The discourse of Suddenness and Gradualness(頓漸論) has produced two important discourses in the course of its development. One is the discourse concerning difference between the Understanding-mode Practice and the Mind-mode Practice, the other is the discourse concerning the category of Sudden Enlightenment. By discerning these two kind of discourses, the unnecessary conflicts and misunderstandings concerning the discourse of Suddenness and Gradualness(頓漸論) are to be dissolved.The Tibetan controversy which was the encountering of different view concerning practice and enlightenment between Sun School(禪宗) and Indian Mahayana-Buddhist tradition, was more the discourse of Sun(禪)-Practice rather the discourse of Suddenness and Gradualness(頓漸論). The important point of issue was the different view of Sun(禪)-Practice.The Tibetan controversy was not a successful mutual-understanding discourse on Sun(禪)-Practice between the traditional view and the new one. When we read the Tibetan controversy as the conflict of different view of Sun(禪)-Practice, and the identity of Sun(禪) thought of Sun School(禪宗) suggested by Mahayeon(摩訶衍) is the Mind-mode Practice in contrast to the Understanding-mode Practice, we can take a new clue to understand the core of Sun(禪) thought of Sun School(禪宗).
The discourse of Suddenness and Gradualness(頓漸論) has produced two important discourses in the course of its development. One is the discourse concerning difference between the Understanding-mode Practice and the Mind-mode Practice, the other is the discourse concerning the category of Sudden Enlightenment. By discerning these two kind of discourses, the unnecessary conflicts and misunderstandings concerning the discourse of Suddenness and Gradualness(頓漸論) are to be dissolved.The Tibetan controversy which was the encountering of different view concerning practice and enlightenment between Sun School(禪宗) and Indian Mahayana-Buddhist tradition, was more the discourse of Sun(禪)-Practice rather the discourse of Suddenness and Gradualness(頓漸論). The important point of issue was the different view of Sun(禪)-Practice.The Tibetan controversy was not a successful mutual-understanding discourse on Sun(禪)-Practice between the traditional view and the new one. When we read the Tibetan controversy as the conflict of different view of Sun(禪)-Practice, and the identity of Sun(禪) thought of Sun School(禪宗) suggested by Mahayeon(摩訶衍) is the Mind-mode Practice in contrast to the Understanding-mode Practice, we can take a new clue to understand the core of Sun(禪) thought of Sun School(禪宗).
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.