Kingship as "Dharma-Protector": A Comparative Study of Wŏnhyo and Huizhao's Views on the Golden Light Sutra

IF 0.1 3区 哲学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
S. Lee
{"title":"Kingship as \"Dharma-Protector\": A Comparative Study of Wŏnhyo and Huizhao's Views on the Golden Light Sutra","authors":"S. Lee","doi":"10.1353/JKR.2017.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:\"State-protection Buddhism\" (Ch. huguo Fojiao, K. hoguk Pulgyo 護國佛敎), the idea that Buddhism protects the state from various natural as well as societal difficulties, was widely accepted in premodern East Asia. Not a few East Asian rulers who adopted Buddhism as a state ideology expected such Buddhist deities as the four heavenly kings (Skt. lokapāla, Ch. si tianwang, K. sa ch'ŏnwang 四天王) to protect the state as a result of their faith in \"state-protection\" scriptures, such as the Golden Light Sutra (Ch. Jinguangming jing, K. Kŭmgwangmyŏng kyŏng 金光明經). Although state-protection Buddhism has been approached focusing on its political aspect, from the Buddhist doctrinal viewpoint, state protection refers to none other than \"Dharma protection\" (Ch. hufa, K. hobŏp 護法), and the kings who take the responsibility of protecting the state also are protectors of the Dharma. East Asian Buddhist scholiasts, however, did not always reach consensus on the nature of kingship as Dharma protector. This article explores distinct interpretations of kingship in the Golden Light Sutra between two eminent Buddhist exegetes, Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686) and Huizhao 慧昭 (774–850). Although Wŏnhyo's commentary on the Golden Light Sutra, the Kŭmgwangmyŏng kyŏng so 金光明經疏, is not extant, a significant part of it is cited in Japanese monks' works, notably in Gangyō's 願曉 (835–871) Konkōmyō saishō ō kyō gensū 金光明最勝王經玄樞, and we can therefore compare it to Huizhao's commentary, the Jinguangming zuishengwang jing shu 金光明最勝王經疏. On the basis of a comparative analysis of their views on the sutra, this article discusses how the two exegetes interpret kingship in the Golden Light Sutra and reconcile the two dilemmatic concepts of commonality and particularity.","PeriodicalId":42017,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Religions","volume":"8 1","pages":"129 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/JKR.2017.0005","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Korean Religions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/JKR.2017.0005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:"State-protection Buddhism" (Ch. huguo Fojiao, K. hoguk Pulgyo 護國佛敎), the idea that Buddhism protects the state from various natural as well as societal difficulties, was widely accepted in premodern East Asia. Not a few East Asian rulers who adopted Buddhism as a state ideology expected such Buddhist deities as the four heavenly kings (Skt. lokapāla, Ch. si tianwang, K. sa ch'ŏnwang 四天王) to protect the state as a result of their faith in "state-protection" scriptures, such as the Golden Light Sutra (Ch. Jinguangming jing, K. Kŭmgwangmyŏng kyŏng 金光明經). Although state-protection Buddhism has been approached focusing on its political aspect, from the Buddhist doctrinal viewpoint, state protection refers to none other than "Dharma protection" (Ch. hufa, K. hobŏp 護法), and the kings who take the responsibility of protecting the state also are protectors of the Dharma. East Asian Buddhist scholiasts, however, did not always reach consensus on the nature of kingship as Dharma protector. This article explores distinct interpretations of kingship in the Golden Light Sutra between two eminent Buddhist exegetes, Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617–686) and Huizhao 慧昭 (774–850). Although Wŏnhyo's commentary on the Golden Light Sutra, the Kŭmgwangmyŏng kyŏng so 金光明經疏, is not extant, a significant part of it is cited in Japanese monks' works, notably in Gangyō's 願曉 (835–871) Konkōmyō saishō ō kyō gensū 金光明最勝王經玄樞, and we can therefore compare it to Huizhao's commentary, the Jinguangming zuishengwang jing shu 金光明最勝王經疏. On the basis of a comparative analysis of their views on the sutra, this article discusses how the two exegetes interpret kingship in the Golden Light Sutra and reconcile the two dilemmatic concepts of commonality and particularity.
作为“护法者”的王权——王与慧照《金光明经》观之比较研究
摘要:“护国佛教”護國佛敎), 佛教保护国家免受各种自然和社会困难的想法在前现代东亚被广泛接受。许多东亚统治者将佛教作为一种国家意识形态,他们期望四大天王(Skt.lokapāla,Ch.si tianwang,K.sach’ŏnwang四天王) 由于他们对“护国”经文的信仰而保护国家,如《金光明经》金光明經). 虽然国家保护佛教一直关注其政治方面,但从佛教教义的角度来看,国家保护指的正是“护法”(Ch.hufa,K.hobŏp護法), 负责护国的君王也是护法者。然而,东亚佛教学者并不总是对护法王的本质达成共识。这篇文章探讨了两位著名的佛教经典Wŏnhyo对《金光经》中王权的不同解释元曉 (617–686)与回照慧昭 (774–850)。尽管Wŏnhyo对《金光经》的评论,Kŭmgwangmy金光明經疏, 不存在,其中很大一部分在日本僧侣的作品中被引用,尤其是在Gangyō的作品中願曉 (835–871)近卫金光明最勝王經玄樞, 因此,我们可以将其与惠照的评论《金光明左生王经疏》相比较金光明最勝王經疏. 本文在比较分析二者对《金光明经》的看法的基础上,探讨二者如何解读《金光明经书》中的王权,调和共同性与特殊性这两个困惑的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信