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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2000.3
- 수록면
- 5 - 29 (25page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In Hamlet Shakespeare deals with the subject of revenge against a world full of impermanence, suffering, and desire. Shakespeare's view of the world has much in common with that of Buddhism because the teachings of the latter is based on three characteristics (The Three Signata) of the ordinary life: Impermanence (Anicca 無常), Unsatisfactoriness (Dukkha 苦), and Impersonality (Anatta 無我). These three characteristics of ordinary life are derived from the Doctrine of Dependant Co-arising (緣起說) the Buddhist theory of relativity. According to this doctrine nothing in the world is absolute, that is, everything is conditioned, relative, and interdependent. According to Buddhism, an individual is composed of Five Aggregates: Aggregates of Matter, of Sensations, of Perceptions, of Mental Formations, and of Consciousness. Naturally, man is subject to impermanence, suffering, and impersonality. Buddha teaches that an individual can achieve complete liberation from all kinds of mental defilements through a thorough understanding of the Doctrine of Dependent Co-arising. The aim of this paper is to explain the theme of revenge and the idea of immortal self in terms of the Three Signata.
Revenge, when analyzed through the Three Signata, is not achieved according to the idea of impermanence and impersonality. There is no revenger and the killed because both Hamlet and Claudius at the end of the play are not what they used to be in the beginning. At the same time they are not different persons from what they used to be at the beginning of the play. Because the characters related to the revenge are changing, and are ego-less beings, the idea of revenge naturally loses its established meaning. The so-called Hamlet's delay in revenge, considered in terms of Dependant Co-arising, is the natural result of the interaction among the characters since everything happens according to the law of cause and effect, with proper conditions. With the revenge motif Shakespeare points out the meaninglessness of revenge by showing that the total destruction of Denmark's royal family resulted from the interaction between Claudius' greed and Hamlet's will to avenge his father. He also shows that plucking out the heart of Claudius' wrongdoing is one thing and correcting it by force is another.
The corresponding reality of an idea of immortal self, which Hamlet mentions (1. 5. 66) is not found in Hamlet from a Buddhist point of view. This idea of self, which generates the desire for self - protection and self - preservation, produces such negative elements of life as harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine', selfish desire, craving, hatred, ill - will, egoism, and the like. The actions of Ghost, Claudius, Hamlet are based on this idea. In the process of the play, no eternal self is found except the incessant flow of feelings, thoughts, and individual consciousness. Hamlet comes closest to the understanding of the impermanence, suffering, and impersonality of human existence. The distance between one's recognition and its practice is the cause of this tragedy.
In conclusion, a Buddhist interpretation of Hamlet suggests Shakespeare used the revenge motif to show that revenge is impossible because the agents involved are subject to impermanence, suffering, and impersonality. His mirror held up to human nature, in the eyes of a Buddhist, reflects that same impermanence, suffering, and impersonality. Ignorance of those characteristics, too, is another source of man's tragedy. This implies that the act of killing somebody, ontologically and ethically, is killing oneself. Through Hamlet the audience comes to understand those characteristics, which deepens his wisdom and brings about a harmony in life.
Revenge, when analyzed through the Three Signata, is not achieved according to the idea of impermanence and impersonality. There is no revenger and the killed because both Hamlet and Claudius at the end of the play are not what they used to be in the beginning. At the same time they are not different persons from what they used to be at the beginning of the play. Because the characters related to the revenge are changing, and are ego-less beings, the idea of revenge naturally loses its established meaning. The so-called Hamlet's delay in revenge, considered in terms of Dependant Co-arising, is the natural result of the interaction among the characters since everything happens according to the law of cause and effect, with proper conditions. With the revenge motif Shakespeare points out the meaninglessness of revenge by showing that the total destruction of Denmark's royal family resulted from the interaction between Claudius' greed and Hamlet's will to avenge his father. He also shows that plucking out the heart of Claudius' wrongdoing is one thing and correcting it by force is another.
The corresponding reality of an idea of immortal self, which Hamlet mentions (1. 5. 66) is not found in Hamlet from a Buddhist point of view. This idea of self, which generates the desire for self - protection and self - preservation, produces such negative elements of life as harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine', selfish desire, craving, hatred, ill - will, egoism, and the like. The actions of Ghost, Claudius, Hamlet are based on this idea. In the process of the play, no eternal self is found except the incessant flow of feelings, thoughts, and individual consciousness. Hamlet comes closest to the understanding of the impermanence, suffering, and impersonality of human existence. The distance between one's recognition and its practice is the cause of this tragedy.
In conclusion, a Buddhist interpretation of Hamlet suggests Shakespeare used the revenge motif to show that revenge is impossible because the agents involved are subject to impermanence, suffering, and impersonality. His mirror held up to human nature, in the eyes of a Buddhist, reflects that same impermanence, suffering, and impersonality. Ignorance of those characteristics, too, is another source of man's tragedy. This implies that the act of killing somebody, ontologically and ethically, is killing oneself. Through Hamlet the audience comes to understand those characteristics, which deepens his wisdom and brings about a harmony in life.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 불교의 연기설과 삼법인
Ⅲ. 불교의 관점에서 본 복수: 그 무상성과 무아성
Ⅳ. 불교와 『햄릿』에 취급된 자아(Self)
Ⅴ. 결론
인용문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
셰익스피어 비극의 불교적 해석 : 『햄릿』과 『오델로』
Shakespeare Review
2002 .06
-
『햄릿』 : 분열된 욕망과 복수의 정치학
Shakespeare Review
2011 .06
-
햄릿의 허무주의
Shakespeare Review
2006 .03
-
『햄릿』에서의 복수의 불가능성과 경제적 무의식
영어영문학
2016 .02
-
복수라는 신화의 이면: 『햄릿』에 나타난 종교개혁 이후의 유령과 복수
고전 르네상스 영문학
2012 .01
-
『햄릿』영화들과 정동
새한영어영문학
2016 .02
-
〈햄릿-디 액터〉의 햄릿 이야기 연출하기
Shakespeare Review
2014 .06
-
노자와 햄릿 : 무위(無爲)와 위무(爲無)
Shakespeare Review
2010 .09
-
햄릿에서 셰익스피어의 관객 통제
고전 르네상스 영문학
2015 .01
-
『햄릿』의 애도와 우울증 분석 : 프로이드와 라깡을 경유해서
Shakespeare Review
2008 .09
-
갈등의 양상과 의미 : 햄릿의 독백을 중심으로
동서인문학
2010 .12
-
Re-reading Hamlet: Focusing on Hamlet’s Quest for the Truth
영어영문학연구
2008 .01
-
햄릿의 심리와 여성혐오
신영어영문학
2005 .11
-
Hamlet, Tragic Hero or Self-indulgence
인문언어
2014 .01
-
「햄릿」의 시적 스타일
신영어영문학
2012 .11
-
불교의 삼법인과『햄릿』
동서비교문학저널
2008 .12
-
햄릿의 자기(Self)의 재형성
Shakespeare Review
2010 .03
-
Hamlet의 Delay
Shakespeare Review
1985 .08
-
Human Nature in Hamlet
비평문학
2006 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-840-003147167