일반적으로 동아시아불교의 형성에 관하여 역사학자들은 일련의 과정을 암묵적으로 전제하고 있다. 이질적 문화인 인도불교에 대한 이해와 수용으로부터 시작하여, 동화와 융합의 과정을 거쳐 철저한 ‘자기화’의 완성이라는 문명교류의 일반적 과정을 염두에 두고 있는 것이다. 그러나 동아시아불교의 정체성에 관해 일반적으로 동의하고 있는 ‘일련의 과정’을 좀 더 비판적으로 검토할 필요가 있다. 번역이라는 관점에서 볼 때, 동아시아 불교는 이해가 아닌 ‘오해’에서 출발한다. 한역 경전은 정확한 의미의 전달이라고 하는 번역의 일차적 기능을 하지 못하는 경우가 많았다. 동아시아불교란 단순히 인도불교에 대한 ‘동아시아적 이해와 변용’을 의미하는 것이 아니라, 곧 한문불교이며 전적으로 번역경전에만 의존하여 형성... 더보기

일반적으로 동아시아불교의 형성에 관하여 역사학자들은 일련의 과정을 암묵적으로 전제하고 있다. 이질적 문화인 인도불교에 대한 이해와 수용으로부터 시작하여, 동화와 융합의 과정을 거쳐 철저한 ‘자기화’의 완성이라는 문명교류의 일반적 과정을 염두에 두고 있는 것이다. 그러나 동아시아불교의 정체성에 관해 일반적으로 동의하고 있는 ‘일련의 과정’을 좀 더 비판적으로 검토할 필요가 있다. 번역이라는 관점에서 볼 때, 동아시아 불교는 이해가 아닌 ‘오해’에서 출발한다. 한역 경전은 정확한 의미의 전달이라고 하는 번역의 일차적 기능을 하지 못하는 경우가 많았다. 동아시아불교란 단순히 인도불교에 대한 ‘동아시아적 이해와 변용’을 의미하는 것이 아니라, 곧 한문불교이며 전적으로 번역경전에만 의존하여 형성된 불교이다. 동아시아불교의 특징을 담고 있는 천태, 화엄 그리고 그 정점에 있는 선불교 등은 철저하게 한역경전만을 통해 형성되고, 한문불교 체계 내에서만 그 의미구조가 이해되는 불교인 것은 바로 이 때문이다. 줄이기

Produced within the framework of a systematic state enterprise with its own translation theories and manuals, Buddhist texts in Classical Chinese have been considered as one of the model cases of translation in terms of readability and accuracy. Concomitantly, it is generally assumed that the successful indigenization of the Indian tradition in East Asia was possible primarily through... 더보기

Produced within the framework of a systematic state enterprise with its own translation theories and manuals, Buddhist texts in Classical Chinese have been considered as one of the model cases of translation in terms of readability and accuracy. Concomitantly, it is generally assumed that the successful indigenization of the Indian tradition in East Asia was possible primarily through the readable and accurate translations of Indic texts into Classical Chinese. The unique characteristics of East Asian Buddhism was, therefore, a result of a series of a long process including ‘understanding and acceptance’ owing to accurate translation, ‘assimilation into local tradition,’ and finally, ‘forming their own unique identity.’ However, upon careful examination of the Buddhist terms in Classical Chinese, we find that this was not always the case. From the lens of modern Buddhist scholarship, where research is often carried out through comparative studies of Buddhist texts such as Sanskrit, Pali, Classical Chinese, and Tibetan texts, we find that some of the Indic Buddhist terms are inadequately and erroneously translated into Classical Chinese. This paper argues that accurate translations were not essential nor a prerequisite condition for the successful formation of an East Asian Buddhist tradition. Rather East Asian Buddhism, in a sense, began from misunderstanding generated by inaccurate translations. The most significant factor for making East Asian Buddhism unique, as we will see, was due to the continuing circulation of texts in translation, accurate or not, without referring to the original Indic texts. Moreover, this is a remarkable inspiration to Humanities in Korea, where scholars tend to refer to original texts--not to Korean translations--in scholarly discussions and for teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels. 줄이기

Produced within the framework of a systematic state enterprise with its own translation theories and manuals, Buddhist texts in Classical Chinese have been considered as one of the model cases of translation in terms of readability and accuracy. Concomitantly, it is generally assumed that the successful indigenization of the Indian tradition in East Asia was possible primarily through the readable and accurate translations of Indic texts into Classical Chinese. The unique characteristics of East Asian Buddhism was, therefore, a result of a series of a long process including ‘understanding and acceptance’ owing to accurate translation, ‘assimilation into local tradition,’ and fina... 더보기

Produced within the framework of a systematic state enterprise with its own translation theories and manuals, Buddhist texts in Classical Chinese have been considered as one of the model cases of translation in terms of readability and accuracy. Concomitantly, it is generally assumed that the successful indigenization of the Indian tradition in East Asia was possible primarily through the readable and accurate translations of Indic texts into Classical Chinese. The unique characteristics of East Asian Buddhism was, therefore, a result of a series of a long process including ‘understanding and acceptance’ owing to accurate translation, ‘assimilation into local tradition,’ and finally, ‘forming their own unique identity.’ However, upon careful examination of the Buddhist terms in Classical Chinese, we find that this was not always the case. From the lens of modern Buddhist scholarship, where research is often carried out through comparative studies of Buddhist texts such as Sanskrit, Pali, Classical Chinese, and Tibetan texts, we find that some of the Indic Buddhist terms are inadequately and erroneously translated into Classical Chinese. This paper argues that accurate translations were not essential nor a prerequisite condition for the successful formation of an East Asian Buddhist tradition. Rather East Asian Buddhism, in a sense, began from misunderstanding generated by inaccurate translations. The most significant factor for making East Asian Buddhism unique, as we will see, was due to the continuing circulation of texts in translation, accurate or not, without referring to the original Indic texts. Moreover, this is a remarkable inspiration to Humanities in Korea, where scholars tend to refer to original texts--not to Korean translations--in scholarly discussions and for teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels. 줄이기