東亞細亞佛敎에서의 韓國佛敎의 正體性

The Identity of Korean Buddhism within the Context of East Asian Buddhism

&nbsp;&nbsp;The universality of a culture cannot be understood in isolation from its diversity or particularity, because the universality of culture is derived primarily from the assembly and harmonization of diversities. On the other hand, the particularity of a culture does not mean an independent culture of some indigenous form. Universality and particularity of culture remain in a state of co-existence. Seen from this angle, we can now understand that Korean Buddhism was one of the factors leading to the formation of universal Buddhism of East Asia, and at the same time it also represented particularistic Buddhism, distinct form that universal Buddhism. Although Korean Buddhism is an integral component of East Asian Buddhism, it is also not same as East Asian Buddhism. It is important, therefore, to study Korean Buddhism in relation to the universality of East Asian Buddhism and to examine its individuality and its autonomy vis-？-vis other Buddhist cultures in East Asia. Seen from the theoretical position of Y？ngi (Conditions Opportune or Cooperation of Cause and Conditions), one may argue both ways―Korean Buddhism does not have its own identity or Korean Buddhism has its own identity. But Y？ngi does not imply complete absence of entity. It means the existence of assumed or provisional convergence due to organic relationship which in turn suggests that Korean Buddhism is not without its own unique identity. It is obvious that there is a need for a more open discussion on the universality and particularity of Korean Buddhism. A scholar, however, has launched a vitriolic assault on critical studies on the specificity or identity of Korean Buddhism that appeared in the past decade. He wrote:<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;A section of scholars have perpetrated an act of egregious error by deprecating Korea and negating the identity of Korean Buddhism. Furthermore, it is really a huge problem that some Korean scholars of Buddhism sympathize with an assertion. One must cleary understand that such a logic is based on Japan&quot;s colonial historiography.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;The above passage clearly shows how formidable still is the wall of nationalist historiography, and it is also worthy of note that the severity of assault on critical voices, unleashed by the author, goes well beyond the norms of academic discussion. Ch&quot;oe Py？ng-h？n has correctly cited the lack of critical spirit as one of the gravest problems of Korean scholarship on Buddhism. He observed that Korean scholarship on Buddhism has not yet assumed the full form and displayed full flourish of modern, scientific scholarship. Indeed, for the development of Korean scholarship on Buddhism it is important that an environment of vibrant debate and discussion and healthy criticism is created.