『대승기신론』과 원효가 펼치는 일심一心의 언어에 대한 이해들에는 ‘본체·현상 존재론’이 적용되는 경우가 흔하다. 일심一心에다가 ‘모든 생멸하는 현상들을 지어내거나 포괄하는 본체’의 지위를 부여한 후 ‘생멸하는 현상들’과 ‘생멸현상으로부터 벗어나 불생불멸하는 본체’의 상호관계를 설명해 보려는 시선이 일반화되어 있는 것으로 보인다. 이런 시선은 ‘생멸生滅’과 ‘진여眞如’라는 개념도 각각 현상과 본체에 배정하곤 한다. 일심一心을 이런 시선으로 읽는 한, 원효나 『대승기신론』및 대승의 일심一心철학을 우파니샤드 아뜨만 철학의 범주에서 구출하기는 어렵다. 불변의 본체든 공한 본체든, ‘본체·현상 존재론’으로 일심一心에 접근하는 한, 우파니샤드의 사유구조에서 탈출하기가 어렵다. 그런데 흥미로운 것은 정작 원효가 펼치는 일심一心의 (...) 언어에는 그 어디에서도 ‘본체·현상 존재론’이라 할 내용이 목격되지 않는다는 점이다. 『대승기신론』의 경우도 마찬가지이다. 그렇다면 일심에 대한 ‘본체·현상적 이해’가 난무하는 현상은 어디에서 비롯하는가? 두 가지 이유를 주목하고 싶다. 인간에게는 ‘본체·현상 존재론’을 쉽사리 수긍하는 사유방식이 내면화되어 있을 가능성이 그 하나이고, 원효가 구사하는 용어에 대한 일상 언어적 오해가 다른 하나이다. 본고는 ‘본체·현상 존재론’을 선호하는 사유방식을 발생시킨 조건들을 살펴보는 동시에, 용어의 의미를 발생시키는 조건들을 간과하는 일상 언어적 이해가 원효사상 이해에서 작동하는 사례를 음미한다. 새로운 독법의 정초를 마련하기 위해서이다. (shrink)

This paper outlines Wŏnhyo’s theory of the One Mind as it is presented in his over 20 extant works. According to Wŏnhyo, the One Mind manifests itself in two aspects: “true-thusness” and “arising-a...

This paper outlines Wŏnhyo’s theory of the One Mind as it is presented in his over 20 extant works. According to Wŏnhyo, the One Mind manifests itself in two aspects: “true-thusness” and “arising-a...

Bunhwang Wonhyo (芬皇 元曉, 617-686) was a philosopher in the Korean Shilla Dynasty. He was a successor to the Buddha's wise thought and merciful life on the basis of One Mind (一心) - Reconcilement (和會) -Interfusion(無碍). His One Mind philosophy opened a new way for researching the human abyss and worldessence. The breadth of his enlightenment also enabled many people to live in the vast sea of Buddha dharma, as his manner of thinking and living opened up completely new, (...) unique, and encompassing vistas well beyond the conventional limits of his age, people, religion and philosophy. Wohyo's One Mind philosophy was based on the One Mind-Two Approaches (一心二門) formulation described in Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith. He was not restricted by the commonly accepted view of Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, wherein One Mind is understood in light of dualistic opposition of the Combined Consciousness of True and False (眞妄和合識)1). On the contrary, he applied a different view of One Mind to Combined Consciousness, unlike the Ālaya-vijñāna view of the Consciousness-Only school that tried to understand One Mind as True Consciousness of Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom (大圓鏡智). Therefore, his understanding of One Mind is very dynamic and elastic. The dynamics and elasticity are also caused by the dualistic structure of Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith (大乘起信論), that divides One Mind into two characteristics such as white-clean and dirty-contaminated. Wonhyo, who investigated deeply into the suffering mind in order todetermine whether to classify the unenlightened person and Buddha as two or whether to unify them, also made One Mind open to the Ninth Consciousness (九識) without restricting the range of it to Eight Consciousnesses (八識). This ground of understanding is due to Wonhyo's dynamics and Miraculous Understanding. Wonhyo connects One Mind to Tathāgata-garbha (如來藏), while saying that 'it is called Tathāgata-garbha because the body of One Mind is defined as Original Enlightenment (本覺) and it causes phenomenon depending on ignorance.' In order to explain this, he 'coins' the expression of Miraculous Understanding and provides expands the existing understanding of One Mind by adding the meaning of Miraculous Understanding to the understanding of One Mind. And heexplains Miraculous Understanding on the basis of the property of Nirmāṇa-kāya that does not adopt inanimate objectivity, which shows that Wonhyo's One Mind exposes the changeable meaning of an absolute aspect and the unchangeable meaning of a phenomenal aspect at the same time. Wonhyo quoted the concept of Miraculous Understanding in order to explain changeability of an absolute aspect rather than its unchangeability, and unchangeability of a phenomenal aspect rather than its changeability. And finally, Wonhyo's Miraculous Understanding of One Mind shows that the real nature of Original Enlightenment is miraculous by itself. And the meaning of Miraculous Understanding belongs in the Ninth Consciousness, Amala-vijñāna, rather than being restricted to the eighth consciousness, Ālaya-vijñāna. In this way, Wonhyo harmonizes the Eight Consciousnesses theory of Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith and the Nine Consciousnesses theory of Vājrasamādhi–Sūtra (金剛三昧經論) through dynamics and Miraculous Understanding of One Mind. As a result, Wonhyo enlarged the extension of One Mind understanding by granting the meaning of dynamics and Miraculous Understanding to One Mind, which challenged the existing interpretation of his time. (shrink)

Bunhwang Wonhyo was a philosopher in the Korean Shilla Dynasty. He was a successor to the Buddha's wise thought and merciful life on the basis of One Mind - Reconcilement -Interfusion. His One Mind philosophy opened a new way for researching the human abyss and worldessence. The breadth of his enlightenment also enabled many people to live in the vast sea of Buddha dharma, as his manner of thinking and living opened up completely new, unique, and encompassing vistas well (...) beyond the conventional limits of his age, people, religion and philosophy. Wohyo's One Mind philosophy was based on the One Mind-Two Approaches formulation described in Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith. He was not restricted by the commonly accepted view of Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, wherein One Mind is understood in light of dualistic opposition of the Combined Consciousness of True and False 1). On the contrary, he applied a different view of One Mind to Combined Consciousness, unlike the Ālaya-vijñāna view of the Consciousness-Only school that tried to understand One Mind as True Consciousness of Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom. Therefore, his understanding of One Mind is very dynamic and elastic. The dynamics and elasticity are also caused by the dualistic structure of Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, that divides One Mind into two characteristics such as white-clean and dirty-contaminated. Wonhyo, who investigated deeply into the suffering mind in order todetermine whether to classify the unenlightened person and Buddha as two or whether to unify them, also made One Mind open to the Ninth Consciousness without restricting the range of it to Eight Consciousnesses. This ground of understanding is due to Wonhyo's dynamics and Miraculous Understanding. Wonhyo connects One Mind to Tathāgata-garbha, while saying that 'it is called Tathāgata-garbha because the body of One Mind is defined as Original Enlightenment and it causes phenomenon depending on ignorance.' In order to explain this, he 'coins' the expression of Miraculous Understanding and provides expands the existing understanding of One Mind by adding the meaning of Miraculous Understanding to the understanding of One Mind. And heexplains Miraculous Understanding on the basis of the property of Nirmāṇa-kāya that does not adopt inanimate objectivity, which shows that Wonhyo's One Mind exposes the changeable meaning of an absolute aspect and the unchangeable meaning of a phenomenal aspect at the same time. Wonhyo quoted the concept of Miraculous Understanding in order to explain changeability of an absolute aspect rather than its unchangeability, and unchangeability of a phenomenal aspect rather than its changeability. And finally, Wonhyo's Miraculous Understanding of One Mind shows that the real nature of Original Enlightenment is miraculous by itself. And the meaning of Miraculous Understanding belongs in the Ninth Consciousness, Amala-vijñāna, rather than being restricted to the eighth consciousness, Ālaya-vijñāna. In this way, Wonhyo harmonizes the Eight Consciousnesses theory of Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith and the Nine Consciousnesses theory of Vājrasamādhi–Sūtra through dynamics and Miraculous Understanding of One Mind. As a result, Wonhyo enlarged the extension of One Mind understanding by granting the meaning of dynamics and Miraculous Understanding to One Mind, which challenged the existing interpretation of his time. (shrink)

In a recent article, the writer has broached the topic of indentifying distinctions in the modes of commentarial discourse within the exegetical works of the the Korean scholiast Wonhyo (617-686), taking note of (1) a rational/logical form of discourse that attempts to elucidate the point of a passage — and especially to resolve any doctrinal problems contained therein — using clear rational argumentation, and (2) an intuitive, poetic, form of discourse that tends to emphasize the fact that the ultimate (...) Buddhist truth is inapprehensible through discriminatory thought. In that paper, attention was paid primarily to the second mode, which tends to be seen itself in the opening and closing portions of his commentaries — or in works, or portions of works — that deal primarily with issues of faith. In that paper, examples were drawn primarily from his commentaries on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith and the Sutra of Immeasurable Life . This paper advances that discussion by paying attention to the rational/logical strain of his work, which is clearly of equal, and possibly even greater importance. Here we look at passages from two of his works that both make use of logic, yet which also subject logic itself to a critique in terms of testing the limitations of its applicability in resolving the most fundamental of religious truths. (shrink)

as a major force in the establishment of Hua-yen studies in Korea. A major component of Wŏnhyo's career that is sometimes overlooked in these characterizations, however, is the fact that he easily stands as one of the greatest Yogācāra scholars in the entire history of East Asian Buddhism, having demonstrated a mastery of the Yogācāra doctrine equaled by probably no more than three or four individuals in the entire East Asian tradition. 1 Indeed, after K'uei-chi 窺基 and Hsüan-tsang 玄奘, there (...) does not seem to be an East Asian scholar who produced the volume of Consciousness-only related materials comparable to Wŏnhyo. (shrink)

To start with, I would like to briefly say that as a result of my work in translating one of Wonhyo's major extant texts, I have come away with a greatly deepened appreciation of two aspects of his work: (1) the remarkable level of impartiality of the treatment that he gave to the wide range of Buddhist doctrine, and (2) the incredible degree of thoroughness with which he pursued his inquiries. But since these are points already well known to (...) all of our colleagues here today, I will not spend any further time elaborating on them. Instead, I would like to focus more specifically on the special contributions that Wonhyo made toward apprehending the intertwined discourses of the incoming Indian Buddhological currents that attempted to offer systematic accounts of the nature and function of human consciousness. (shrink)

Although there is no comprehensive extant biographical source for Wonhyo, scholars have been able to construct a general outline of his life based on a several fragmentary accounts. The most complete among these is that found on the Goseonsa Seodang Hwasang tapbi (Stele of the Reverend Seodang [Wonhyo] from Goseon Temple 高仙寺誓幢和尚塔碑).1 These include Wonhyo bulgi (Wonhyo the Unbridled 元曉不羈..

Leading East Asian Buddhist thinkers of the seventh century compared, analyzed, and finalized seminal epistemological and soteriological issues that had been under discussion in India and East Asia for centuries. Among the many doctrinal issues that came to the fore was the relationship between the Tathagatagarbha understanding of the human psyche and the view of basic karmic indeterminacy articulated by the new stream of Indian Yogacara introduced through the translations and writings of Xuanzang and his disciples. The great Silla scholiast (...) Wonhyo, although geographically located on the periphery in the Korean peninsula, was very much at the center of the intense discussion and debate that occurred on these topics. Through the force of his writings, he became one of the most influential figures in resolving doctrinal discrepancies for East Asian Buddhism. Although many of Wonhyo’s writings are lost, through his extant work we are able to get a solid glimpse of his profound and learned insights on the nature and function of the human mind. We can also clearly see his hermeneutical approaches and methods of argumentation, which are derived from apophatic Madhyamika analysis, the newly introduced Buddhist logic, as well as various indigenous East Asian approaches. This volume includes four of Wonhyo’s works that are especially revelatory of his treatment of the complex flow of ideas in his generation: System of the Two Hindrances, Treatise on the Ten Ways of Resolving Controversies, Commentary on the Discrimination between the Middle and the Extremes, and the Critical Discussion on Inference. (shrink)

Leading East Asian Buddhist thinkers of the seventh century compared, analyzed, and finalized seminal epistemological and soteriological issues that had been under discussion in India and East Asia for centuries. Among the many doctrinal issues that came to the fore was the relationship between the Tathagatagarbha understanding of the human psyche and the view of basic karmic indeterminacy articulated by the new stream of Indian Yogacara introduced through the translations and writings of Xuanzang and his disciples. The great Silla scholiast (...) Wonhyo, although geographically located on the periphery in the Korean peninsula, was very much at the center of the intense discussion and debate that occurred on these topics. Through the force of his writings, he became one of the most influential figures in resolving doctrinal discrepancies for East Asian Buddhism. Although many of Wonhyo’s writings are lost, through his extant work we are able to get a solid glimpse of his profound and learned insights on the nature and function of the human mind. We can also clearly see his hermeneutical approaches and methods of argumentation, which are derived from apophatic Madhyamika analysis, the newly introduced Buddhist logic, as well as various indigenous East Asian approaches. This volume includes four of Wonhyo’s works that are especially revelatory of his treatment of the complex flow of ideas in his generation: System of the Two Hindrances, Treatise on the Ten Ways of Resolving Controversies, Commentary on the Discrimination between the Middle and the Extremes, and the Critical Discussion on Inference. (shrink)

When Yogācāra specialists take on the task of trying to introduce the tradition to newcomers and nonspecialists, whether it be in a book-length project, or an article in a reference work, they inevitably choose different points of departure, depending on their particular approach to understanding Yogācāra, and Buddhism in general. Some will start with the explanation of the eight consciousnesses; some will start with the four parts of cognition; some will start with the three natures; others will start with the (...) doctrine of no-self, and so on. There is no special need to try to assess whether one of these approaches is better than the other, for indeed, in the vast and complex system that is known as Yogācāra, all of these different approaches and categories are ultimately tied into each other, and thus, starting with any one of them, one can eventually enter into all of the rest. Another approach, partially utilized in a recent introductory Yogācāra book by the Japanese Yogācāra specialist Yokoyama Kōitsu — Yasashii yuishiki ( "Easy Consciousness-Only" ), would be to take the two hindrances as a point of departure for an introduction to the Yogācāra soteriological system. This is also a viable approach, since there is nothing within the Yogācāra system that cannot be tied into or developed from the two basic categories of problems that Buddhist practitioners must work their way through: (1) afflictive/emotive disorders and (2) distorted apprehensions of reality. The two hindrances are the afflictive hindrances (kleśa-āvaraṇa ; also rendered in English as "obscurations from defilement," "veils of the afflictions," etc.) and the cognitive hindrances (jñeya-āvaraṇa , ; "obstructions of the knowable," "obscurations of omniscience," etc.). These.. (shrink)

This is a review of the book Cultivating Original Enlightenment: Wŏnhyo's Exposition of the Vajrasamādhi-Sūtra, by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., published by the Univeristy of Hawaii Press. This volume, the first to be published in the Collected Works of Wŏnhyo series, contains the translation of a single text by Wŏnhyo, the Kŭmgang Sammaegyŏng Non.

The core principles of 7th century Korean Buddhist thinker and practitioner Wŏnhyo’s harmonization in non-obstruction thought and Wilberian Integral Theory may help us to understand ourselves and the world better and thus act and live well together accordingly in this contemporary world facing global crises. Whatare particularly noteworthy in Wŏnhyo’s thought and life is that as much as reality is unobstructed (無礙) in its profound calm so can our mode of being and relationships be awakened to its natural harmony free (...) of conflicts (和諍會通). This ideal can be optimally pursued by coming back to the source of One Mind (一心) while extensively benefiting sentient beings. Wŏnhyo consistently pursued and realized this soteriological project through his practice, works, and expediently dedicated life. The most recent version of Wilber’ Integral Theory consists of Integral Approach, Integral Methodological Pluralism, and Integral Post-Metaphysics. Their core principles consist of the AQAL (all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states, and all types) and holons with their twenty tenets (holonic laws). Extensively utilizing scientific achievements Wilber attempted to map the whole developmental territory of occasions ranging from matter to Spirit or Emptiness and to formulate the Theory of Everything and then apply it to various fields including business, spirituality, and ecology. Within this framework, however, MarkEdwards tried to add an integral epistemology with its interpretive part and to complement Wilber’s more evolutionary ranking ascent with involutionary egalitarian descent. By also critiquing representational—and thus somewhat reifying—tendency of the AQAL framework and proposing to read it as an interpretive lens hesaves Integral Theory from internal conflicts and rendered it more consistent. Being based on experience and vast scholarship both Wŏnhyo’s and Wilberian visions have an integral nature. Whereas Wŏnhyo’s Enlightenment-anchored high vision-logic enabled him to actualize harmonization unobstructedly, backed by scientific achievements as well as his practice Wilber pioneered the AQAL Integral Theory, and then by adding an interpretive dimension Wilber has made it more balanced and consistent system. Now facing the human-caused threats of various global crises as well as the usual complexities of our ordinary life, we need to draw on mankind’s cultural resources including these two spectacular achievements. We may then further develop these soteriological visions in such a way as to satisfy hopefully all justifiable needs of men as well as the world in a futuristic perspective. (shrink)

본 논문은『十門和諍論』〈佛性有無和諍門〉에 나타난 불성 유 · 무(佛性有無)에 대한 논쟁 및 이에 대한 원효(617∼686) 해석의 특성을 검토하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 기존 연구에서는 유성 · 무성론의 논법보다 원효의 화쟁 내용이나 일심과의 관련에 초점을 두었다. 하지만『十門和諍論』의 불성 논의에는 원효의 회통 부분이 남아 있지 않다. 따라서 유성론과 무성론의 논쟁에 대한 원효 해석을 통해 화쟁 방식을 추론할 수밖에 없다는 점에서, 원효가 불성 유 · 무(佛性有無) 논의를 정리하는 방식에 대한 검토가 필요하다고 보았다.BR 이러한 시각에서 본 논문에서는 불성 유 · 무에 대한 두 입장의 타당성과 이에 대한 (...) 원효 해석의 특성을 검토하고자 한다. 이를 통해 귀류법(prasaṅga) 등 전통적 논법을 사용하면서도 오류논법 등을 포섭하여 부정을 통한 긍정으로 이쟁(異諍)을 화(和)하는 방식을 분석할 것이다. 또한 법성(dharmatā)과 도리(yukti)의 차원에서 다양한 경증과 이증을 통해 해당 논의를 회통하는 방식을 검토할 것이다.BR 『十門和諍論』잔간에서는 유성론과 무성론의 양 입장을 서술한 후, 관련 오류를 지적하는 방식으로 논의가 진행되고 있다. 단, 무성론 비판에서 경증 자체가 아니라 경증에 대한 잘못된 해석이나 논리적 오류만을 드러내는 점을 고려해 보면, 유성론 비판에서도 이와 유사한 형태를 취했을 것으로 추정된다. 특히『釋華嚴敎分記圓通鈔』의 인용내용 등에 의거할 때, 산실부에서 이어졌을 화쟁은 대승적 견지에서 양론을 동등하게 포섭했을 것으로 생각된다. 다만 부정 이후, 긍정을 유도한다는 점에서『涅槃宗要』의 긍정적 종합과 달리, ‘선별적 부정 및 관점에 따른 긍정’ 방식이 활용되었을 것으로 보인다. (shrink)

Among the numerous distinctive aspects of the work of the noted Korean scholar-monk Wonhyo is the broad range of traditions and texts that he accorded treatment — along with the unusual level of fairness and seriousness he brought to such works — an indication of his lack of sectarian bias. Another distinctive aspect of his work as an exegete is the extent to which his "religious" attitude — his concern for the nurturance of the faith in the minds of (...) his readers inevitably rises to the forefront of his works. Thus, what he has to say about the idea of "faith" 信 in the context of a Pure Land work is a matter of considerable interest. (shrink)

Korean Buddhism is distinctive within the broader field of East Asian Buddhism for the pronounced degree of its syncretic discourse. Korean Buddhist monks throughout history have demonstrated a marked tendency in their essays and commentaries to focus on the solution of disagreements between various sects within Buddhism, or on conflicts between Buddhism and other religions. While a strong ecumenical tendency is noticeable in the writings of dozens of Korean monks, among the most prominent in regard to their exposition of syncretic (...) philosophy are Wŏnhyo 元曉 617-686), Pojo Chinul 普照知訥 1158-1210) and Hamheo Kihwa 涵虚己和 1376-1433). (shrink)

Disc 1. Life's great questions: Asian perspectives ; The Vedas and Upanishads: the beginning -- Disc 2. Mahavira and Jainism: extreme nonviolence ; The Buddha: the middle way -- Disc 3. The Bhagavad Gita: the way of action ; Confucius: in praise of sage-kings -- Disc 4. Laozi and Daoism: the way of nature ; The Hundred Schools of preimperial China -- Disc 5. Mencius and Xunzi: Confucius's successors ; Sunzi and Han Feizi: strategy and legalism -- Disc 6. Zarathustra (...) and Mani: dualistic religion ; Kautilya and Ashoka: Buddhism and empire -- Disc 7. Ishvarakrishna and Patanjali: Yoga ; Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu: Buddhist theories -- Disc 8. Sima Qian and Ban Zhao: history and women ; Dong Zhongshu and Ge Hong: eclecticism -- Disc 9. Xuanzang and Chinese Buddhism ; Prince Shotoku, Lady Murasaki, Sei Shonagon -- Disc 10. Saicho to Nichiren: Japanese Buddhism ; Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva: Hindu Vedanta -- Disc 11. Al-Biruni: Islam in India ; Nanak and Sirhindi: Sikhism and Sufism -- Disc 12. Han Yu to Zhu Xi: Neo-Confucianism ; Wang Yangming: The study of heart-mind -- Disc 13. Dogen and Hakuin: Zen Buddhism ; Zeami and Sen no Rikyu: Japanese aesthetics -- Disc 14. Wonhyo to King Sejong: Korean philosophy ; Padmasambhava to Tsongkhapa: Tibetan ideas -- Disc 15. Science and technology in premodern Asia ; Muhammad Iqbal and Rabindranath Tagore -- Disc 16. Mohandas Gandhi: Satyagraha, or soul-force ; Fukuzawa Yukichi and Han Yongun -- Disc 17. Kang Youwei and Hu Shi ; Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong -- Disc 18. Modern legacies ; East and West. (shrink)

1. What is Korean Philosophy? 2. What is Philosophy? : Philosophy as Axial Ideas, and Philosophy as Modern ideas 3. What are the distinctions of Korean Philosophy? 1. What is Korean Philosophy? What is Philosophy? It represents human, universal ideas. Does there exist Korean Philosophy that could represent the prevalent and universal ideas among Koreans, within the Korean regions? There are two popular meanings of Philosophy: a narrow meaning and a broad one. Korean Philosophy does not exist as philosophy within (...) the narrow meaning. Philosophy (philosophy = philia+sophia) means “love (philia) of wisdom (sophia)” in the narrow sense that appeared as a demotic term in ancient Greece, and it became a technical term afterward. In the broad sense of philosophy,there are Arabic, Indian, and Chinese Philosophy. They mainly declare their existence through their respective philosophical histories. What is Korean Philosophy? In the narrow definition of ancient Greece, Korean Philosophy first appeared in the Modern Age (1860 A.D.). But In the broad definition of Arabia, India, and China, Korean Philosophy first appeared in “Age of Three Kingdoms of Korea” (37 B.C. ~688 A.D.). Is there a distinct, Korean Philosophy? Korean Philosophy can be defined in two ways: by the philosophy of the Axial Idea and by the philosophy of modern ideas. There are three periods in the history of Korean Philosophy: Korean original, traditional, and modern philosophy. Is there a distinct, Korean Philosophy? The distinctions of the Philosophy native to Korea are based on: 1) contents of “Josunchendook” (Sanhaegyung) 2) terms of “Gojosun,” (Samgukyusa) 3) “Punglu” (Samguksagi) 4) “Chenbugyung” (Handangogi). In these texts are these concepts: 1) the ideas of human respect in “Josunchendook”, 2) the philosophy of the mutual, respectful relations in “Gojosun”, 3) the synthesis ideas from three doctrines - Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism-in “Pungludo”, and 4) an integration of these three concepts (1 to 3) in“Chenbugyung”; their characteristic is state philosophy, and is seen as modern inter-subjectivity. The distinction of Korean traditional philosophy is one that contains thorough, synthetic ideas (e.g., Wonhyo's idea of one Buddhism that contains all Buddhist sects, Euichon's Chentaejong, Jinul's Jogaejong and so on). These ideas have achieved international renown due to their thoroughness and precision. All types of Korean, traditional philosophy have the trait of thoroughness, whether they stem from primarily Buddhist and Confucian thought. Korean modern philosophy includes the philosophical products (or thoughts) of seven Korean national societies of philosophy. Korean modern philosophy must study modern Korea society. It is changing the Candle spiritual Revolution.This Revolution claims not modern Rights of freedom, equality, and benevolence, but Rights to live all lives altogether. It is happening in the background of two fears: a fear of crazy ox and a fear of distrust society system. The Subject of candle Revolution is mass in the streets, networks, and homes. They have both sunin and democratic citizen minds. While candles fire in the streets, internets, and homes, Candle Revolution is continuing forever in Korean mind. (shrink)

We can find some of the works of Indian Buddhist philosophers that prove the authenticity of the Mahāyāna sutras within Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese textual sources. *Jayasena’s critique of *Asvabhāva’s proof was first introduced in the commentaries of Kuiji. Numerous references to *Jayasena in Chinese Yogācāra scriptures indicate that he was regarded as a Yogācāra master. His revised proof was further revised by Xuanzang. According to Xuanzang’s biographies, *Jayasena was an Indian lay Buddhist scholar who had many non-Buddhist disciples. It (...) is, therefore, possible that he discussed the authenticity of the Mahāyāna sutras with his disciples. Following Kuiji’s introduction of *Jayasena’s proof in East Asia, this proof and Xuanzang’s critique have been widely discussed. Wonhyo, one of the most famous Silla Buddhist scholars, critiqued Xuanzang’s revision and published his revised formula. Zenju, a representative Yogācāra master of the Nara period, pointed out some logical problems to be seen in Wonhyo’s revision, but did not provide any alternative. Proof of the authenticity of the Mahāyāna sutras was originally developed as a result of interactions between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna Buddhists. However, the purpose of the proof seems to have shifted from being based on arguments with actual opponents to internal discussions among Mahāyāna Buddhists, especially within East Asia. (shrink)