조선후기의 선(禪)논쟁에 내포된 원형지향성

The inclination to prototype in the controversy on Ch’an classification

This essay is an inquiry into the controversy on Ch’an(禪) classification at the impending downfall of the Joseon dynasty. So to speak, the Patriarch Ch’an(祖師禪), Tathagata Ch’an(如來禪) and the intellectually ratiocinating Ch’an(義理禪). The present study is divided into two parts; the first dispute between Baekpa(白坡) GeungSeon(亘璇, 1767-1852) and Choi((艸衣) UiSun(意恂, (1786-1866) is about to Ch’an classification, and the second dispute between Baekpa and Chusa(秋史) Gim JeongHui(金正喜, 1786~1856) is about to significance of the Hua-t’ou Ch’an. All this while, for the most part have regarded that Baekpa asserted the supreme orthodoxy and authority of the Patriarch Ch’an(or Lin-chi Ch’an). But in fact Baekpa became aware of the excluvism in existing Ch’an classification, that the Patriarch Ch’an is metempirical Ch’an(格外禪), and Tathagata Ch’an is same to the intellectually ratiocinating Ch’an. Because the Patriarch Ch’an is become the one and only orthodoxy in this Classification. So he asserted a new Ch’an Classification, in this the Patriarch Ch’an and Tathagata Ch’an are included in metempirical Ch’an(格外禪). But he emphasized that three kind of Ch’an is no place in separatively and Ch’an classification is but theoretical division for disciplinants. The very important point in Baekpa’s assertion is that the Patriarch Ch’an is not something but merely not cling to Tathagata Ch’an or the intellectually ratiocinating Ch’an. Choi and Chusa were incline to search a prototype in restoration, so to speak they took on a reactionary tendency. But Baekpa was incline to search a prototype in communication and balance between Tathagata Ch’an and the intellectually ratiocinating Ch’an, that is very the Patriarch Ch’an(or Lin-chi Ch’an) from the his point. The new Ch’an classification is asserted for offsetting the excluvism in existing Ch’an classification. this theory is planed to comprehend various buddhist disciplines with the Lin-chi Ch’an as central figure. Baekpa is a one of the representative in Joseon Ch’an School, so he has to figure its identity and to make place for various disciplinants in that tradition. But Choi and Chusa may be unaware of his historical position and role, and called his theoretical incorrectness and arbitrary decision into question.