이 글은 유학의 인성(人性) 개념과 불교의 불성(佛性) 개념을 비교한 것이다. 인성(人性)은 위성(爲性)의 내재적 가능성 또는 근거이고 불성(佛性)은 성불(成佛)의 내재적 가능성 또는 근거이다. 여기서 인성은 유적본성(類的本性)인데 반하여 불성은 우주만유의 공성(共性)이다. 불교는 “중생”의 범위를 모든 생명체를 가리키는 “유정(有情)”뿐만 아니라 “무정(無情)”에게 까지 확대함으로써 “성불(成佛)”을 절대 초월층에 설정할 수밖에 없다는 문제를 낳게 된다. 이후 중국 불교학의 발전은 이 문제의 해결과 직결되었다고 할 수 있는데, 불교의 기본 방향은 “중생”과 “성불”의 “동일성(同一性)” 논증이었다. 유학에서는 “인성(人性)”이 처음부터 유적공성(類的共性)을 가리키는 것이고, 그 최종적 경계인 성인(聖人)이 “지선(至善)”한 사람을 의미하였기 때문에 중국불교에서와 같은 문제는 발생하지 않는다. 하지만 여기서 “인성”은 “위성”의 ‘가능 근거’로만 설정되는 문제를 안고 있다. 성리학자들의 본체론은 이 문제를 해결하고자 한 것이었고, 거기에는 불교의 영향이 매우 컸다.

It is a very meaningful work that studies the ideal state of human being in both Neo-Confucianism and Zen of Buddhism within the comparative perspective. On one hand, Neo-Confucianism ultimately aims at a state of being a Man(;being a moral saint) through the cultivation and the continuos learning of himself. On the other hand, Zen's thoughts in china aims at the presentative completeness of being a Buddhis saint(;being a state of Buddha himself). The idea of this presentative completeness in being couldn't be ever found in originally existing Buddhism of India so far. This great idea could have been established by the result from the influence of Confucianism on Buddhism, when it came inside into China and the conventional thoughts in China. There is a big difference between a state of being a Man as the ideal image and a state of being Buddhist saint, in that Confucianism never goes beyond the correlational tie of sociality while Buddhism carries on the religious dimension of its isolated nature in the first place. This feature would be brought up by the different opinions on the nature of human being each other. That is to say, Zen's thoughts rest on a firm basic idea of the commonness in all things of the universe similar to Taoism, meanwhile Confucianism pays intensive attention on human being's own peculiarity. Therefore, Zen in Buddhism pursues the discussion about human nature within the possible sphere while Neo-Confucianism regards human nature as something that can be firmly determined with value sets. According to these different viewpoint, it is absolutely natural that there are differential ways of realization and its results in human nature.

It is a very meaningful work that studies the ideal state of human being in both Neo-Confucianism and Zen of Buddhism within the comparative perspective. On one hand, Neo-Confucianism ultimately aims at a state of being a Man(;being a moral saint) through the cultivation and the continuos learning of himself. On the other hand, Zen's thoughts in china aims at the presentative completeness of being a Buddhis saint(;being a state of Buddha himself). The idea of this presentative completeness in being couldn't be ever found in originally existing Buddhism of India so far. This great idea could have been established by the result from the influence of Confucianism on Buddhism, when it came inside into China and the conventional thoughts in China. There is a big difference between a state of being a Man as the ideal image and a state of being Buddhist saint, in that Confucianism never goes beyond the correlational tie of sociality while Buddhism carries on the religious dimension of its isolated nature in the first place. This feature would be brought up by the different opinions on the nature of human being each other. That is to say, Zen's thoughts rest on a firm basic idea of the commonness in all things of the universe similar to Taoism, meanwhile Confucianism pays intensive attention on human being's own peculiarity. Therefore, Zen in Buddhism pursues the discussion about human nature within the possible sphere while Neo-Confucianism regards human nature as something that can be firmly determined with value sets. According to these different viewpoint, it is absolutely natural that there are differential ways of realization and its results in human nature.

human nature, Buddha-nature, identity, attaining a Saint, attaining Buddhahood