• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.419-449
• /
• 2016

The Russian icon and Korean tangwha (幀畵, altar portrait of Buddha) are based on the similarity of the divine Being. Each has the characteristic index that forms an existential connection with the object and at the same time, implies the symbolic meaning of the scriptures and doctrines of the Russian Orthodox and Buddhists. Russian icon and Korean tangwha with these attributes have origins in the Byzantine, India and China. Unlike most religious art, Russian icon and Korean tangwha clearly reveal profane orientation and mystical elements. This artistic phenomenon has evolved from the mystical religious culture in Russia and tantric rituals of the early Joseon period. Iconostasis, created from historical figures of the Old Testament, Jesus, the New Testament represent the principles of the macrocosm. Each icon of iconostasis has integrity, while each floor has another narrative and a meta-discourse on the entire composition. Three-Platforms of amrtakundalin can also have a huge epic that is directed from the Low-Platform to the High-Platform for the purpose of salvation. While the narrative of iconostasis has a time structure, from the beginning of the universe up to date in chronological time, amrtakundalin have pictorial transitions of time and space that rises from this life to a heavenly world. Despite the different world views of the Russian Orthodox and Buddhists, iconographical format and symbolism of heaven and hell in the Iconostasis, Last Judgment and amrtakundalin are similar. There is a constant antagonism between heaven and hell, light and darkness, water and flame. Iconographical contents include the water of life and nectar, the book of life and 'eoppu', and the scales and mirror of Karma that discriminate between the good and evil before judgment. The dualistic coordinate concept such as light and darkness, life and death, or heaven and hell that appears in the narrative structure of iconostasis, the Last Judgment and amrtakundalin leads the people to spiritual awakening.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.146
• /
• pp.137-162
• /
• 2018

Zen Psychology refers to the psychology of Zen Buddhism as a field of Buddhist psychology. This paper examines the psychology of human beings, focusing on the "Platform Sutra" written by Huineng, the founder of Patriarchal Zen, and the southern Zen school. According to the classification of Buddhist psychology, Zen psychology is divided into theory of Zen mind, theory of Zend mind function, and Zen psychotherapy. In theory of Zen mind, Huineng explains the mind based on self-nature, and explains the theory of dharma, theory of humanity, theory of dependent origination, and worldview though self-nature. Every human mind has its own original character of self-nature. When one's own mind with self-nature is revealed, it is the basic mind. When it is covered, it is the mind of common people. Self-nature is characterized by dharma construction, incompetence, non-naming, cleanliness, equality, and self-Buddhahood. In the theory of dharma, dharma is non-dual and is equal. The theory of humanity is divided into two groups according to the sharpness and dullness or capacity of the human being. From theory of dependent origination, you can see the mobility of cover and revealment, enlightment and delusion, sacred and common. In the worldview, the world and phenomena are the functions of self-nature and one's own mind. The theory of Zen mind function deals with wisdom and defilement of common people. The function of wisdom is to know the whole and one at the same time, and is intangible. Defilement of common people is an inner common people that cover the functions of wisdom. In Zen psychotherapy, in order to eliminate the gap between human and dharma, seeing into self-nature is suggested and the goal. In teleology, the goal is to reveal and see the self-nature covered by defilements. As a methodology from cover to revealment, Huineng interprets the traditional methodology as a new interpretation from the viewpoint of the mind, and presents Sammu as its own methodology. Based on the absence of attachment, Huineng proposed a methodology of No-abiding, No-thought and No-form, to gather mind on reality and treat all things equally. Based on this, Huineng proposed a new methodology for dealing with karma through repentance and vows, and a methodology for edification. In view of the Four Noble Truth, it is the phenomenon that self-nature is covered, the cause of defilement and the mind, the aim of seeing the self-nature which is covered, and the way of revealing the covered self-nature is presented. In this sense, the Zen Psychology of Platform Sutra is psychology of self-nature.

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

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.257-286
• /
• 2019

This study aims to explain theodicy in Daesoon Jinrihoe using established theodicies. Theodicy in Daesoon Jinrihoe can be described as follows: within the worldview of Daesoon Jinrihoe, the problems of evil and suffering are better addressed by analyzing the problem of mutual contention. Accordingly, theodicy in Daesoon Jinrihoe is a matter which should be discussed only in regards to the time period known as the Former World and the transition period after the Reordering Works that leads up to the Later World. The Later World does not operate under patterns of mutual contention. Consequently, there will be no suffering. Therefore, issues of theodicy are irrelevant in the Later World. Theodicy should be dealt differently as it pertains to the Former World and the previously mentioned transition period. Daesoon Thought posits that there is an underlying principle presides over the cosmos, and the divine beings act in accordance with it and perform specific duties in their own subdivisions. The cosmic principle is able to contain cycles of both Sanggeuk ('mutual destruction' in general usage, but 'mutual contention' in Daesoon Thought related to the Former World) and sangsaeng ('mutual generation' in general usage and 'mutual beneficence' in Daesoon Thought related to the Later World). Suffering came into being due to mutual contention. However, mutual contention was not set into motion maliciously, but was arranged instead to facilitate the realization of greater values such as growth and development. In other words, mutual contention are not products of a moral value the nature of which is bad or wrong. Yet, since the world has operated under mutual contention from time immemorial, a nearly incalculably vast multitude of grievances have accumulated. In addition, the divine beings who had operated under mutual contention often made mistakes and spread confusion. This extreme situation resulted in tremendous disasters breaking out all over the world. Perhaps this particular theodicy could be named "Dualistic Sanggeuk Theology (Dualistic Theodicy of Mutual Contention)." After the divine beings reported to the Supreme God that the world had fallen into a serious crisis, the Supreme God penetratingly examined the circumstances of the world and then descended to Earth as a human being named Jeungsan. As Jeungsan practiced the Reordering Works of Heaven and Earth, the Great Opening was preordained by Him. As a result, the transition period started, and from that point onward, theodicy should be described differently. It is presumed that all creatures will be judged at the time of the Great Opening. This will result in the annihilation of all wicked beings including both divine beings and humans. There will also be the establishment of an earthly paradise as well as grievance resolution for all beings prior the Great Opening. This can also be called "The Eschatological Theodicy of the Resolution of Grievances." Theodicy in Daesoon Jinrihoe adopts the two theodicies mentioned above. In addition to that, various theodicies from other traditions such as Irenaean ("soul-making") Theodicy, Free Will Theodicy, Recompense Theodicy, Afterlife Theodicy, Karma Samsara Theodicy, theodicy of participation, and Communion Theodicy can all potentially be applied on a case by case basis.