• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.130
• /
• pp.363-380
• /
• 2014

유식불교에서 신(身)은 안 이 비 설 신 5근(根)을 갖춘 몸인 유근신(有根身)이며, 심(心)은 일단 의식을 일으키는 것, 즉 의식(意識)의 소의(所依)인 의근(意根)이다. 유식은 불교 본래의 무아론적 관점에 따라 의근은 개별적 사유 실체로서의 자아도 아니고, 그렇다고 5근과 마찬가지의 색법, 즉 물리적 심장이나 뇌일 수도 없으며, 나아가 이전 순간의 의식에 불과한 것도 아니라고 논한다. 따라서 유식은 의근을 제6의식과 구별되는 또 다른 식, 제7말나식(자아식)으로 간주한다. 그러나 유식에서 말나식은 실재하는 식이 아니라, 자신(자아)이 실재하지 않는다는 무아(無我)를 모르는 한, 존재하는 망상의 식, 비량(非量)의 식이다. 즉 말나식은 자신보다 더 심층의 식인 제8아뢰야식(일체 현상세계를 형성하는 근본식)의 활동을 알지 못하는 무명 불각(不覺)으로 인해, 자신을 그 세계 속 일부분인 유근신의 주체(자아)로 여기고 집착하는 식이다. 결국 유식에서 궁극의 심(心)은 견(見) 상(相)으로 이원화되기 전의 심층 아뢰야식이고, 개별적인 신(身)과 물리적 세계는 모두 그 아뢰야식의 변현 결과이다.

• Health and Mission
• /
• s.5
• /
• pp.30-44
• /
• 2006

인간의 본래적 성품과 유식불교에서 분류하는 인간의 마음의 세가지(집착, 관계, 완성)존재형식으로부터 초월적인 존재를 전제하고 있는 영성은 오히려 불교에서는 법성, 각성, 자성,불성의 용어로 표현되어 진다.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.27
• /
• pp.39-61
• /
• 2009

Numerous Researches on the Buddhist perspective of Wonhyo agree that the Mind is the core principle of Wonhyo's Buddihist perspective. Based on prior research, this paper identifies the philosophy of Mind-only(vijñaptimātratā) in the broader perspective, that is, "Mind is the first principle of the existence", as the core thought of Wonhyo. The objective of this paper is to reorganize the systematic theories of consciousness, one of the principle sectors of Wonhyo's philosophy of vijñaptimātratā. One can find most systematic texts of consciousness of Wonhyo in 『GiSilRonSo』 and 『GiSilRonByeolGi』. Although 『GeumGang SamMaeGyeongRon』 includes some interpretations of consciousness, it is difficult to formulate a consistent structure based on it. Beside tā.JangEui』, which discusses the meaning of vijñaptimātratā centering around affliction, Wonhyo's opinion about important issues of vijñaptimātratā philosophy such as ālayavijñāna, permeation, bījadharma, and aspects of perception appears in fragments. Thus, this paper focuses on 『GiSilRonSo』 and 『GiSilRon ByeolGi』, Wonhyo's interpretation of 『Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith』(大乘起信論), as well as 『IJangEui』, 『PanBiRyangRon』 and 『Geum GangSamMaeGyeongRon』. The researcher examines how one-mind, tathāgatagarbha, and ālayavijñāna become the principles of 'neither arising nor ceasing'(不生滅) and 'arising and ceasing'(生滅) of all beings. The process of how one-mind develops mind in terms of the Absolute(心眞如門) and mind in terms of Phenomena(心生滅門) and its ontological structure are also investigated. In addition, the philosophical significance of Wonhyo's interpretation of tathāgatagarbha and ālayavijñāna analyzed. Besides, the method how various theories about vijñāna from Tathāgatagarbha's and Yogācāra's philosophy can be synthesized is examined based on Wonhyo's arguments. The four aspects of existence(caturākāra 四相) -arising(生), abiding(住), changing(異), and ceasing(滅)- which is transformed according to stages and dimensions of 'arising and ceasing', and phases of mind such as delusion of three fine states(三細) and six rough states(六麤), five consciousness(五意), and six defiled states(六染) are interpreted based on Tathāgatagarbha's and Yogācāra's philosophical system.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.116
• /
• pp.225-256
• /
• 2010

The two school $M{\bar{a}}dhyamika$ and $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ act as a representative of $Mah{\bar{a}}y{\bar{a}}na$ Buddhism in India. But the two school disputed with each other insisting ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}-v{\bar{a}}da$ and $vij{\tilde{n}}aptim{\bar{a}}trav{\bar{a}}da$ separately. To introduce the disputation shortly is as follow. $N{\bar{a}}g{\bar{a}}rjuna$ explained the world and truth by two truth theories(二諦說) which carry out truth of a word and the dimension(spiritual enlightenment) which is absolute(ultimate) to it being lokasaṁvṛtisatya(世俗諦) about the truth which can be expressed verbally, and which is phenomenon-like (everyday) at paramaarthasatya(勝義諦). By the way, lokasaṁvṛtisatya and paramaarthasatya are actually distinction of the recognition which is not an ontological distinction. That is, lokasaṁvṛti(世俗) is paramaartha(勝義) as it is the time of seeing by the eyes of those who have realized. The two truth theories of $N{\bar{a}}g{\bar{a}}rjuna$ was developed logical more precisely by his successors. With an everyday language, the position of Candrakīrti(月稱) that it cannot be expressed as the position of $Bh{\bar{a}}vaviveka$(淸辨) that paramaarthasatya can be expressed logically is opposed to each other, and dissociates by $Sv{\bar{a}}tantrika$(自立論證派) and $P{\bar{a}}rsagika$(歸謬論證派). Confrontation of $Sv{\bar{a}}tantrika$ and $P{\bar{a}}rsagika$ is the dispute about the ability of s which is the highest truth to be proved logically. The $P{\bar{a}}rsaga$ of Candrakirti thinks that people exist truly, and is because it claims not existing in the world where a favorite thing is actually actual. However, $Bh{\bar{a}}vaviveka$ proved Sunyata(空性)을 positively based on the reliance to language and logic. Also the mokṣa of $M{\bar{a}}dhyamika$ is not recovery of original condition of $vij{\tilde{n}}apti$ which is pure in itself as $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ saying, as well as obtaining a thing which is dravya-sat as $Sarv{\bar{a}}stiv{\bar{a}}din$ saying. The mokṣa of $M{\bar{a}}dhyamika$ means a condition of liberated from karma and pains through extinction of $prapa{\tilde{n}}ca$ and discrimination by realizing the real aspect of all dharma which is said by pratītyasamutpāda, $praj{\tilde{n}}apti$, niḥsvabhāva, ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nya$, $madhyam{\bar{a}}pratipad$.

• Economic and Environmental Geology
• /
• v.37 no.5
• /
• pp.569-583
• /
• 2004

The rock properties of the West pagoda in the Gameunsaji temple site are composed mainly of dark grey porphyritic granodiorite with medium grained equigranular texture and developed with small numerous dioritic xenoliths. These xenoliths occurred with small holes due to different weathering processes. As a weathering results, the rock properties of this pagoda occur wholly softened to physical hardness because of a complex result of petrological, meteorological and biological causes. Southeastern part of the pagoda deteriorated seriously that the surface of rock blocks showed partially exfoliations, fractures, open cavities in course of granular decomposition of minerals, sea water spray and crystallization of salt from the eastern coast. The Joint between blocks has small or large fracture cross each other, contaminated and corrupted for inserting with concrete, cement mortar, rock fragments and iron plates, and partially accelerated coloration and fractures. There are serious contamination materials of algae, fungus, lichen and bryophytes on the margin and the surface on the roof stone of the pagoda, so it'll require conservation treatment biochemically for releasing vegetation inhabiting on the surface and the discontinuous plane of the blocks because of adding the weathering activity of stones and growing weeds naturally by soil processing on the fissure zone. Consisting rock for the conservation and restoration of the pagoda would be careful choice of new rock properties and epoxy to reinforce for the deterioration surfaces. For the attenuation of secondary contamination and surface humidity, the possible conservation treatments are needed.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.117
• /
• pp.35-55
• /
• 2011

This article purports to clarify the doctrinal characteristics of the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ school's hermeneutic interpretations of the "theory of the three turns of the Dharma Cakra" in the Saṃdbinirmocana-sūtra through early Indian $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ treatises such as the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}rabb{\bar{u}}mi-vy{\bar{a}}kby{\bar{a}}$ and the. $Vy{\bar{a}}khy{\bar{a}}yukti$. It will probe how these interpretations apply co the theory of two truths or that of three natures($trisvabh{\bar{a}}va$) among the main doctrines of the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ school. Especially, the peculiar characteristic of the "theory of the three turns of the Dharma Cakra" is such chat the thought of ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}$ in the lineage of $Praj{\bar{n}}{\bar{a}}p{\bar{a}}ramita-s{\bar{u}}tras$ is regarded as incomplete, as the early school of Madhyamaka represented by $N{\bar{a}}g{\bar{a}}rjuna$ is conceived of as belonging to the second period of turn. Speaking of the further details of the "theory of the three turns of the Dharma Cakra", the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ school subdivides the realm of saṃvṛti satya in $N{\bar{a}}g{\bar{a}}rjuna^{\prime}s$ theory of two truths; that is, it divides the saṃvṛti into merely linguistic existence and actual existence, and the thus-created structure of the theory of three natures on the basis of ocher-dependent nature(paratantra-$svabh{\bar{a}}va$) makes it possible to establish the doctrinal system of the thought of ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}$ that is not subject to "nihilism or ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}$ attached to evil." In effect, the above hermeneutic interpretation of the "theory of the three turns of the Dharma Cakra" is inherited into the structure of the $abh{\bar{u}}taparikalpa$ in the $Madhy{\bar{a}}nta-vibh{\bar{a}}ga$ so that, as seen in the commentary of Sthiramati, it is ascertained to apply to later doctrines through its secure establishment. To summarize its characteristics succinctly, firstly the $abh{\bar{u}}taparikalpa$ newly established as a saṃvṛti-satya is set up as the other-dependent nature, which is seen to have been set up particularly in order to sublate both the $Sarv{\bar{a}}stiv{\bar{a}}da^{\prime}s$ realist "view of being" and the Madhyamaka's "view of ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nyat{\bar{a}}$" that impairs the ocher-dependent nature as a samvṛti-satya. In other words, according to the five kinds of views suggested in Sthiramati's commentary, the three natures are seen to be presented as the fundamental truth in order to unify all the doctrinal systems available ever since the beginning of Buddhism. Then, the theory of three natures is established principally on the basis of the $abh{\bar{u}}taparikalpa$, while the two truths of the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ school are clearly ascertained to have been embedded in the structure of the $abh{\bar{u}}taparikalpa$. In fact, this might be understood to reflect the unique ontological view of reality or truth in the $Yog{\bar{a}}c{\bar{a}}ra$ School.