지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Daeseung saron hyeonui gi, composed by a monk by the name of Hyegyun 慧均, about whom conspicuously little more is known than that he flourished at the turn from the 6th to the 7th century, studied under the Chinese master Fa-lang 法朗(507～581) and at a certain stage occupied the position of a Seungjeong 僧正, presents in detail the major ideas of the Samnon teachings as taught by what has been regarded the mainstream school of that time. Moreover, as it shows clearly the differences between the thought of this Samnon faction and that of the conflicting Jiron 地論, Seomnon 攝論, Seongsil 成實 and Bidam 毘曇 etc., it provides very important material also for the study of the theories of these other factions. Until now, the work has been known as a Buddhist text from China. However, if we analyze the contents carefully, we can discern that it was not written in China, but in ancient Korea, or, more specifically, in Baekje.
To begin with, in this work none other than the inhabitants of Tamna 耽羅 are presented as an example of barbarians impossible to civilize by teaching rites and music. Likewise, other phenomena usually not found in Chinese materials appear, such as the designation of the states located in Northern an Southern China as “O(guk)” 吳(國) and “No(guk)” 魯(國). In particular, one may say that the fact that the author's describing his place of sojourn(“here”, chagan 此間) as a place different from China displays directly that the text was compiled in another area.
Described as a temple of “these times and in this area” (geumsi chagan 今時此間), Bohuisa 寶憙寺 is mentioned, which on account of a recently discovered wooden tablet dating to the Baekje period has been identified as a temple in the area of the Baekje capital Sabi. A temple bearing the name Bohuisa does not appear in any other record except this wooden tablet from Baekje. Also, regarding the uniqueness of the expression bohui 寶憙, which does not appear in the Buddhist sutras, not to speak of any other writings, we may be inclined to think that this a temple of this name might have existed only in Baekje.
Furthermore, Baekje, having subjugated Tamna and being in control of it since an early stage, considered the people living there as savages. This conforms to the portrayal of the people from Tamna in the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi. Likewise, given the circumstance that Baekje engaged in exchange with the Southern and Northern Chinese dynasties via the lower area of Yangzi River and the Shan-dung peninsula, it seems plausible that as a designation for Southern and Northern dynasties one used “O(guk)” 吳(國) and “No(guk)” 魯(國).
In the light of above mentioned circumstances one may say that it is evident that the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi was compiled not in China, but in the Korean state of Baekje. Before, through records on the transmission of Baekje Buddhism to Japan one understood that Samnon was a major current within it, but could not know its thought contents or structural form. Now, through the contents of the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi compiled in Baekje a concrete understanding of the contents of the Samnon teachings propagated in Baekje, and, beyond, of Baekje Buddhism in general should be possible. Furthermore, we may consider this work as being of great value in as much as it provides material offering important insights not only for the understanding of Baekje Buddhism, but also for a better grasp on how the Buddhism of the Three Kingdoms period found a continuation in the Unified Silla period.
To begin with, in this work none other than the inhabitants of Tamna 耽羅 are presented as an example of barbarians impossible to civilize by teaching rites and music. Likewise, other phenomena usually not found in Chinese materials appear, such as the designation of the states located in Northern an Southern China as “O(guk)” 吳(國) and “No(guk)” 魯(國). In particular, one may say that the fact that the author's describing his place of sojourn(“here”, chagan 此間) as a place different from China displays directly that the text was compiled in another area.
Described as a temple of “these times and in this area” (geumsi chagan 今時此間), Bohuisa 寶憙寺 is mentioned, which on account of a recently discovered wooden tablet dating to the Baekje period has been identified as a temple in the area of the Baekje capital Sabi. A temple bearing the name Bohuisa does not appear in any other record except this wooden tablet from Baekje. Also, regarding the uniqueness of the expression bohui 寶憙, which does not appear in the Buddhist sutras, not to speak of any other writings, we may be inclined to think that this a temple of this name might have existed only in Baekje.
Furthermore, Baekje, having subjugated Tamna and being in control of it since an early stage, considered the people living there as savages. This conforms to the portrayal of the people from Tamna in the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi. Likewise, given the circumstance that Baekje engaged in exchange with the Southern and Northern Chinese dynasties via the lower area of Yangzi River and the Shan-dung peninsula, it seems plausible that as a designation for Southern and Northern dynasties one used “O(guk)” 吳(國) and “No(guk)” 魯(國).
In the light of above mentioned circumstances one may say that it is evident that the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi was compiled not in China, but in the Korean state of Baekje. Before, through records on the transmission of Baekje Buddhism to Japan one understood that Samnon was a major current within it, but could not know its thought contents or structural form. Now, through the contents of the Daeseung saron hyeonui gi compiled in Baekje a concrete understanding of the contents of the Samnon teachings propagated in Baekje, and, beyond, of Baekje Buddhism in general should be possible. Furthermore, we may consider this work as being of great value in as much as it provides material offering important insights not only for the understanding of Baekje Buddhism, but also for a better grasp on how the Buddhism of the Three Kingdoms period found a continuation in the Unified Silla period.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ.《大乘四論玄義記》에 대하여
Ⅲ. 중국 찬술설의 문제점
Ⅳ. 백제 찬술설의 근거
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
백제인의 미의식
역사학보
2006 .12
-
4~7세기 백제의 경계와 그 변화 -경기와 충청지역을 중심으로-
백제문화
2018 .01
-
중국계 백제관료에 대한 고찰
史叢(사총)
2012 .01
-
5~6세기 백제의 중층적 묘제교류와 그 정치적 상호작용
한국사학보
2013 .11
-
4~6세기 백제에서의 중국계 이주민의 정착과 활동
역사와현실
2020 .09
-
유물ㆍ유적을 통해 본 百濟建國說話
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
2001 .09
-
백제에 대하여
우리말글
2000 .12
-
5세기 중후반 백제의 대외관계
역사와현실
2007 .03
-
한국 詠史樂府에 나타난 對百濟史 認識考
漢文古典硏究
2016 .01
-
백제 후기의 불교학의 전개과정
불교학연구
2011 .01
-
일본의 도래계 사원과 백제 유민의 동향Ⅰ : 大阪ㆍ大津ㆍ東國ㆍ吉備의 고고학 성과를 중심으로
한국사학보
2013 .11
-
사비기 백제의 對中관계와 문화교류 - 도교 · 불교를 중심으로 -
목간과문자
2020 .06
-
백제 국가형성사 연구 동향과 과제
동북아역사논총
2018 .09
-
4세기 말~5세기 초엽 ‘백제왕(百濟王)’호의 책봉 배경과 ‘도독백제제군사(都督百濟諸軍事)’호의 의의
역사와현실
2020 .03
-
근ㆍ현대 한국 사학의 후백제 서술
한국고대사연구
2004 .09
-
永樂 6년 고구려의 백제 침공 원인에 대한 검토 - 〈廣開土王碑〉 辛卯年 기사의 재해석을 중심으로 -
목간과문자
2020 .06
-
위덕왕대 백제와 남북조의 관계
역사와현실
2006 .09
-
麗ㆍ濟戰爭史의 再檢討
고구려발해연구
2006 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-018326837