류제동
trShl1p4 ocJfnuslnoe fi20orsuea1dr5 ·
국정교과서 반대를 위한 필독서!
“가만히 있으라”는 유체이탈화법 속 침묵의 카르텔에 감연히
맞서는 책,『보리수 가지치기』발간, Jamie Hubbard & Paul L. Swanson 편저/ 류제동 역
http://blog.naver.com/tvam/220385279347
영화 <관상>에서 한명회에 대한 김내경의 명대사...파도만 보았을뿐 바람을 보지 못했소...파도를 만드는것은 바람인데..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w9thT-ay7M#t=14
如大海水，因風波動，水相風相不相捨離.
바다의 물은 바람으로 인해 파도가 되어 움직인다.
그러므로 파도의 상은 바람의 상과 따로이 떼어 놓을 수가 없다.
- 대승기신론(大乘起信論)-
파도를 만드는 바람이란 『대승기신론(大乘起信論)』의 핵심인 “소언법자, 위중생심(所言法者, 謂衆生心)”의 중생심, 곧 민중의 마음입니다. 『보리수 가지치기』에서 바로 그 민중의 마음을 둘러싼 치열한 논쟁이 전개됩니다.
『보리수 가지치기』의 취지를 권해효씨가 잘 말해주고 있네요.^^
https://youtu.be/3ZqZZqbCUjc
"불자(佛子)는 일본을 사랑해서는 안 된다" - 『보리수 가지치기』 548쪽
일본에서 명망 있는 대표적 불교학자가 이러한 주장을 하여 일본학계에 파란을 일으키며 비판불교운동은 거대한 폭풍이 되어 몰아칩니다. 배신 운운하는 누군가와는 차원이 다른 사람이 특히 일본에 있다는 것이 놀라우면서도 가슴이 아프기도 합니다.
공감하시면, 계시는 지역이나 학교 도서관에 비치하도록 신청해 주시기 바랍니다.(*^^)
See less
Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism
by Jamie Hubbard (Editor), Paul L. Swanson (Editor)
4.7 out of 5 stars 6 ratings
What is Buddhism? According to Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shiro, the answer lies in neither Ch’an nor Zen; in neither the Kyoto school of philosophy nor the non-duality taught in the Vimalakirti Sutra. Hakamaya contends that “criticism alone is Buddhism.”
This volume introduces and analyzes the ideas of “critical Buddhism” in relation to the targets of its critique and situates those ideas in the context of current discussions of postmodern academic scholarship, the separation of the disinterested scholar and committed religious practitioner, and the place of social activism within the academy.
Essays critical of the received traditions of Buddhist thought―many never before translated―are presented and then countered by the work of respected scholars, both Japanese and Western, who take contrary positions.
9 new from $38.04 4 used from $14.71
13 used & new from $14.71
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Paul L. Swanson is a Permanent Research Fellow at the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture, Nanzan University.
Paperback : 544 pages
Publisher : University of Hawaii Press (July 1, 1997)
Be the first video
Your name here
Customer reviews
4.7 out of 5 stars
Top reviews from the United States
Prajna
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United States on February 14, 2018
Verified Purchase
Excellent!
One person found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse
bojangleshiker
4.0 out of 5 stars Four Stars
Reviewed in the United States on March 8, 2018
Verified Purchase
quick service good price good info
Helpful
Comment Report abuse
Hakuyu
4.0 out of 5 stars Cut the weeds, but not the root!
Reviewed in the United States on May 10, 2005
This is a difficult book to review, because the primary issue at stake - the abuse or misuse of Buddhist doctrine does need to be addressed (viz. the substitution of nationalist or dubious self-serving agendas) - but, I question the wisdom of locating the problem in Buddhist doctrine per se, as Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shiro would have it. Messrs Hakamaya and Matsumoto - have found a ready body of supporters in the halls of academia - and, the essays in this book are an attempt to put the issue in clearer perspective.
I would be happy if the problematic issue central to this book were simply an academic one - but, it isn't. If Hakayama and Matsumoto are right in their assumptions, there is a serious flaw running through our received perception of Mahayana and Zen Buddhism etc. - arguably the Buddhist schools which have been the most influencial in the West. In short, if Hakamaya and Matsumoto are correct, we have embodied a fallacious distortion of Buddhism.
Needless to say, this is a strong claim to make, and not everyone agrees with it. The essays by Sallie B. King, Peter Gregory, Yamabe Nobuyoshi et al. - go some way to revise the rather harsh strictures delivered by the 'Critical Buddhist' fraternity. Regrettably, the case made by Hakamaya, Matsumoto -amplified again by their supporters in this book, seems to have been based on generalisations - even a dogmatic refusal to see that the key terms in question (e.g. Dharmadhatu, Dhatu-vada, Tathagata-garbha, Hongaku etc.) - admit of alternative interpretations. Peter Gregory's carefully written chapter - 'Is Critical Buddhism Really Critical'? - fairly turns the tables on Hakamaya and Matsumoto, pointing out that their arguments are - paradoxically, a kind of 'substantialism' and thus self-defeating. Thankfully, Peter took the trouble to reappraise what is actually stated in the sources, deemed so questionable by the 'Critical' Buddhist fraternity.
That said, it is undeniably true that terms such as 'inherent enlightenment' (hongaku) are open to misunderstanding, and may even have been exploited to produce results running counter to their authentic context. When it comes to the context of Japanese Buddhism, this has clearly been the case. The whole thing about 'Imperal Way Buddhism' has been put in fresh perspective by Brian Victoria (cf. 'Zen at War.' Zen to Senso). Yanagida Seizan, Ichikawa Hakugen et al, have also stated the problem. In their case, they touched on the moral or ethical failings which led to disaster. What worries me about the arguments of Hakamaya and Matsumoto - is that by locating the blame in abstract doctrinal positions and historically remote sources, they have conveniently avoided the contemporary moral or ethical issues raised by Japan's Imperialist aspirations in the 20th c. Let's face it, when thousands of Buddhists were busy copying out the Hannya-haramita Shingyo in war-time Japan, to generate merit for the military, they were deceiving themselves.
To be objective here, this is no more (or less) bizarre than 'Christian' prayers for victory, as thousands of tons of bombs rained down on innocent non-combatants in cities. This is the madness of modern war. It is ourselves we should blame, not the religions we have exploited to justify it. Hence, there is an irony to this book. When even the Hua-yen Ching (Jpn. Kegon Kyo) has been cited as a latent source of 'totalitarian' thinking, something has gone seriously wrong with the Buddhist scholarship. Not Buddhism - or Buddhist scriptures, but human delusion and duplicity have been responsible for the evils of concern to Messrs Hakamaya and Matsumoto. We all know that during the rise of the Third Reich, the Pope tacitly supported Adolf Hitler, but in post-war Europe, people did not try to place the blame on Thomas Aquinas or Augustine. If half the arguments in this book were true, that is exactly what people in Europe should have done. If the doctrines singled out by 'Critical Buddhist' fraternity are as pernicious as they say, why have they not given rise to similar, totalitarian tendencies - in other Mahayana lands? The Chinese Buddhists under Mao were very reluctant to embrace the totaliarian communist doctrine, expressly because it went against their spiritual sensitivities. They were persecuted for their reluctance. Tibetan Buddhists, now under Chinese occupation, have also had the thin end of the wedge, for appearing less than amenable to a totalitarian doctrine. Petty Nationalism and doctrinaire attitudes do not fit in that well with Mahayana Buddhism. If it has been 'squeezed' in, then that has been by way of coercion and human weakness, not by virtue of anything explicitly stated in Mahayana Buddhism.
It strikes the reviewer that the primary problem here, stems from mixing up the claims of samvrti-satya and paramartha-satya. It has always been incumbent upon Buddhists to recognise the difference, but if the former is confounded with the latter, the door is wide open to a myriad misunderstandings. It is no secret that during the Vietnam War, the late Yasutani Roshi railed against Westerners in the anti-war movement and their notion of 'equalitarian' politics, calling it 'evil equality.' In feudal societies, the Sangha was more or less obliged to leave matters of polity to the ruling elite - and, Yasutani's thinking of such matters was certainly a legacy of the feudal age. It is anachronistic to look for democratic instincts and politically autonomous individuals, in societies which had no place for them. In this respect, it is hard to believe that modern scholars are prepared to waste their breath, pointing out the obvious - viz., that Prince Shotoku's 'Constitution' did not empower individuals, as a modern, democratic constitution might. The challenge, then, for us latter day Buddhists, is to translate an equalitarian awareness into action - in Buddhist terms. The Dharma banner is not bounded by nationalistic creeds - and, if truth be told, nothing stated in the Buddhist Sutras, Vinaya regulations etc., inculcates blind adherence to the like. Admittedly, you won't find buckets of advice about what to do, when confronted with conflict scenarios on the modern scale, because they would have been inconceivable. In that sense, perhaps this book is a 'wake up' call. Studies like Prof. Ling's "Buddhism, Imperalism and War'(OUP) - puts certain things in perspective. But as I say, it is not so much Buddhist doctrine which has been at fault here, as the failure to make better sense of it - socially.
Read less
61 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse
jiko
4.0 out of 5 stars now I get it
Reviewed in the United States on November 24, 2004
After reading this book, I understand what happened when I was at a Zendo. If you've had some problems with a Japanese teacher I would suggest that you try reading this book. Some of the Dharma is open for discussion, but the racism is very much present at zendos.
5 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
French legal translator
5.0 out of 5 stars Rather extraordinary book about a rather pointless debate going on ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on December 20, 2016
Verified Purchase
Rather extraordinary book about a rather pointless debate going on between Japanese philosophers about Buddha Nature doctrine. Unfortunately all these authors miss the point, namely that Buddha Nature doctrine is a support to help one practise and gain realisation. Much of this is about distortions and misunderstandings of BN doctrine in Japan, and also the misuses of this doctrine to promote nihilistic and even militaristic ideologies in Japan. The notion of "dhatu-vada" or substantialism is a deliberate misinterpretation of BN doctrine. The term dhatu-vada doesn't even exist in Sanskrit.
Report abuse
Lynette
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in Canada on December 7, 2016
Verified Purchase
Good
Report abuse
---
