½ÃÀÛÆäÀÌÁö   ¿µ¹®ÆäÀÌÁö   ·Î±×ÀΠȸ¿ø°¡ÀÔ À̸ÞÀÏ
 
   
  µµ¿øÀÇ ºÒ¼º°ü°ú ¼öÁõ°ü ¿µ¹®ÃÊ·Ï-Á¾±³¿¬±¸2009
 WRITER: °ü¸®ÀÚ DATE : 10-10-25 14:08 READ : 893
Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to consider Zen Master Dōgen's view on practice and enlightenment (áóñûκ) with focus by examining Shōbōgenzō Busshō (ïáÛöäÑíú ÝÖàõ). The idea of sudden enlightenment in Chinese Zen is deeply related to the idea of Buddha-nature in Mahāyāna Buddhism. The idea of Buddha-nature in Mahāyāna Buddhism gave birth to the idea that claimed 'I am the Original Buddha(ÜâÕÎÝÖ)' and sudden enlightenment indicated a self-awakening of this idea. When sudden enlightenment was emphasized, attaining enlightenment through sitting meditation was considered as contaminated practice. This view flowed from the idea of ¡°hongaku(ÜâÊÆ: original awakening)¡± which developed into the Tendai order's idea of original awakening in the Japanese Tendai (ô¸÷»ðó, Tendai-shū) by the time of Dōgen.

The Tendai's idea of hongaku(ÜâÊÆ) developed the idea that claimed 'I am the Original Buddha(ÜâÕÎÝÖ)' to the extreme degree and had a negative view on attaining Buddhahood through practice, for it considered all living beings in samsara as the Original Buddha. Since the idea went beyond the contradiction between Buddha and a living being in samsara to see the latter as being revealed as Buddha, it considered as useless the practice for attaining Buddhahood. Dogen, who had great doubt on this idea, resolved this problem as honshô-myôshû (ÜâñûÙØáó).

In Dōgen¡¯s own view, honshô-myôshû (ÜâñûÙØáó) meant that enlightenment could never be found without practice. In other words, enlightenment was not something premised and it had no meaning when it was separated from  practice. In this sense one would say that, according to Dōgen, sitting meditation was not the method of attaining Buddhahood.

Therefore, Dōgen¡¯s view on practice and enlightenment is a main theme of his book, Shōbōgenzō, and the chapter on Buddha-nature is an important writing on his view. He criticizes the existing views on Buddha-nature, dealing with the theme from a perspective of practice and enlightenment. In contrast to the existing explanation, Dōgen interpreted ¡°All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature¡± (ìéôîñëßæãúêóÝÖàõ) in Mahāpari-Nirvana Sūtra in a new way.

The interrelationship between busshō(ÝÖàõ Buddha Nature) and shushō(áóñû) is well seen in Dōgen's expression that Enlightenment is never found without practice. Dogen, in asserting that Buddha-nature was never found in separation from sitting meditation, tried to address the both the problems of the Tendai order's idea of hongaku(ÜâÊÆ) and the problems of Mahāyāna Buddhism. He suggests 'shikantaza (ñþηöèñ¦: To concentrate completely on sitting)' as a specific practical way of sitting meditation that encapsulates his view. The way implies that sitting meditation is not for attaining Buddhahood, but that sitting meditation itself is where Buddhahood is attained. This concept is also well expressed in his saying that to learn sitting meditation is to learn sitting Buddha.

Dogen says that 'shikantaza(ñþηöèñ¦)' is Shōbōgenzō authentically passed down from Buddha. He explains the reason by saying that sitting meditation is the Buddha himself, taught and acted on. The interrelationship between busshō(ÝÖàõ Buddha Nature) and shushō(áóñû) is deeply expressed mu-busshō (ÙíÝÖàõ) and mujō-busshō (ÙíßÈÝÖàõ) in the Shōbōgenzō Busshō (ïáÛöäÑíú ÝÖàõ). This will be completed in future research.

Âü°í¹®Çå

ФÜèðóÚË, ¡ºàÉê¹ð³ï¬ó¢Ô´ßí¡», ¿ì¸®ÃâÆÇ»ç, 1990.
ФÜèðóÚË,¡ºàÉê¹ð³ï¬ó¢Ô´ßí¡», ÓÞïáíú 48
±æÈñ¼º, ¡ºÁö´­ÀÇ ¼±»ç»ó¡», ¼Ò³ª¹«, 2001.
±æÈñ¼º, ¡ºÀϺ»ÀÇ Á¤Åä»ç»ó¡», ¹ÎÀ½»ç, 1999.
ÐÝìÒÓì, ¡¸ß²ÖåùÊÀÇ ñéÔ³ÝÖàõà㡹, ¡ººÒ±³Çк¸¡»Á¦21Áý, ºÒ±³¹®È­¿¬±¸¿ø, 1984.
±èÈ£±Í, ¡¸Ê×ü¥àÉÀÇ ¼º¸³¹è°æ¡¹, º¸Á¶»ç»ó¿¬±¸¿ø Á¦14Â÷ Á¤±âÇмú¹ßǥȸ, 2002.
¹«¶óÄ«¹Ì ½Ã°Ô¿ä½Ã ¿Ü, ¡ºÀϺ»ÀÇ Á¾±³¡», Ãֱ漺 Æí¿ª, ¿¹Áø, 1993.
½Å±ÔŹ,¡¸ºÒ±³ÀÇ Áß±¹È­¡¹, ¡º¹é·ÃºÒ±³³íÁý¡»7Áý, ¹é·ÃºÒ±³¹®È­Àç´Ü, 1997.
¾ß³ª±â´Ù ¼¼ÀÌÀÜ, ¡º´Þ¸¶¡», ±è¼ºÈ¯ ¿ª, ¹ÎÁ·»ç, 1992.
¿©Á¤, ¡ºÁß±¹ºÒ±³ÇÐ °­ÀÇ¡», °¢¼Ò ¿ª, ¹ÎÁ·»ç, 1992.
èÝò¤å¸, ¡ºÝÂÔóàÉ¡», ±èÁø¹« ÃÖÀç¼ö °ø¿ª, ¿îÁÖ»ç, 2002.
À̽ô٠¹ÌÁ·Î, ¡ºìíÜâÝÖÎçÞÈ¡», ì°çµí­ æ», ÚÅðéÞä, 1990.
ÀÌ¿¡³ª°¡ »çºÎ·Î, ¡ºÀϺ»¹®È­»ç¡», ÀÌ¿µ ¿ª, ±îÄ¡, 1999.
ÀÌ¿ùÈ£, ¡¸¡ºë»ðÓÓ¦Ìè¡»¿¡¼­ÀÇ Ì¸àõÀÇ Àǹ̡¹, ¡º¹é·ÃºÒ±³³íÁý¡»9Áý, 1999.
ÀüÇØÁÖ ¿ª, ¡ºê­ÊÆÌè¡», ¹ÎÁ·»ç, 1996.
Á¤¼ºº» æ»ñÉ,¡ºÔÄüÓÜâ ë»ðÓÓ¦Ìè¡», Çѱ¹¼±¹®È­¿¬±¸¿ø, 2003.
Á¤¼ºº», ¡ºñéÏÐàÉðóÀÇ à÷Ø¡ÞÈæÚϼ¡», ¹ÎÁ·»ç, 1993.
Á¤¼ºº», ¡º¼±ÀÇ ¿ª»ç¿Í »ç»ó¡», ºÒ±³½Ã´ë»ç, 2000.
ò±Òí, ¡ºòØãýòÁàã¡» ¡ºÜÅðÎÛöåÞ¡», ÐÝ÷¢úÈ ¿ª, ÛöÜÄêÂ, 1963.
ò±Òí, 「ÏèáóïÒû´Ì¿ÞäÙþ」, ¡ºÜÅðÎîïßö¡», º¸Á¶»ç»ó¿¬±¸¿ø, 1989.
ÃÖÇö¹Î, ¡ºÔ³êªÀÇ áóñûκ¡», ¼­°­´ë Á¾±³Çаú ´ëÇпø, 2003.
ûóáóøÁ, ¡ºàÉùÊ°ú úÜùÊ¡», ÐÝòåÙæ ¿ª, ¿îÁÖ»ç, 1999.

Kim, Hee-Jin, ¡°The Reason of Words and Letters¡±, William R. LaFleur, ed, Dogen Studies, University of Hawaii Press, 1985. 
Bielefeldt, Carl, Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, University of California Press,  1988.
ñéõ½êª èâ øº, ¡ºäÛ÷îÝÖÎçÞöîð¡», äÛ÷îßöïÁ, 1989
ÓÞéêûúê©, ¡ºìíÜâÝÖÎçÞÈ¡», ñéÚ­èë øº, ÑÎô¹ûðÙþν, 1998.
Ê«çµß²ÕÍ, ¡ºñéá¦ÞÖßÌÞÈæÚϼ¡», Ûöíúν, 1947.
êÛÔöñíëë, ¡ºðóðӪȪ·ªÆªÎÔ³êªàÉÞÔ¡», äÛ÷îßöïÁ, 1944.
ï£õ½Û»ÕÇ, ¡ºÜâÊÆÞÖßÌÖå¡», õðõÕÞä, 1990.
ê÷ï£á¡ß£, 「ñéÏÐàÔâûÌèîðìé, ê­ÊÆÌè」, õèؤßöÛ®, 1987. 
ò®ï£ÒÍóÑ,¡ºÜÄÌÔÑÀ¡», ÓÞÔÔÙ£îÊàÔ 1996.
ÌðÓöêªëØ, ¡ºÔ³êªàÉÞԪȪ½ªÎðóù¦¡», õðõÕÞä, 1994.
ØÇÙÊÙþÚ¸ÞÍ,¡ºÌÇóÚãæÝÖÎçà÷Ø¡Öå¡», Ûöíúν, 1998.
ï£õ½Û»ÕÇ, ¡ºÜâÊÆÞÖßÌÖå¡», õðõÕÞä, 1990
ÍÔѱòÁÔ³, ¡ºÝÖàõªÈªÏù¼ª«¡», Ûöíúν, 1997.
ÍÔÐøòÁÔ³, ¡ºåýÕÎíúÞÖß̪Îû¡à÷¡», õðõÕÞä, 1990.
áóå¯Ú¯â´í­ ÎèñÉ,¡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»1,  äÛ÷îÙþÍ·, 1998,
áæÜâÞÈÕÍ, ¡ºðóùʪÈúÞÓÛ¡» 2号, 1998.
ù¼æØßæ, ¡ºÔ³êªªÈñéÏÐàÉÞÖßÌ¡», Ûöíúν, 2000.
ÌÇï£Ùòê© æ»ñÉ, ¡ºàÉê¹ð³ï¬ó¢Ô´ßí¡»,  ¡ºàɪÎåÞÖâ¡»9, ÛôؤßöÛ®, 1972.
ñéõ½ðóìé, ¡ºïáÛöäÑíú îïÏéé©ú°¡», á¤ãáßöÛ®, 1994.
à´ïÌáóÔ³, ¡ºñéÏÐàÉðóÞÈü¥¡», àÉÙþûùæÚϼá¶, 1997.
ñÓÒ®Ô³ê©, ¡ºËï撕ÑÀ¡»,¡ºÔ³êª¡»,ÑÎô¹ûðÙþν, 1992
û×îêѺҷν, ¡ºãêüåûúßÆë¶ó¢¡», û×îêÎèÔÄüÓÓÐÞÐÜâ, 1968.
Ô³êª, ¡¸ñíãýãÀÝÖ¡¹¡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»1, è¬à÷ˬÞÌÕÍ æ», ÓÞíúõó÷ú, 1995.
Ô³êª, ¡¸ñ¦àÉíס¹¡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»2, è¬à÷ˬÞÌÕÍ æ», ÓÞíúõó÷ú, 1995.
Ô³êª, ¡¸ìö麽¡¹¡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»3, è¬à÷ˬÞÌÕÍ æ», ÓÞíúõó÷ú, 1998.
Ô³êª, ¡¸Ü©Ô³ü¥¡¹¡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»3, è¬à÷ˬÞÌÕÍ æ», ÓÞíúõó÷ú, 1998.
Ô³êª, ¡¸ñ¦àÉë𡹡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»4, è¬à÷ˬÞÌÕÍ æ», ÓÞíúõó÷ú, 1998.
Ô³êª, ¡¸á©Øü¡¹¡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»4, è¬à÷ˬÞÌÕÍ æ», ÓÞíúõó÷ú, 1995.
Ô³êª, ¡¸ÝÖÔ³¡¹¡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»4, è¬à÷ˬÞÌÕÍ æ», ÓÞíúõó÷ú, 1998.
Ô³êª, ¡¸ÝÖàõ¡¹¡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»ß¾, è¬à÷ˬÞÌÕÍ æ», ÓÞíúõó÷ú,
Ô³êª, ¡¸úÞà÷ÍëäС¹¡ºïáÛöäÑíú¡»ß¾, è¬à÷ˬÞÌÕÍ æ», ÓÞíúõó÷ú,
¡ºÑÃãáÖå¡»,¡ºÓÞïáíú¡»32, ÓÞ,íúõó÷úÞä, 1935.
¡ºÓÞã«ÑÃãáÖåëùÑÀ¡»,¡ºÓÞïáíú¡»44, ÓÞ,íúõó÷úÞä , 1960.
¡ºÎÛòªàÉÞÔÎÆÖâ¡»Ïé5, ¡ºÓÞïáíú¡»48, ÓÞ,íúõó÷úÞä, 1976.
¡ºÎÛòªàÉÞÔÎÆÖâ¡»Ïé8. ¡ºÓÞïáíú¡»48. ÓÞ,íúõó÷úÞä, 1976.
¡¸ÓÍúÉÞÉ×⡹ð¯ì£ßö, ¡ºÓÞû´åÞÖâ¡»Ïé26,¡ºÓÞïáíú¡»47, ÓÞ,íúõó÷úÞä, 1967.
¡ºÌØÓìîîÔóÖâ¡»Ïé28, ¡ºÓÞïáíú¡»51. ÓÞ,íúõó÷úÞä. 1971.
¡ºÌØÓìîîÔóÖâ¡»Ïé28, ¡ºÓÞïáíú¡»51. ÓÞ,íúõó÷úÞä, 1971.
¡ºÌØÓìîîÔóÖâ¡»Ïé5, ¡ºÓÞïáíú¡» 51. ÓÞ,íúõó÷úÞä, 1971.
¡ºÌØÓìîîÔóÖâ¡»Ïé5, ¡ºÓÞïáíú¡»51, 240ù». ÓÞ,íúõó÷úÞä, 1971.