A Comparative Study Between the Theory of Mudogasu of Chuntae

A Comparative Study Between the Theory of Mudogasu(無道可修論) of Chuntae and the Theory of Dobulyŏngsu(道不用修論) of Majo

Cha, Cha-Seok / Wonkwang Univ.

This study inquired into a system of thought, both the theory of Mudogasu(無道可修論) by Wondon-Jigwan(圓頓止觀) of Chuntae(天台), and the theory of Dobulyŏngsu(道不用修論) by Majo-Doil(馬祖道一) who established the denomination of Hongju(洪州宗) and also considered two ideas in their similarities. Althought two great thinkers each belonged to the different sects, it is instructive what there are so many analogousness in their thoughts. Prior to Jieui of Chuntae, in other words, the prominent Buddhist philosophers in China shared the thought foundation of Jeuksaeedo(卽事而道) which was established by refinedly uniting the theory of Cheyŏng-sangjeuk(體用相卽論) with the theory of Daeseung -gyŏng(大乘經論) by tradition of China.

However, because they belonged to the different sects, it goes without saying that we can also find some points of difference between two philosophers, but it looks a bit detailed for their similarities on generalization of spiritual discipline. Also, which is not that large when we take consideration into the difference of religious personality and their background of culture and thought. These differences result from unlike vision about the world of two philosophers.

It is natural that we have to assume a cautious attitude to jump to the conclusion how the prominent Buddhist philosophers or campaigners effect on each other sequentially. Before all, they were around two hundred years away from one to another. In the next place, it is difficult to demonstrate how two philosophers have an effect and were influenced by each other through philological materials. If one was influenced by another, Of course, it is in the right that Majo was affected by Chuntae. It was known that many Buddhist monks like Budaesa(孚大士), Udu-bubyung(牛頭法融), Nam yang-Hyechung(남양혜충) and so on were influenced by Zen of Chuntae(天台禪) throughout that 200 years. However, we cannot also draw a conclusion that they have an effect and were influenced, assuming various probabilities on their mutual influence.

Two philosophers-both Chuntae and Majo-are outstanding philosophers to contribute greatly in the history of the Chinese Buddhism. The thoughts as Dobulyŏngsu which was known Majo asserted himself for the first time were already in Wondon-Jigwan of Chuntae and these thoughts had enormously affected Namjongsun(南宗禪) in the Dang(唐) and Song(宋) dynasty since then. Therefore, I think it involves consideration from various angles for these reasons. In my thought, again, it is instructive that it became an opportunity to trace the origin of thought that made way for generalization, post-absolutization and post-popularization of spiritual discipline.

The Accommodation of Ganwhaseon and Its Characteristics in Korea

Lee, Bub-san / Dongguk University

Ganhwa-seon is one of main kind of chan which was developed in China, following the teaching of Boddhidharma. Its advocate is Dahui Zonggao (大慧宗杲, ca. 1089-1163) who is a main chan master in the branch of Yanggi(楊岐派). His doctrine is introduced in his work, Seojang (書狀). In this work, Daehye recommends the chan disciplinants to practice Jojoo’s gongan that is “a dong has no Buddha nature” (狗子無佛性話).

Ganhwa seon was introduced in Korea from the Gorye dynasty. The famous seon master, Bojo Jinool at the same dynasty wrote the Ganhwagyewuron(看話決疑論). It is a guide book which is a first work that shows how to practice Ganhwa seon in Korea. Bojo’s(普照) teaching was succeeded by Hyesim (慧諶). He wrote Goojamooboolseongganbyungron (狗子無佛性看病論) which includes the way of avoiding problems that occur when the disciplinants do not practice properly. Hyesim also composed Seonmoonyumsong. It is a collection of gongans that are used in Ganhwa seon. From his on, Ganhwa seon rooted in Korea.

All kinds of chan had been introduced in Korea. Among them, the important is Caodong(曹洞), Yunmen(雲門), Linji(臨濟), Weiyang(潙仰), Fayan(法眼). However, Ganhwa seon has been the main stream of Korean seon. Even today, it is the main subject of practicing in Koren temple. It is the chacteristics of Korean Buddhism.

The Sudden and Gradual Problem in the Ganhwa Meditation


/ Meditation Counselling Research Institute

In the modern korean Buddhist, the most important dispute is the Sudden/Gradual dispute. This dispute was touched by Venerable Bhikkhu Sonchol in 1981. He was criticized Venerable Bhikkhu Bojo was National Teacher in Gorye dynasty, as an adherent of conceptual knowledge. Opening Bojo Thought Research Institute in 1987, This dispute was completely detonated.

Until now discussed issues were like this. First, What is the character of sudden awakening? Second interesting point concerns with sudden/gradual cultivation. Thirdly which system is the Ganwha Meditation. The 4th article of this dispute is a historical view of Zen. In these, first and second problem have enough debated and become clear whether right or wrong. I think third and the 4th article did not debated at all.

This paper is try to prove whether the system of the Ganwha Meditation is sudden awakening/gradual cultivation or sudden awakening/sudden cultivation. The efficiency approach to solve this task is to present the real experience of sudden awakening expressed in the text of Ganwhaseon documents. This paper presented the sayings of Ta-hui Tsung-kao(1089-1163) and Meng-shan Te-i(1231-1308?). They also have a favorable influence upon Korean Seoa tradition of Ganwha Meditation. The conclusion is that the system of the Ganwha Meditation is not sudden awakening/sudden cultivation, but sudden awakening/gradual cultivation. In the Ganwha Meditation, sudden awakening is not understanding awakening, but awakening realization awakening. It is not also ultimate enlightenment.

The idea of the Saddharma-pundarika-sutra mentioned in

The idea of the Saddharma-pundarika-sutra (法華經) mentioned in the oldest edition of 《Youkjo-Dangyoung》 from Donhwang.

Cha, Cha-seok

/ Dongguk University Gyeongju Campus

The ideas of the Saddharma-pundarika-sutra(法華經) mentioned in the Sutra calle《Youkjo-Dangyoung(육조단경)》and Hyeneung(慧能)‘s standpoint about the thoughts are as follows.

The first is the idea of sudden awakening(頓悟). Everyone has the Buddha-nature of wisdom(般若佛性) in his own interior and it called ‘Jasungbul(自成佛)’ – to become Buddha by oneself. But Hyeneung said that they could reveal their Buddha-nature of wisdom if people had entire mind on emptiness(空) without preoccupation and non-dualistic(不二的) cognizance beyond a relative dualism. In terms of that, he interpreted Sahong-seowon(四弘誓願) – The four universal vows of a Buddha or bodhisattva – was what people wanted to live a non-dualistic life to reveal their interior Buddha-nature.

The Second is what his thought is based on popularization of Buddhism. His standpoint is not Buddhism of an intellectual-oriented but easily becoming Buddha whoever comprehend their own nature(自性), which made an epoch in the aspects of the secularization movement of Buddhism. It doesn’t matter whether they read the discourses of Buddha or not. It is important how realize the Buddha-nature of wisdom that they have innately. The Sutra, in terms of that, expressed by the letters cannot be the ultimate objective. It is just what we need because the Sutra help us make sure becoming Buddha by themselves. So does reading Saddharma-Pundarika(法華經).

Thirdly, he thought the three vehicles(三乘) and the vehicle of one-ness(一乘) were an skillful means to explain the differentiation appearing in phenomenon. A human being isn’t identical. Everything like personality or appearance and so forth is different. However, that differences are substantially same when we take a side view of having Jasungbul(自成佛). An essential value of life hasn’t any distinction although there are some differences of phenomenon in Jasungbul which is represent as one-Buddha vehicle or the method of realizing the Buddha-nature of wisdom or existence of defilements and so on. Not only recognizing each difference but also emphasizing the identity in the essential dimensions is both respecting the relative values and recognizing the worldly values. The whole things can be understood in the same view, either a metaphor on trees nad plants or explanation about Dharma of the four vehicles(四乘), the goat, deer, ox carts and the great white-bullock cart of the Lotus Sutra.

Finally, Hyeneung‘s standpoint about the idea of the Dharma-flower mentioned above is so much creative. But we shouldn’t lookover that the pioneering thinkers of Dharma-flower as Chuntae-Jieui(天台智顗) and Gasang- Giljang (嘉祥吉藏) etc. pave the way for bringing out that ideology. Even if there are no direct materials which can give us the proof of mutual-relationship of influences, some resemblance is found in both the way of thinking and the thinking system.

Doing practice by Gan-Hua Seon in America

Doing practice by Gan-Hua Seon

in America

Jong-Ho(Bark, Mun Gi)

Dept. of Seon, Dongguk University

This paper look into the Gan-hua Seon practice in American society. I’d study just 3 Seon Master; Joshu Roshi, Shengyen, Seungsahn Haengwon. They are come from Japan, China, Korea and had big influence on American Seon.

All this 3 Seon Masters do not insist on Gan-hua Seon only. They are using all the methods for practice such as; Mook-jo(Soto) Seon practice, reading sutra, invoking mantra, counting breaths and so forth. If some monk said that I solved one Huadu, the Masters never admitted him to be a realized man. Because they are all stand for gradual enlightenment, rather than sudden enlightenment.

Moreover, the Seon Masters give the big questions and check the answers to their Seon students in the face of them. By using Kong-ans, the Masters lead their students to look back on their self-nature, and apply the attainments to everyday life.

Hereby, I’d like to summary the patterns of Gan-hua Seon practice in the US.

First, all the Masters have practiced strongly under their own Buddhist views.

Second, they are emphasizing on the ultimate attainment of practice, not their own methods for practice. Therefore, they are using all kinds of methods to teach their Seon students such as; counting breaths, invoking mantra, reciting buddha’s names, reading sutras, prayer chanting and so forth.

Third, they are stand for gradual enlightenment, not sudden enlightenment for practice. There are 3 stages to get enlightenment. Masters gives kong-ans to the practitioners every stage and checks the answers.

Fourth, the Masters give huadu to their Seon students for contemplating original self-nature. Not only traditional Kong-ans, but also common questions like ‘Who am I?’ are given to them.

Fifth, the Masters give questions to the Seon students and check the answers continuously. Specifically, this is the main method that the Seon Masters teach their students.

Sixth, the Masters teach to the practitioners Seon practice, and also to apply what they have learned or attained to their own everyday lives.

The Seon Masters have found many Seon Centers in the US for themselves to teach their students, and they have already been able to speak English. Furthermore, now they are transmitting Dharma to the native Americans in active.

For long time, the Seon Masters have considered how to teach the American lay-people and finally they got what the Western Seon practitioners want. Even though their methods for teaching are a little different from traditional styles, those are by far the best for the American practitioners, I think.

* Keywords

Kan-hwa Seon, Hwadu, Kong-an, Joshu Roshi, Shengyen, Seungsahn Haengwon

The study of activity and realistic recognition of an enlightened Buddhist monk

– The focus of Ven. Dong-in Lee and Ven. Moobul –

Kim, Kyung-jib / Dongguk University

After the opening of a port in Korea in 1876, an enlightened Buddhist monk who changed the Korean buddhism by introducing a new civilization, appeared in Korean society. The works of Ven. Dong-in Lee and Ven. Moobul were known in details all over the world. The two Buddhist monks were able to work supported by the enlightenment party and Japanese Buddhism. They carefully studied world trends and the development of Japan.

They realized that the wealth and power of Western Europe and Japan were results of their successful development of industry and commerce, and therefore asserted that Korea would have to do the same in order to measure up to them.

These activities and realistic recognitions were results of their concerns of a restraint of an inflow of Western civilization and a progressive direction of Korea in modern times.

Nevertheless their views that only followed the Japanese style so that overcome of the limitation, corresponded with our un-diversified actuality. However it wasn’t easy to foresee the changes of the enlightenment period at that time, and their serious and carefully analyzed views were rated highly.

* Keywords

a enlightened Buddhist monk, a enlightenment party, Japanese Buddhism, Ven. Dong-in Lee, Ven. Moobul

The Occurrence and Completion of Mercy in the Śūnyatā-vāda of Mādhyamika

– Centering around Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra –

Nam, Sooyoung / Buddhist College of Guinsa

The mahāyāna buddhism emphasizes mercy on all living beings, though it based on the śūnyatā-vāda. But the practice of śūnyatā-vāda reveals itself on the form of thorough non-attachment on all things. Therefore the śūnyatā-vāda of mādhyamika insists on the non-attachment even on nirvāṇa. But how the mercy can be possible, if bodhisattva who realized śūnyatā cuts off all attachment on all things even including all living beings?

But the mādhyamika texts show that the mercy is placed on the center of practice all the same. If so, how both the mercy and the śūnyatā can be exist together? In addition, what is the motive of mercy and by which process bodhisattva completes it? So present writer examined in such topics centering around the early mādhyamika text Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra. As the result of that examination, present writer found that the base of all practical rules is not the wisdom of prajñā but the mercy in the mādhyamika.

Also present writer found that Mahāprajñā pāramitā-śāstra asserts three kinds of mercy that are 1) the mercy which takes the all living beings as it’s object, 2) the mercy which takes dharma as it’s object, and 3) the mercy which takes no object, and the last is the highest one buddha practices.

The examination on this description of Mahāprajñā pāramitā-śāstra through Madhyamaka-śāstra and Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra shows that the mercy, which is the base of wisdom of prajñā, is completed as the most purest one by the wisdom of prajñā in it’s turn. In other words, the relation between mercy and wisdom of prajñā in the śūnyatā-vāda of mādhyamika is not antagonistic but complimentary, that is the wisdom of prajñā is attained based on the mercy and the very mercy is completed as the most purest one by the wisdom of prajñā.

The other fact, which this examination found, is that the wisdom of prajñā is not the motive of the mercy in mādhyamika, though it completes the mercy as the most purest one. On the contrarly, mādhyamika thought the mercy is the motive of wisdom of prajñā. This shows the opinion of Nakamura Hajime, that the mercy is caused by the idea of non-difference of me and others, is not correct, because the idea of non-difference of me and others can be possible by the wisdom of prajñā. So present writer made efforts to search the motive of mercy centering around Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra and Tenzin Gyatso’s exposition.

The supplementary exposition of Tenzin Gyatso to the some obscure exposition on the motive of mercy in Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra shows that the mercy is caused through the process of 1) the occurrence of empathy on sufferings, all living beings undergo, by right understanding on the suffering, 2) the occurrence of intimacy on the all living beings by right understanding of pratītyasamutpāda which means co-dependence. Therefore it would be correct that the mercy is not caused by the idea of non-difference between me and others but caused by 1) the empathy on sufferings, all living beings undergo, which occurred by right understanding on the suffering, 2) the intimacy on all living beings which occurred by right understanding of pratītyasamutpāda which means co-dependence.

But the idea of non-difference between me and others, proposed by Nakamura Hajime, is not nothing to the mercy. That is, as the wisdom of prajñā caused by the mercy completes the mercy as the most purest one, so the idea of non-difference between me and others contributes to completion of the mercy.

So the process from occurrence to completion of the mercy in the śūnyatā-vāda of mādhyamika would be 1) the occurrence of empathy on sufferings, all living beings undergo, caused by right understanding on the suffering, 2) the occurrence of intimacy on the all living beings caused by right understanding of pratītyasamutpāda meaning co-dependence. 3) the occurrence of mercy which takes all living beings as it’s object (=the occurrence of mercy), 4) the occurrence of boddhicitta, 5) the occurrence of mercy which takes dharma as it’s object by the right understanding of pudgala-nairātmya, 6) the occurrence of mercy which takes no object by the right understnding of dharma-nairātmya (=the completion of mercy).

* Keywords

mahāyāna buddhism, mādhyamika, śūnyatā-vāda, the occurrence of mercy, the completion of mercy, the wisdom of prajñā, the mercy which takes the all living beings as it’s object, the mercy which takes dharma as it’s object, mercy which takes no object, empathy on the sufferings, intimacy on the all living beings, pratītyasamutpāda meaning co-dependence

Majo(馬祖)’s Idea of Tao(道) and its Ecological Structure

Lee Bub-san / Professor of Dept of Seon studies
Dongguk University

This paper is what analyzed the passage of “平常心 is just Tao”(平常心是道) appearing in Majo’s thought of Zen(禪) from ecological point of view, which Tao is recognized as the most important value in Oriental cultural area, this analysis was done in terms of that “Tao is following the nature(道法自然)”. Not to mention, to discriminate between Tao in Majo’s thought of Zen and the one in Chinese traditional thought, this paper gives an outline about Tao in the philosophy of Lao-tse and Chung-tze(老莊思想) as the preliminary stages for analyzing Majo’s Zhen thought.

Materials for cultivation of Zen to realize actual circumstances of life is all around the natural ecology. Practicing Zen without having roots of the natural ecology is just as looking for a horn of rabbit, there is every no probability of that. Zen master’s question for Buddhist meditation(話頭) of “平常心 is just Tao” means that daily life is just the existing condition of the truth. Both the doctrine that we can gain ‘Awakening the Enlightenment’ in every life or a natural phenomenon and understanding all existences as appearance of Buddha nature are attracting public attention in terms of that they are establishing ecological ontology. Therefore, the ecological realization of Buddhism forms the basis of awakening the enlightenment through Zen cultivation. Because this society couldn’t be peaceful, unless we recognize the actual circumstances of life and realize all lives exist equally.

In spite of a materially affluent society, nowadays, it can be said human beings and an ecosystem is passing through a very serious crisis due to destroy of nature and poverty of spiritual culture. We should become aware that humankind can bring to a crisis leading to self-destruction, since it can cause polarize extremely if individual inequality and distributive discrimination will more deepen. Ecology is really a good science because it lets human beings come close to nature´s true face and expect the green future of the globe. Consequently, if we lay out a schemes which have the public practice the cultivation can enlighten their conscience in their nature through Zen cultivation, it would more revitalize ecosystem by operating on Zen thought and ecology each other. We can find that model in Majo’s thought of Zen.

* Key Words

Tao, Nature, Ordinary mind(평상심), Ecology, Buddha nature

On the ecological culture of Ahiṃsā

Kim, Chi-on / Research Professor

of Jin-Gak Buddhist Order

This paper treats on ahiṃsā(不殺生, non-violence) in Indian philosophy and Buddhism from a view of ecological culture. The crisis of ecological system of today originates from the human-oriented prejudice. As the countermeasure, the human-oriented view must be substituted for the ecological culture in basing the view of ecology-centered. Ahiṃsā and the prohibition of meat-eating can be the first step for settling ecological culture.

This research is an attempt to grasp its actual state to unravel the origin and formation of the ahiṃsā and the prohibition of meat-eating in Indian philosophy and Buddhism. This work shows that the motive forces of ahiṃsā are the fear of retribution, the sympathy of pain and great compassion. It has very important significance in Mahāyāna Buddhism that all living beings have the nature of Buddha. Taking life is the killing seed of the innate Buddhahood of living beings. Therefore, it is most difficult for killer to join Buddha’s way. That’s why we must not take life and meat-eating.

However, It must be practiced without remaining on religious commandments and doctrine in the form of hypocrisy. We must realize that we are beings who possess Buddha nature, the same as all living beings. Moreover, considering all living beings as innate and potential Buddha must be practiced.

Key Words

ecological culture, ahiṃsā, the prohibition of meat-eating, the fear of retribution, the sympathy of pain, the seed of the innate Buddhahood of great compassion.

Korean Seon Centers and their Present State

Lee, Bup-san /

Professor, Dongguk University

Korean Buddhist order of Jogye follows the tradition of Boddhidharma who is the 28th linage of the Buddha. His teaching of seon reached the highest in China at the time of the master Jogye Hyereung around the 7th century. Korean Jogye order named after this master because Doyeu, who received the inga (認可) from his linage of Seadang Jijang (738-817 C.E.) at the kingship of Heonduk (821 C.E.).

At the beginning of the introduction of seon from China to the Silla dynasty, it had various conflicts with the sects of kyo (敎) tradition. However, the conflicts settled down in Korye dynasty when ganhwaseon (看話禪) which Daehye of the Song dynasty advanced was getting popular among the Buddhists. The main center of ganhwaseon has been Songkwang-sa located at Jeolla providence since Bojo and others inspired the movement of jeonghyegyelsa (定慧結社).

In the dynasty of Joseon, the tradition of Jogye did not have its full development because the government suppressed Buddhism in general. In the time of the invasion of Japan, it has been almost disappearing. It is Gyenghoe (1849-1912 C.E.) who revived the ganhwaseon in Korea. He organized jenghye (定慧) in 1899 at the Haein-sa, and practiced seon with 17 students during winter time. After then, Bumoe-sa and Tongdo-sa and other temples opened the seon centers. In 1942, there were 68 centers and around 505 monks and nuns practiced seon.

Jogye tradition reached a further step when the master Hyobong became the first supreme patriarch in 1946. At the present time, there are 94 centers and around 2,319 monks and nuns take part in ganhwa meditation. The seon centers are the place not only for monks and nuns but also for Buddhists in general. there should be many things to give Koreans better life if they used for their well-being.

* Key Words

Korean Seon Center, Korean Buddhist order of Jogye, The present state of The senier monk at a Seon center and The Seon Temples, The reform measures Of Seon center, Ganhwa Seon.