏp 護法), and the kings who take the responsibility of protecting the state also are protectors of the Dharma. East Asian Buddhist scholiasts, however, did not always reach consensus on the nature of kingship as Dharma protector. This article explores distinct interpretations of kingship in the Golden Light Sutra between two eminent Buddhist exegetes, Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686) and Huizhao 慧昭 (774–850). Although Wŏnhyo's commentary on the Golden Light Sutra, the Kŭmgwangmyŏng kyŏng so 金光明經疏, is not extant, a significant part of it is cited in Japanese monks' works, notably in Gangyō's 願曉 (835–871) Konkōmyō saishō ō kyō gensū 金光明最勝王經玄樞, and we can therefore compare it to Huizhao's commentary, the Jinguangming zuishengwang jing shu 金光明最勝王經疏. On the basis of a comparative analysis of their views on the sutra, this article discusses how the two exegetes interpret kingship in the Golden Light Sutra and reconcile the two dilemmatic concepts of commonality and particularity.
{"title":"Kingship as \"Dharma-Protector\": A Comparative Study of Wŏnhyo and Huizhao's Views on the Golden Light Sutra","authors":"S. Lee","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:\"State-protection Buddhism\" (Ch. huguo Fojiao, K. hoguk Pulgyo 護國佛敎), the idea that Buddhism protects the state from various natural as well as societal difficulties, was widely accepted in premodern East Asia. Not a few East Asian rulers who adopted Buddhism as a state ideology expected such Buddhist deities as the four heavenly kings (Skt. lokapāla, Ch. si tianwang, K. sa ch'ŏnwang 四天王) to protect the state as a result of their faith in \"state-protection\" scriptures, such as the Golden Light Sutra (Ch. Jinguangming jing, K. Kŭmgwangmyŏng kyŏng 金光明經). Although state-protection Buddhism has been approached focusing on its political aspect, from the Buddhist doctrinal viewpoint, state protection refers to none other than \"Dharma protection\" (Ch. hufa, K. hobŏp 護法), and the kings who take the responsibility of protecting the state also are protectors of the Dharma. East Asian Buddhist scholiasts, however, did not always reach consensus on the nature of kingship as Dharma protector. This article explores distinct interpretations of kingship in the Golden Light Sutra between two eminent Buddhist exegetes, Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686) and Huizhao 慧昭 (774–850). Although Wŏnhyo's commentary on the Golden Light Sutra, the Kŭmgwangmyŏng kyŏng so 金光明經疏, is not extant, a significant part of it is cited in Japanese monks' works, notably in Gangyō's 願曉 (835–871) Konkōmyō saishō ō kyō gensū 金光明最勝王經玄樞, and we can therefore compare it to Huizhao's commentary, the Jinguangming zuishengwang jing shu 金光明最勝王經疏. On the basis of a comparative analysis of their views on the sutra, this article discusses how the two exegetes interpret kingship in the Golden Light Sutra and reconcile the two dilemmatic concepts of commonality and particularity.","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"129 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47345628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The term "mundane realm" refers to the space in which sentient beings abide. In early Buddhism, this mundane realm was regarded as an obstacle to be avoided and overcome. As Mahāyāna Buddhism spread, however, buddhas and bodhisattvas were venerated as beings abiding in that mundane realm and having a thorough insight into it without being defiled by it. This respect for them then led to the notion of "supra-supramundane," which mandates that practitioners transfer their merits to the mundane realm without being stuck in the pursuit of the "supramundane." Wŏnhyo (617–686), who is well known for his unhindered acts (K. muae haeng 無礙行), established firm doctrinal foundations for the notion of "supra-supramundane." Influenced by the scholarship of the Dilun master Huiyan (523–592), Wŏnhyo identified the cognitive hindrance, mentioned in the Awakening of Faith, as the fundamental ignorance that discriminates the mundane from the supramundane. Such an attitude is also discernible in his Yŏlban chongyo. In that text, he does not consider the nirvāṇa without remainder to be an extinction of mind and body; he identified it as a unity of a sentient being's suchness with the dharma-body of buddhas. He also criticizes the Hīnayāna attachment to the nirvāṇa without remainder and upholds the idea of the nirvāṇa with remainder, which underscores active involvement in the mundane realm. He finally emphasized the nirvāṇa of nonabiding. His view of nirvāṇa is closely related to his view of this world in which he recognizes the value of bodhsattvas' salvific activities.
{"title":"Wŏnhyo's View of This World","authors":"Seunghak Koh","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0003","url":null,"abstract":"The term \"mundane realm\" refers to the space in which sentient beings abide. In early Buddhism, this mundane realm was regarded as an obstacle to be avoided and overcome. As Mahāyāna Buddhism spread, however, buddhas and bodhisattvas were venerated as beings abiding in that mundane realm and having a thorough insight into it without being defiled by it. This respect for them then led to the notion of \"supra-supramundane,\" which mandates that practitioners transfer their merits to the mundane realm without being stuck in the pursuit of the \"supramundane.\" Wŏnhyo (617–686), who is well known for his unhindered acts (K. muae haeng 無礙行), established firm doctrinal foundations for the notion of \"supra-supramundane.\" Influenced by the scholarship of the Dilun master Huiyan (523–592), Wŏnhyo identified the cognitive hindrance, mentioned in the Awakening of Faith, as the fundamental ignorance that discriminates the mundane from the supramundane. Such an attitude is also discernible in his Yŏlban chongyo. In that text, he does not consider the nirvāṇa without remainder to be an extinction of mind and body; he identified it as a unity of a sentient being's suchness with the dharma-body of buddhas. He also criticizes the Hīnayāna attachment to the nirvāṇa without remainder and upholds the idea of the nirvāṇa with remainder, which underscores active involvement in the mundane realm. He finally emphasized the nirvāṇa of nonabiding. His view of nirvāṇa is closely related to his view of this world in which he recognizes the value of bodhsattvas' salvific activities.","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"47 - 62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43093538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wŏnhyo's Ijang ŭi is a lengthy treatise that examines and explains the afflictive and cognitive hindrances to liberation and enlightenment more thoroughly than any known work in the history of Buddhism. While this in itself is sufficient to make it a watershed work, the treatise goes even further, in defining two distinctive systems of the hindrances, which are associated with the two major doctrinal lineages of Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha. These two systems are labeled by Wŏnhyo with the Buddhist exegetical terms "explicit" (Qnītârtha, 顯了門) and "inexplicit" (Qneyârtha, 隱密門). These, I argue, are for Wŏnhyo not value-laden terms as usually seen in East Asian doctrinal classification systems, but conceived based on Wŏnhyo's impression of the relative clarity (or lack thereof) of their systematic descriptions in the source texts of the two traditions. In the end, Wŏnhyo shows not only how these systems differ, but how they also mutually complement and inform each other. This makes this treatise an emblematic work demonstrating the Silla scholiast's hallmark methodological approach of doctrinal synthesis (hwajaeng). Wŏnhyo's work on this topic deeply influenced scholarship on the hindrances by later Faxiang, Tiantai, and Huayan scholars in China, Korea, and Japan. In the course of introducing the Ijang ŭi, I also provide a brief outline of the development of the two hindrances concepts in the Tathāgatagarbha and Yogâcāra traditions, along with a synopsis of the major pre-Wŏnhyo treatise on the hindrances, that by the Chinese scholar Huiyuan.
{"title":"The Meaning of the Explicit and Inexplicit Approaches in Wŏnhyo's System of the Two Hindrances (Ijang ŭi 二障義)","authors":"A. C. Muller","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Wŏnhyo's Ijang ŭi is a lengthy treatise that examines and explains the afflictive and cognitive hindrances to liberation and enlightenment more thoroughly than any known work in the history of Buddhism. While this in itself is sufficient to make it a watershed work, the treatise goes even further, in defining two distinctive systems of the hindrances, which are associated with the two major doctrinal lineages of Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha. These two systems are labeled by Wŏnhyo with the Buddhist exegetical terms \"explicit\" (Qnītârtha, 顯了門) and \"inexplicit\" (Qneyârtha, 隱密門). These, I argue, are for Wŏnhyo not value-laden terms as usually seen in East Asian doctrinal classification systems, but conceived based on Wŏnhyo's impression of the relative clarity (or lack thereof) of their systematic descriptions in the source texts of the two traditions. In the end, Wŏnhyo shows not only how these systems differ, but how they also mutually complement and inform each other. This makes this treatise an emblematic work demonstrating the Silla scholiast's hallmark methodological approach of doctrinal synthesis (hwajaeng). Wŏnhyo's work on this topic deeply influenced scholarship on the hindrances by later Faxiang, Tiantai, and Huayan scholars in China, Korea, and Japan. In the course of introducing the Ijang ŭi, I also provide a brief outline of the development of the two hindrances concepts in the Tathāgatagarbha and Yogâcāra traditions, along with a synopsis of the major pre-Wŏnhyo treatise on the hindrances, that by the Chinese scholar Huiyuan.","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"63 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46982566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：