• 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.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.36
• /
• pp.163-202
• /
• 2009

The poems of Shin Suk-ju can be divided into two periods around the political change by King Sejo; his poems from the former period show that the poet enjoyed abundant pride and leisurely spirit in the self-satisfying world driven by his determination to maintain a pure heart and save and awaken the people during the reign of King Sejong. His ideology of awakening the people, however, was the product of his heroic consciousness to achieve immortal fame. It was his heroic consciousness and determination to sacrifice his life for fame according to the mandate from Heaven that made him join the political change by King Sejo. His poems from the latter period clearly reveal that the way of his life to pursue fame didn't bring him spiritual satisfaction and happiness. He confessed that his conscience was destroyed as he joined King Sejo in his political change and the deeds he achieved and further his life itself were all in vain. He lost the values or orders he pursued, which caused instability in his life. Facing such instability head-on, he argued that right and wrong, true and false, and good and evil mentioned in the world were all subjective and groundless. Furthermore, he realized all the things and creatures of the world were nothing but phantoms. Those perceptions he had were based on Madhyamaka of Buddhism. Going through such a thinking process, the poet wrote about his mentality of a false reputation with ideal mentality. Heroic consciousness, Buddhist thinking, and pursuit of mentality of a false reputation found in his poems make also frequent appearances in the poems by major literary men in the latter half of the 15th century such as Seo Geo-jeong. His serious searches to overcome his conscientious agony and sense of futility about life had influences on the attitudes toward life and literature of the official literary men of the times. Seong Hyeon's statement that the major literary figures of the times inherited the literary tradition of Shin Suk-ju was not a rhetoric by courtesy.

• 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, ${\acute{s}}{\bar{u}}nya$, $madhyam{\bar{a}}pratipad$.