• English & American cultural studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2014

Arne Naess' ecocentrally-oriented worldview of 'Self-realization' has been continually attacked by sociocultural critics since it was launched in the early 1970s. Especially ecofeminists and social ecologists criticize that the concept of Self-realization cannot accept social & cultural particularity enough. In other words, they assert that Deep Ecology cannot efficiently resist interpersonal hierarchy. Concentrating their criticism on compassion just for nonhuman beings, the interpersonal equality-oriented critics claim that Deep Ecology should incorporate voices of marginalized humans within their eco-centered world view. Even if Naess recently recognizes necessity to draw more attention to sociohistorical particularity, still unchanged remains essentialism in his neological term 'Self-realization.' Compared to exclusiveness in Naess' Self-realization, the Buddhist worldview of Interdependent Arising(pratityasamutpada) favors both intraspeciel egalitarianism and interpersonal equality as well. The very insight that all beings dependently co-originate reasons compassion for historically marginalized humans as well as nonhuman beings. Accordingly, today's environmentalism might better its efficiency as it goes toward the inclusive Buddhist world view of interdependent arising. For the human being tends to respond more readily to his or her individually urgent problems than their remote social matters.

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