Essence-Function (體用) is a key concept in Korean Buddhism.[1] The Awakening of Mahayana Faith, attributed to Aśvaghoṣa (?80-?150 CE), employs Essence-Function. Essence-Function forms a fundamental syncretic and ecumenical application in the philosophy of Wonhyo (617–686 CE).[2] Chinul (1158–1210) and Kihwa (1376–1433) also employ and develop this idea of Essence-Function in their writings in particular ways.[2] Wonch'uk (613–696) employed the conceptual and analytical tool, Essence-Function, as an exegetical, hermeneutical and syncretic device.
A. Charles Muller is one of the first scholars to open the discourse of Essence-Function in English.
Contents |
體, this character is known as Radical 188 and romanized as "Tai" or "T'i" and is employed in both Cantonese and Mandarin written Chinese where it holds the semantic field: [1] [n] body [2] [n] shape; form [3] [n] entity; unit [4] [n] style; fashion; system [5] substance; essence [6] theory (as opposed to practice).[3]
用, this character is known as Radical 101 and romanized as "Jung" or "Yung" and is employed in both Cantonese and Mandarin written Chinese where it holds the semantic field: [1] [v]use; employ; apply; operate [2] [v] exert [3] [n] use [4] effect [5] finance [6] [vn] need [7] [v] eat; drink [8] Kangxi radical 101.[4]
A tree, a pervasive living metaphor and mythical symbol throughout human cultures and icon of the branching, generation or lineage archetype, is employed as a teaching tool or hermeneutic device for explaining the relationship and operation of Essence-Function where 'Essence' the deep underlying ineffable cause are the "roots", and the 'Function' are the discernible effects, the "branches". Muller (2005: unpaginated) identifies the metaphor of the "roots" and "branches" as an analogue of Essence-Function within the Great Learning: "Things have their roots and branches, affairs have their end and beginning. When you know what comes first and what comes last, then you are near the Way."[5]
Doctor (2004: p. 101) renders into English a quotation from Mipham (1846–1912) which has the metaphor of 'roots' and 'branches'. Mipham, familiar with Woncheuk's Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra commentary (known in Tibet as the Great Chinese Commentary as it was referred to by Tsongkhapa) that employs essence-function, includes in his Commentary to the Madhyamālaṃkāra of Śāntarakṣita an open quotation from the 'Mother of the Victorious Ones' (Sanskrit: Prajñāpāramitā):
Yet although it is definitely necessary to embrace general learning and reflection, it is meaningful to condense one's practice to its core. The Mother of the Victorious Ones give examples of those who abandon the root to search for the branches, those who have come to a sublime feast but search for an inferior meal, those who have found the elephant but search for its foot prints, those who do not turn to the lord who offers many welcome benefits, but turn to the slave who gives little and of inferior quality, and so on. There are some who have, in a similar way, abandoned the root of Dharma, becoming haughty from experiencing the mere husks of works, and who also despise those who possess the key points.[6]
Muller (1999: p. 4) discusses Essence-Function (t'i-yung) in relation to "words, thoughts and actions" which are known in Tibetan Buddhism as the Three Gateways:
The most important application of t'i-yung thought, however, is to the human being, where the human mind is seen as "essence," and one's words, thoughts and actions are seen as "function."[7]
'Interpenetration' or 'coalescence' (Wylie: zung 'jug; Sanskrit: yuganaddha; Chinese: 通達) and Essence-Function are mutually informing and fundamentally related doctrinally.
Sung-bae Park (1983: p. 147) identifies essence-function as an East Asian Buddhist strategy to convey nonduality:
Since the t'i-yung or "essence-function" construction is originally used by East Asian Buddhists to show a non-dualistic and non-discriminate nature in their enlightenment experience, it should not exclude any other frameworks such as neng-so or "subject-object" constructions. Nevertheless the essence-function construction must be distinguished from the subject-object construction from a scholastic perspective because the two are completely different from each other in terms of their way of thinking.[8]
Sung-bae Park (2009: p. 11) holds that:
"...the terms mom and momjit are familiar to all Koreans, and have their roots in ancient history. Although I translated them in the introduction as "essence" and "function", a more accurate definition (and the one the Korean populace is more familiar with) is "body" and "the body's functions". The implications of "essence/function" and "body/its functions" are similar, that is, both paradigms are used to point to a nondual relationship between the two concepts. There is a subtle but crucial difference, however, between the two models, "essence/function" and "body/its functions". The term essence/function (which is often translated by East Asian scholars into the Chinese term t'i-yung) has a rather abstract, philosophical tone, connoting an impression of being somewhat removed from the nitty-gritty details of everyday life. My primary interest, however, is in the human being's personal understanding and experience of nonduality."[9]
|
|||||||||||