하이네의 도겐 시간론 해설에 대한 현상학적 검토
A Critical Investigation into Heine's Explanation on the Time-theory of Dogen
Steven Heine compares Dogen's theory of time with that of Heidegger and asserts that the former is superior to the latter with respect to the concept of awakening. However, time as elucidated by Dogen is the time realized by Zen,corresponding to Husserl's concept of the time of pre-reflective consciousness. In contrast, time as elucidated by Heidegger is the time realized by recollection,corresponding to Husserl's time of reflective consciousness. In this respect, Heine does not select two theories of time which enable a proper comparison.Heine does not properly explain the time of Zen because he does not compare its two characteristics ('now' and 'passage') to those of time as realized by pre-reflective consciousness, that is, 'present field' and 'retention-now-protention'. In contrast, Heine provides a self-contradictory assertion when he says on one hand that 'now' is identical to 'passage' and explains on the other hand that 'now' is similar to 'present field' as realized by pre-reflective consciousness, explaining also that 'passage' is similar to reflective time as realized or restructured by reflective consciousness. He may do this because he fails to appropriate Dogen's elucidation of 'passage' as multi-directional, that is, irreversible and reversible time.Dogen's 'passage' can be understood in two ways, first with respect to 'retention-now-protention' and second with regard to its 'causal meaning' (mutual influences among the past, present, and future by 'retention-now-protention'). The former corresponds to the time of pre-reflective consciousness, while the latter is precisely an interpretive determination of the former from the viewpoint of the theory of causal genesis. Nevertheless, Heine seems to regard the causal-interpretive determination of passage as passage itself. According to Heine's assertion, Dogen's Zen thinking is superior to Heidegger's recollective thinking, as the former fully realizes the time in which the present is integrated with the past and future, while the latter can realize only the time in which the present is separated from the past and future. However, I emphasize the fact that Dogen's elucidations of the concepts of the time of Zen, that is, those of 'now', 'passage', 'multi-direction of passage', 'three dimensional practice', and 'effort that enables causal genesis' are neither Zen thinking itself nor the time of Zen itself, but are instead recollective or reflective elucidations of Zen thinking. Accordingly, Heine's devaluation of reflective or recollective thinking in direct proportion to a revaluation of Zen thinking is none other than the devaluation of Dogen's elucidations of the time of Zen and its causal meaning.Lastly, Heidegger does not elucidate the time of Zen but instead refers to the time of recollection. The former cannot but be different from the latter and they therefore have differences. If one tries to conceive such differences as evidence of revaluation or devaluation, he starts to lose the balanced sense required for a fair comparative philosophy. Indeed, both Dogen's elucidation of the time of Zen and Heine's explanation of Dogen's theory of time are possible only through a process that consists of expectation, remembrance, and presencing. Therefore, Heine's criticism of Heidegger's time of recollection on the basis of its realization by a temporal process is said to be a self-contradiction.
유료 다운로드의 경우 해당 사이트의 정책에 따라 신규 회원가입, 로그인, 유료 구매 등이 필요할 수 있습니다. 해당 사이트에서 발생하는 귀하의 모든 정보활동은 NDSL의 서비스 정책과 무관합니다.
원문복사신청을 하시면, 일부 해외 인쇄학술지의 경우 외국학술지지원센터(FRIC)에서
무료 원문복사 서비스를 제공합니다.