• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.73-92
• /
• 2004

The present article deals with the concept 'ekayāna' as the spirit of the times in the period of Unifying War in Shilla, which is embodied in the thought of Wonhyo and Euisang. This article is divided into five sections. Section I introduces the background of research history regarding the spirit of the age during the Unifying War, and explaines the reason why we adopted two thinkers such as Wonhyo and Euisang, especially the concept 'ekayāna' of the two as a subject for inquiry. Section II discusses on the hermeneutical difference between the Chinese Faxiang sect and Wonhyo regarding the interpretation of one passage from Saṃdhinirmocana-Sūtra, in which the relation between ekayāna and triyāna is explained. It is noteworthy that Faxiang sect places emphasis on the differentiation of triyāna, but Wonhyo gives emphasis to equality of ekayāna. Section III refers to the hermeneutical horizons of Wonhyo which is connoted in the interpretation of Saṃdhinirmocana-Sūtra, especially focusing on the concept 'ekayāna'. Here we can make a conclusion as follows; Firstly, the 'ekayāna' in Wonhyo is immanent in 'triyāna' and at the same time transcendental from 'triyāna', so to speak 'com-transcendetal' with 'triyāna'. Secondly, there is inseparable and unmixable relation between 'ekayāna' and beings. In another words, 'ekayāna' is śūnyatā. Thirdly, 'ekayāna' is a kind of universal truth(普法 pŭ fă) in that it offers the benefit to open and develop the immanent buddhadhātu of all living lives. In addition to Wonhyo's thought on ekayāna, section IV refers to the concept 'ekayāna' of Euisang. On Euisang, 'ekayāna' is 'the perfect teaching(圓敎 yuán jiào)' and 'pratītyasamutpāda'. From this point of view, we can conclude that the thought on ekayāna between the two, Wonhyo and Euisang is not different, and completely coherent. As a result, as it is concluded in section V, it is also clear that ekayāna has 'com-transcendental' relation to triyāna. Therefore we can safely make a conclusion that the spirit of the times in the period of Unifying War in Shilla among the leading thinkers is the vision for 'com-transcendency'.

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