Intangible Culture ISSN:2799-3868(Print) 무형문화연구

This theoretical study clarifies why learner-centeredness is urgently needed in contemporary Buddhist education and what it should mean in Buddhist terms. Korean Buddhist education has not fully moved beyond a provider- and teacher-centered structure organized around monastic traditions, scriptures, lectures, and transmission. At the same time, recent forms of “hip Buddhism” have attracted younger generations through festivals, merchandise, music, meditation, and lifestyle experiences. These developments lower psychological barriers and create valuable points of contact; however, cultural favorability and episodic participation do not automatically lead to religious reflection, sustained practice, commitment, or community participation. The central educational task is therefore to move beyond both doctrinal transmission without learners and entertainment without depth. Through literature review and conceptual analysis, this study integrates humanistic education, self-determination theory, constructivism, experiential learning, transformative learning, differentiated instruction, and learner-centered teaching with Buddhist concepts of providing medicine according to illness, teaching according to the audience’s capacities, skillful means, timely mutual responsiveness, Buddha-nature, and the arousal of aspiration. Learner-centeredness in Buddhist education is defined not as compliance with learners’ present preferences, but as a relational and transformative pedagogical principle that carefully considers their capacities, suffering, lived experience, developmental level, and relational context, and helps transform cultural interest into existential questions, doctrinal understanding, reflection, practice, and compassionate participation. Seven principles are proposed: diagnosing suffering and readiness, facilitating autonomous aspiration, pedagogical translation, cycling through experience-reflection-conceptualization- practice, relational and timely scaffolding, staged deepening with community connection, and formative assessment grounded in compassion. The study argues that learner-centeredness is essential for preserving both the accessibility and the religious depth of Buddhist education.

As artificial intelligence extends into the domain of judgment, three problems arise together: the attribution of responsibility, the formation of the human capacity for judgment, and the transparency and plurality of the grounds on which judgments rest. This conceptual study examines these problems at the point where research on artificial wisdom meets the question of wisdom education. It first distinguishes two ideal types in the existing literature on artificial wisdom. The first treats wisdom as a combination of identifiable contents or attributes, such as prosociality, emotional regulation, self-reflection, and decisiveness, and seeks to implement them as system capacities. The second treats wisdom as a function or procedure of judgment, drawing on Aristotelian phronesis and, more recently, on machine metacognition. Although the two appear opposed, both share the premise that wisdom can be specified and transferred to another system. The study then turns to prajñā as it has been borrowed in research on AI and education. There prajñā is not offered as one more attribute to be added to a system; it redirects attention to the conditions of the one who judges and to the relation among human beings, technology, and world. Rather than defining prajñā as a whole, the study isolates a single analytic feature expressed in seeing that the five aggregates are empty: the knower, too, is seen as conditionally constituted. An illustrative exchange in which identical questions were posed to two generative AI systems shows that such systems can articulate this doctrine fluently, and for that very reason it shows that producing an accurate account is not the same as forming a judging subject. This distinction asserts no permanent incapacity of AI and applies equally to human teachers and learners. On this basis the study proposes a provisional aim for prajñā-oriented wisdom education and four conditions for learning activity: suspending judgment, making the grounds of judgment visible, shifting and comparing perspectives, and assuming judgment as one's own. It also specifies the educational roles AI can play and the limits of those roles. Rather than prescribing a fixed instructional sequence, these conditions are offered as criteria against which a lesson may be examined. The study closes by indicating the observable changes through which the proposal could later be tested: how learners revise an initial judgment, how they connect evidence to their own position, how they treat counter-perspectives and uncertainty, and what quality of reliance on AI their work displays.

본 연구는 2010년부터 2025년까지 국내 KCI 등재 학술지에 게재된 대한불교조계종 전법포교 관련 연구 53편을 대상으로 PRISMA 2020 지침에 따른 체계적 문헌고찰(Systematic Literature Review)을 수행하여, 국내 전법포교 연구의 지식지형과 연구공백을 분석하는 데 목적이 있다. 문헌은 RISS, KISS, DBpia를 통해 수집하였으며, 서지정보, 연구방법, 연구대상, 포교유형, 연구결과 등 30개 항목으로 코딩하여 분석하였다. 또한 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool(MMAT) Version 2018을 활용하여 개별 연구의 방법론적 특성을 검토하였다. 분석 결과, 전법포교 연구는 2020년 이후 양적으로 증가하였으나, 문헌연구와 사례연구가 전체의 88.7%를 차지하여 연구방법의 편중이 확인되었다. 청년층을 명시적으로 다룬 연구는 1편(1.9%), 효과성을 실증적으로 검증한 연구는 5편(9.4%)에 불과하였으며, 반면 정책적 제언을 제시한 연구는 69.8%로 나타나 실증적 근거에 비해 정책 논의가 상대적으로 활발하게 이루어지고 있었다. 주제 분석에서는 종단·정책, 디지털·미디어, 연령집단별 포교, 수행·체험, 사찰·공동체의 다섯 개 주제군이 도출되었다. 이상의 결과를 바탕으로 본 연구는 향후 전법포교 연구가 문헌 및 사례 중심 연구를 넘어 요구분석, 프로그램 개발, 현장 적용, 효과성 검증, 메타분석으로 이어지는 근거기반 연구체계로 발전할 필요가 있음을 제안하였다. 본 연구는 국내 전법포교 연구를 체계적으로 종합하여 연구의 축적 양상과 향후 연구과제를 제시하였다는 점에서 의의를 갖는다.

Yongjusa Temple is the only temple founded by the state during the late Joseon Dynasty. King Jeongjo’s founding of Yongjusa was a highly unusual and remarkable event. For four hundred years since the founding of the Joseon Dynasty, the state had never once officially founded a temple. Since the 1912 ‘Yongjusa Temple and Its Branch Temples Regulation’ referred to the temple’s predecessor as Galyangsa Temple, it has been widely accepted without any separate verification. Furthermore, the explanation spread that the current Yongjusa Temple Suryukjae ritual succeeded the Galyangsa Temple Suryukjae, which was the first Suryukjae held in Korean history. However, the name Galyangsa Temple does not appear anywhere in the various historical records, documents, or geographical records that document the process of the temple’s founding. This occurred during the process of establishing a new history of the temple after it was designated as the main temple in the 1910s. However, the identity of the temple can be properly established only when history is explained accurately and factually. The emergence of Yongjusa Temple in the late Joseon Dynasty brought about a new turning point in Joseon Buddhism. The temple was completed by mobilizing all state agencies and inviting the finest craftsmen, technicians, and eminent monks. It was an act of proclaiming the revival of Buddhism to the entire nation in a country of Confucianism. Furthermore, the various monks who contributed to the founding were appointed to high government positions and were appointed as leaders of major temples in various regions, which served as an opportunity to elevate the status of Buddhism. The abbot of Yongjusa Temple was also granted a royal decree bearing the king’s seal as a letter of appointment. The Suryukjae performed at the founding anniversary ceremony also holds significant meaning. During the Joseon Dynasty, the Suryukjae was excluded from official state rituals after the mid-16th century. Later, it reappeared at Yongjusa Temple in 1790, inheriting the lineage of the Joseon Dynasty’s Suryukjae and bringing about a new impetus for development. I believe that these historical facts alone are sufficient to significantly enhance the status of Yongjusa Temple. In this context, we will closely examine the founding process of Yongjusa Temple, and aimed to comprehensively understand the significance and status of temples in the history of Buddhism during the late Joseon Dynasty.

This study aims to empirically examine, from the perspective of Buddhist psychology, the structural relationships among cognitive emotion regulation strategies, mindfulness, ego-resiliency, and indirect trauma according to the duration of psychological distress experienced by individuals in the aftermath of social disasters. Theoretically, this study formulates the Buddhist psychological account of cognitive development—in which perception (saññā) crystallizes into views (diṭṭhi) and proliferates into conceptual proliferation (papañca)—as the generative mechanism of maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and tests this account in the form of a mediation model. To this end, a survey was conducted with 578 male and female respondents aged 16 and over, and t-tests, one-way ANOVA, multiple regression analysis, mediation analysis, and bootstrap verification were performed using SPSS 28.0 and the PROCESS Macro. The findings are as follows. First, significant differences were found across all major variables according to the duration of psychological distress; as distress became more prolonged, adaptive resources tended to become depleted, while the use of maladaptive strategies and the level of indirect trauma increased. Second, multiple regression analysis showed that adaptive emotion regulation strategies significantly enhanced mindfulness and ego-resiliency, whereas maladaptive emotion regulation strategies were identified as a factor that significantly diminished mindfulness. Third, in the mediation analysis, mindfulness emerged as a core variable that significantly mediated the relationship between emotion regulation strategies and indirect trauma for both types of strategies, whereas ego-resiliency exhibited a significant mediating effect only in the path of adaptive strategies. Bootstrap verification confirmed the statistical significance of these indirect effects. These results suggest that the mechanisms of psychological recovery resources operate differentially depending on the type of cognitive emotion regulation strategy employed. In particular, since the mediating effect of ego-resiliency is limited for individuals who rely on maladaptive strategies, tailored intervention designs are required that either treat ego-resiliency as a moderating variable or prioritize mindfulness-based interventions. This study is significant in that it provides a theoretical and practical foundational framework for facilitating the psychological recovery of populations exposed to small trauma, including indirect trauma.

The Nāmasaṃgīti is a Buddhist tantric text that praises the names and virtues of Mañjuśrī, presenting itself as part the Māyājālatantra. While Bu ston classified it within the Vairocana family of the Anuttarayoga(father) tantras, its content actually aligns more closely with the Yoga tantras in the lineahe of the Tattvasaṁgraha. Its close relationship with the Kālacakratantra elevated its authority, eventually earning it the position of opening the Buddhavacana section of the Tibetan canon. The core of the text consists of verses praising Mañjuśrī as equivalent to the dharmakāya, Mahāvairocana. This reflects an expansion and deepening of the early Mahāyāna belief in Mañjuśrī as the parent of all bodhisattvas. The practice of listening numerous epithets to praise a single deity is itself not unique to esoteric Buddhism-it echoes the Hymn of 108 Names found in the Tattvasaṁgraha’s praaise of Vairocana, as well as the Viṣṇu hymn in the Mahābhāirata, both reflecting an ancient Indian literary tradition later absorbed into Buddhism. Beginning with Mañjuśrīmitra’s commentary in the mid-eighth century, this originally undivided section of praise was reorganized into eight sections-from ① the contemplation of the six families through ⑧the wisdom of accomplishing action(one of the five wisdoms)- reflecting an esoteric structure in which sentient beings are classified into six families for liberation, the Vajradhātu maṇḍala is generated through the Māyājāla method, and the five wisdoms of buddhahood are revealed. On this basis, three lineages emerged: the Stainless Space of Mañjuśrī lineage founded by Mañjuśrīmitra, the Mañjuśrī possessed of Secrets lineages Agrabodhi, and the Sovereign of the Dharmadhātu lineages Mañjuśrīkīrti. The first two lineages share a layered meditative process-Mahāvairocana, the Ādibuddha, the Prajñācakra, and the Jñānasattva-combined with a visualization technique that transforms scriptural syllables into deities, thereby integrating maṇḍala contemplation with the recitation of names; each transmits maṇḍala of 33 and 57 deities, respectively. The Sovereign of the Dharmadhātu lineage, by contrast, follows an independent system based on the five-stage enlightenment(pañcābhisaṁbodhi) of the Tattvasaṁgraha, transmitting an elaborate maṇḍala of over 200 deities. Thus, although originally a text meant for recitation, the Nāmasaṃgīti was developed by later lineages into distinct meditative systems and maṇḍala iconographies, illustrating how a single scripture could be variously reinterpreted across different periods and traditions, expanding its authority and ritual significance.