元曉의 心性論에 관한 分析心理學的 研究

Wonhyo’s Theory of Mind in the Perspective of Analytical Psychology

This paper is to elucidate W onhyo’s theory of M ind in the perspective of analytical psychology. Wonhyo(617-687AD) was a great scholar of Buddhism and a well-known Zen-master in Korea. Regarding Wonhyo’s theory of Mind, his concept of Mind and the realization of the M ind and its method as Egoless understanding are considered as essential. The concept of Mind as Alayavijnana in Sanskrit is diverse in the traditions of Buddhism. There are, however, three representative views as true M ind o r T athata in Sanskrit, ignorant Mind or Avidya in Sanskrit and the harm onized M ind o f Tathata with Avidya. W onhyo stands for the view o f the harm onized M ind and clarifies it with emphasis on Tathata and Avidya and their relationship expounded in his masterpieces “The Com m entary on the Treatise of Awakening M ahayayana Faith” and “Expository Notes on the Treatise of Awakening M ahayana Faith”. Tathata as true M ind is characterized by “understanding light” and “enlightened understanding”, generally expressed as enlightenm ent The characteristic features of Tathata as “understanding light” and “enlightened understandmg” are considered to be identical with the absolute knowledge or understanding of the Self in analytical psychology, which is realized by revealing the so-called natural light(lum en naturae) of the Self-archetype. Such an understanding through enlightening or disclosing the light is differentiated from making conscious the unconscious materials. The latter is of possessive and discriminative nature resulting in subject-object dichotomy, while the former is of “void” and transcendent nature resulting in subject-object oneness. Accordingly, Tathata is regarded as one with the Self in analytical psychology. As for Avidya as ignorant M ind, it is said to originate from being unaware of Tathata as enlightenment and is called non-enlightenment or fundam ental ignorance”, in contrast with “peripheral ignorance” arising from the conscious ego in relation with the external world. The “fundam ental ignorance” seems to be consistent with the unconsciousness in the sense of transpersonal, collective unconsciousness originally related to the Self while the “peripheral ignorance” corresponds with the personal uncousciousness in analytical psychology, resulting from the repression of the conscious ego influenced by external reality. Thus, Avidya appears to be accordant with the collective nature of unconsciousness. Concerning the relationship of Tathata with Avidya, it is denoted as “neither-same-nor-different” and is manifested in psychic phenom ena. In the perspective of analytical psychology this kind of relationship can be seen in the concept of psychic phenom enon as a symbol. Symbols are the unconscious images of the Self, where the inseparable relationship of the Self with its unconsciousness can not be expressed other than “neither-same-nor-different”. Consequently, Wonhyo’s concept of Mind, that is, Alayavijnana seen by W onhyo is considered to correspond to the concept of collective unconsciousness in analytical psychology. Next, it is concerned with the realization of the true M ind seen by Wonhyo. The subject of that realization is the conscious ego. The conscious ego can be directed toward and effected by the true Mind or ignorance. However, in the realization process of true M ind the conscious ego should be directed toward and effected by the true Mind and become transformed into the true Mind. This is called the realization process of the true Mind. Such a realization process of the true M ind is considered as correspondent to the individuation process or the realization process of the Self in analytical psychology in the sense that it is essential for the conscious ego to transf