Seung-Jin Choi

This paper offers a phenomenological reinterpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche’s doctrine of Eternal Recurrence through the lens of the Buddha’s Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Arising (Paṭicca-samuppāda). Rather than treating Eternal Recurrence merely as a cosmological speculation on the infinite repetition of identical events, this study conceptualizes it as a phenomenological description of the endless regeneration of ignorance, attachment, discrimination, and egoic fixation. In this reading, what eternally returns is not simply external circumstance, but the conditioned structure through which suffering continuously reproduces itself. ​Drawing upon the author’s previous reflections on momentary dependent arising, the "Manas-fication" of consciousness (viññāṇa), the sub-conscious formation of the “Fixed Subject,” and the radical role of sati (awareness), the paper argues that the Twelvefold Chain and Eternal Recurrence converge as precise descriptions of existential repetition. The recurring cycle of ignorance (avijjā), formations (saṅkhāra), consciousness (viññāṇa), craving (taṇhā), clinging (upādāna), becoming (bhava), birth (jāti), and aging-and-death (jarāmaraṇa) mirrors Nietzsche’s vision of recurrence as the perpetual return of existence. Specifically, from the author's perspective, this repetitive return is driven by the subtle, continuous operation of Manas-consciousness, which incessantly rigidifies fluid experience into a dualistic prison of a fixed self confronting a fixed world. ​However, this paper further proposes that awareness fundamentally transforms the meaning of recurrence. Through momentary sati, the chain of Dependent Arising becomes observable as a contingent process rather than an absolute destiny, leading to the deconstruction of Manas-consciousness. Conditioned existence continues to unfold, yet awareness no longer remains entirely bound to its movement. In this sense, freedom does not require escaping recurrence, but seeing through the ignorance-driven structure that generates bondage within recurrence itself. ​From this perspective, Nietzsche’s concept of amor fati acquires a new interpretation. The affirmation of fate becomes possible not because suffering disappears, but because awareness liberates the individual from total identification with the repetitive structures of attachment and self-construction. The “Will to Power” is thus reinterpreted not as external domination or force, but as the supreme inner power of awareness—a spiritual mastery that deconstructs the Fixed Subject to maintain freedom within conditioned existence. ​The paper also proposes a developmental interpretation of Nietzsche’s thought. The early Dionysian vision is interpreted as an ecstatic but still partially resigned immersion into tragic recurrence, while the later figure of Zarathustra and the Übermensch represents the awakening to the structure of recurrence itself and the possibility of liberation through value-creation. Here, “value-creation” is understood as the effortless freedom born from awareness (sati)—manifesting as the Ordinary Mind (평상심)—within the endlessly recurring wheel of Dependent Arising. Ultimately, this study argues that the overcoming of Eternal Recurrence does not consist in denying repetition or escaping existence, but in dismantling the ignorance-based structure that continuously reproduces suffering. The wheel of becoming may continue to turn, yet awareness is no longer bound to the wheel. In that freedom, recurrence itself becomes transparent, and existence can finally be affirmed without bondage.

This paper explores the limits of Western epistemology by tracing its enduring reliance on a Platonic framework, in which knowledge is grounded in stable, often transcendent structures. From Plato through Descartes, Kant, and Hegel, even critical revisions remained tied to the question of how cognition is justified. The first decisive rupture appears in Schopenhauer’s relocation of the world’s ground from reason to will, a move further radicalized by Nietzsche’s claim that metaphysics itself is a fiction born of human weakness. Yet the paper argues that Western philosophy, even after Nietzsche, largely failed to think beyond epistemology itself. Turning to Buddhist epistemological insight, it proposes a shift from “what knowledge is” to “how discrimination arises.” Drawing on dependent origination and a practice-based integration of śamatha and vipaśyanā, articulated here as “ordinary mind,” the paper outlines a non-egoic horizon in which responsibility and political engagement persist without metaphysical foundations or absolute ideals.

This paper offers a structural reinterpretation of the Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Origination (Paṭicca-samuppāda) through dialogue with Yogācāra philosophy. Rather than treating the chain solely as a temporal sequence of rebirth or a linear causal process, the study reads it as a description of how experience gradually divides into a fixed subject and a fixed object. The first half of the chain—from ignorance to the six sense bases—is interpreted as outlining the formation of a self-centered standpoint. The second half—from feeling to aging and death—is examined as the progressive solidification of objects through craving and clinging. Special attention is given to the third link, consciousness (viññāṇa). Drawing on the Yogācāra concept of manas-consciousness, this paper explores the possibility that the pivotal function of this link lies in its self-referential structure. In this reading, ignorance is not merely the absence of knowledge but an active misinterpretation that stabilizes experience around an assumed “I.” Through this process, name-and-form and the sense bases are organized as belonging to a subject, while subsequent links reinforce the apparent solidity of the world outside that subject. By bringing dependent origination into conversation with Yogācāra theories of seed formation and storehouse consciousness, the study suggests a structural convergence between the two traditions. Dependent origination can be understood as a dynamic account of how patterns are created, stored, and re-manifested, sustaining both subject and object. Liberation, in this framework, is not the destruction of phenomena but the dissolution of fixation. The paper concludes that such a reinterpretation deepens our understanding of suffering as the result of constructed duality and opens a path toward a non-divided mode of experience.

This paper examines the transformation of ālaya-vijñāna through the deconstruction of manas and explores how this shift prepares the doctrinal horizon articulated in Awakening of Faith. Rather than treating ālaya-vijñāna as a metaphysical ground or a passive store of karmic seeds, the study argues that its character depends on its structural relation to manas, the reflexive consciousness that appropriates the flow of experience as self. As long as manas identifies with continuity, ālaya-vijñāna functions as a self-reinforcing current of defilement. When this appropriative reflex is deconstructed, the dynamic of reinforcement weakens and true dharma perfuming becomes effective. The so-called transformation of the basis (āśraya-parāvṛtti) is thus interpreted not as ontological replacement but as a reorientation of lived continuity. Read in this light, the non-dual formulation of one mind with two aspects in Awakening of Faith can be understood as a structural clarification of Yogācāra analysis rather than a metaphysical departure from it. The paper concludes that awakening consists in the release of self-referential appropriation, whereby the turbulent stream of defiled consciousness is disclosed as the open field of suchness within arising and ceasing.

This paper examines the structural limits of interpretive therapy and proposes an alternative framework grounded in phenomenological analysis and Buddhist philosophy. While classical psychoanalytic interpretation, as developed by Sigmund Freud, successfully uncovers the hidden meanings of symptoms, it does not fully address the mechanism by which experiences become existentially binding. The central argument of this study is that psychological suffering is intensified not only by unconscious content but by the reflexive appropriation of experience as “mine.” Drawing upon the Yogācāra concept of Manas-vijñāna, the paper analyzes identification as a structural process that converts transient mental events into stable identity claims. This reflex of ownership transforms contingent phenomena into perceived revelations of selfhood, thereby reinforcing anxiety, defensiveness, and compulsive repetition. Through this lens, certain pathological patterns—particularly obsessive tendencies—are reinterpreted as rigidifications of identification rather than merely conflicts of meaning. To move beyond this limitation, the paper introduces the principle of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) as a model for understanding subjectivity as dynamic continuity rather than metaphysical substance. Subjectivity is reconceived as a causal configuration—stable yet non-substantial—thereby preserving coherence without ontological fixation. In this framework, therapeutic transformation emerges not solely through interpretation, but through the gradual loosening of identification and the recognition of process. Finally, the study situates this structural freedom in dialogue with Nietzsche’s affirmation of existence, suggesting that the acceptance of causality parallels a radical affirmation of becoming. The proposed synthesis offers a philosophical and practical expansion of interpretive therapy, shifting the focus from narrative reconstruction to structural liberation.

This study offers a prolegomenon to a structural dialogue between classical psychoanalysis and Yogācāra Buddhist philosophy by examining the theory of the unconscious from a Yogācāra perspective. Rather than proposing an immediate synthesis, the paper clarifies the internal logic of each system before placing them into comparison. The unconscious, as articulated by Sigmund Freud, is grounded in instinctual realism, repression, and dynamic conflict among psychic agencies. Latent processes persist because repressed drives retain energetic force and seek indirect expression. Repetition, symptom formation, and neurosis are therefore structured by tension and compromise. In contrast, the Yogācāra model of consciousness explains continuity through causal conditioning rather than repression. The doctrine of ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) accounts for the preservation of karmic seeds, while manas describes the reflexive appropriation that gives rise to the illusion of self. Latency is not the product of defensive exclusion but of dispositional potentiality. Suffering arises not primarily from instinctual conflict but from misrecognition and attachment to conditioned processes as substantial identity. By reconstructing each framework on its own terms, this paper identifies both structural parallels and decisive divergences. Freud’s model emphasizes energetic pressure and mediation among agencies, whereas Yogācāra emphasizes dependent origination and non-substantial process. The comparison reveals that while both traditions acknowledge unseen determinants of experience, they organize psychic life according to fundamentally different ontological commitments. This study does not yet advance a synthetic theory. Instead, it establishes the conceptual terrain necessary for further structural reinterpretation. Through careful differentiation, it prepares the philosophical groundwork for rethinking the unconscious beyond the opposition between instinctual force and causal conditioning.

This paper proposes a cross-cultural philosophical synthesis by reinterpreting Friedrich Nietzsche’s concepts of Eternal Recurrence and the Übermensch through the lens of Buddhist Yogacara epistemology, specifically the deconstruction of Manas-vijnana (말라식). The author argues that the existential dread associated with the Eternal Recurrence—often perceived as a nihilistic trap of repetitive causality—stems not from the nature of reality itself, but from the rigid, self-grasping structure of the Manas. Within the Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Arising (12연기), the Manas functions as the architect of an ontological bifurcation, freezing the fluid process of existence into a fixed Subject ("I") and a fixed Object ("World"). ​Drawing on Nietzsche’s critique of the "Subject" as a linguistic fiction and his call for "self-overcoming," this study posits that the emergence of the Übermensch is synonymous with the deconstruction of the Manas. By dissolving the fixed ego-identity, the individual undergoes a profound Metanoia, transforming the "greatest weight" of infinite repetition into the "lightness" of creative play. Ultimately, the paper concludes that Amor Fati is only attainable when the Manas is dismantled, allowing the practitioner to embrace the necessity of Dependent Arising as an aesthetic phenomenon rather than a karmic prison. Through this "Transformation of Suffering," the Übermensch affirms the Eternal Recurrence as the ecstatic, ego-less dance of existence.

This essay offers a personal philosophical reflection on Sigmund Freud’s concept of the unconscious through the lens of Yogācāra Buddhism and phenomenology. While acknowledging Freud’s decisive contribution in revealing the limits of rational self-governance, the essay raises a further question: where does unconscious conflict ultimately arise? Rather than locating its source in repressed mental contents, this reflection proposes that conflict emerges from the structural activity by which experience is continuously organized around a sense of self. Drawing on the Yogācāra notions of ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness) and manas (self-grasping consciousness), the Freudian unconscious is reconsidered as a phenomenological manifestation of latent structural tendencies rather than a hidden repository of desires. In this view, Ego and Superego are understood not as independent inner agencies, but as functional expressions of a deeper self-maintaining structure that precedes reflective awareness. By bringing phenomenology into dialogue with psychoanalysis and Yogācāra thought, this essay argues that the persistence of psychic conflict points to a fundamental limit of reason. Insight alone cannot dissolve suffering as long as the pre-reflective activity of self-identification remains intact. The essay does not claim a doctrinal synthesis, but suggests that Yogācāra may serve as a structural supplement to psychoanalysis by clarifying why unconscious patterns endure despite understanding.

Dependent Arising (paṭicca-samuppāda) is often interpreted either as a doctrine of rebirth or as a general theory of causality. This paper proposes a different reading: Dependent Arising as a phenomenological description of how suffering is constructed and ceased within lived experience. Drawing on a personal reflection grounded in early Buddhist teachings, the paper focuses on sati (awareness) as the decisive turning point in this process. Rather than treating suffering as an inevitable result of conditioned existence, this study argues that suffering arises at a specific moment—when feeling gives rise to craving through habitual patterns of judgment and fixation. At this critical juncture, sati functions as an immediate recognition of the mind’s movement toward grasping. When such awareness is present, ignorance loses its operative force, and the chain of Dependent Arising does not proceed further. By examining the transition from momentary awareness to sustained mindfulness, the paper shows how Dependent Arising shifts from a closed cycle of suffering to an open and observable process. In this light, conditioned phenomena (saṅkhata-dhamma) are no longer experienced as fixed or absolute, but as fluid and contingent. The paper further suggests that the Four Noble Truths and the Twelvefold Chain express a single insight in complementary forms: the structure of suffering and the practical means of its cessation. Ultimately, this essay presents Dependent Arising not as a metaphysical claim, but as a path of seeing—one that reveals freedom not beyond experience, but within the clear awareness of experience as it unfolds.

This commentary offers a provocative re-evaluation of modern political dysfunction—specifically the deepening crises of hypocrisy and polarization—by synthesizing Freudian psychoanalysis with the epistemological framework of Yogācāra (Consciousness-Only) Buddhism. The author introduces the metaphor of the "Caged Id" to describe the structural predicament of the modern political actor: a state where the primal, narcissistic drives of the Id are not dissolved, but are instead trapped within the ego-centric prison of the Manas-vijnana (말라식). ​The paper argues that contemporary ideologies (democracy, socialism, etc.) often function as "instrumental expressions"—sophisticated masks designed to provide moral legitimacy to the narcissistic expansions of the Manas-driven Id. By examining the historical counter-examples of Admiral Yi Sun-sin and Marcus Aurelius, the author demonstrates that true political transformation requires more than institutional reform; it demands a "Mindfulness of the Manas" and a return to the Ordinary Mind (평상심). This work serves as a call for a shift from ideological warfare to an "Epistemological Honesty" that seeks the dissolution of the egoic pivot as a prerequisite for genuine, non-egoic governance.

This paper offers a novel, phenomenological reinterpretation of the Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Origination (Paṭicca-samuppāda), departing from traditional linear and temporal readings. The author proposes a structural bifurcation of the chain: the first half (from Ignorance to the Six Bases) as the architecture of a "Fixed Subject" (Atman), and the second half (from Feeling to Old Age and Death) as the "Solidification of the Fixed Object." ​Central to this discourse is the author’s unique identification of the third link, Consciousness (Viññāṇa), specifically as Manas-consciousness (말라식). In this framework, Manas acts as the "Hidden Architect" that misinterprets fluid reality to construct a permanent egoic center. By engaging in a "Regressive Inquiry" (환멸연기), the paper traces the roots of existential suffering back to this egoic pivot. The author argues that the dissolution of Manas leads to a spontaneous collapse of the entire chain—an "Automatic Extinction" of ignorance and volitional formations. ​Ultimately, this study defines the moment of liberation as a paradoxical "Leap" that is, in essence, a "Return" to the Ordinary Mind (평상심). By dismantling the artificial boundaries between subject and object, the individual transitions from ego-driven confinement to "Non-Egoic Action," reclaiming a state of original clarity and non-dual freedom.

This paper serves as a phenomenological sequel to the author’s previous work, which identified Sati (mindfulness) as the critical meta-cognitive intervention between feeling (vedanā) and craving (taṇhā). While the earlier inquiry focused on the prevention of cognitive distortion, this current study analyzes the structural consequences of its failure—specifically through the later links of the Twelvefold Chain: Appropriation (upādāna), Becoming (bhava), and Birth (jāti). ​The author argues that Appropriation is not merely a psychological clinging but an epistemological operation of reification, where fluid experience is frozen into static, "independent" substances. This process culminates in a "pseudo-ontology" (bhava), constructing a conceptual stage where a fixed "Self" is born (jāti) only to inevitably perish (jarā-maraṇa). By re-interpreting the Mahayana doctrine of Anātman (No-Self), the paper moves beyond nihilistic negations to propose a "Dynamic Realism." It asserts that Anātman does not signify the absence of reality, but rather the discovery of the "Causal Self"—a reality defined not by static essence, but by the interdependent flow of the Five Aggregates. ​The conclusion posits that the "I" who practices Sati—the awareness transparently witnessing this causal momentum—constitutes the only authentic "substance." By reclaiming the "Ordinary Mind" as the realization of enlightenment, the paper clarifies how the deconstruction of the fixed ego leads to a radical affirmation of life. This shift from conceptual fixation to absolute practice transforms the Twelvefold Chain from a cycle of suffering into a phenomenological guide for liberation.

The Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Arising (paṭicca-samuppāda) is often interpreted as a causal explanation of suffering, rebirth, or psychological conditioning. This paper argues that such readings obscure the distinctive philosophical function of the chain. Rather than describing how phenomena are caused in the world, the Twelvefold Chain offers a phenomenological analysis of how cognition, once distorted by ignorance (avijjā), necessarily organizes experience into a structure that culminates in suffering. A central distinction is drawn between causality, as observed in vipassanā practice, and dependent arising. Causality refers to the non-evaluative observation that phenomena arise and pass away in dependence on conditions. Dependent arising, by contrast, does not describe this observational stance, but presupposes its failure. The necessity governing the chain is therefore not physical or deterministic, but structural: given the misrecognition of fluid experience as fixed and substantial, certain cognitive consequences follow with internal coherence. The paper locates the origin of suffering not in perception or feeling themselves, but in the emergence of craving (taṇhā), where valuation and fixation first enter experience. This point is identified as the true beginning of phenomenological distortion. The role of sati (mindfulness) is analyzed as a meta-cognitive awareness that interrupts the transition from feeling to craving, thereby suspending the automatic progression of the chain. By reinterpreting non-abiding mind (apratiṣṭhita-citta) as a mode of cognition free from reification rather than as a mystical or moral state, the paper clarifies why compassion and affirmation arise naturally as cognitive consequences. In doing so, it repositions the Twelvefold Chain as an epistemological contribution that extends phenomenological description into a practical account of liberation.

This commentary note proposes that the Buddhist principle of Dependent Origination (paṭicca-samuppāda) functions as a structural supplement to Western phenomenology by clarifying a dimension that phenomenological discourse has left incomplete. While phenomenology has offered careful and rigorous descriptions of how phenomena appear within lived experience, it has tended to leave implicit the question of why such appearances arise in the particular ways they do. The generative and conditional framework underlying manifestation has remained largely unarticulated. Drawing on the basic structure of the Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Origination, this paper argues that phenomena are not unreal but unfixed, arising as conditionally effective events rather than as self-subsistent substances. Even momentary arising and cessation possess reality insofar as they function causally within a network of relations. From this perspective, Dependent Origination is neither a metaphysical hypothesis nor a religious doctrine, but an observable phenomenological fact and the very mode through which cognition arises. By interpreting appearance, cognition, and naming as dependently arisen processes, this commentary reconsiders the epistemological implications of phenomenology and offers a non-nihilistic reading of the Diamond Sutra’s formula, “A is not A; therefore, it is called A.” Dependent Origination, it is argued, does not negate phenomenology but completes it by making explicit the conditional structure that renders experience, meaning, and knowledge possible.

This commentary note expands upon the cognitive framework established in the author’s previous study, "Understanding the Diamond Sutra through the Lens of Ordinary Mind." It seeks to deepen the earlier discussion by proposing a “phenomenological turn” in the interpretation of the sutra’s core linguistic formula: “A is not A, therefore it is called A.” While the previous work emphasized the integration of samatha and vipassanā, this note focuses on the radical reorientation found in the act of naming. The author argues that this second "A" is not merely a pragmatic return to conventional language, but a phenomenological recognition that arises only after discriminative boundary-making has ceased. By acknowledging vivid, transient phenomena through the lens of Dependent Arising (Pratītyasamutpāda), this study demonstrates how language can be used in a state of "Ordinary Mind" without the "glue" of conceptual fixation.

This paper offers an interpretive reading of the Diamond Sutra centered on the concept of ordinary mind, understood as the integrated functioning of samatha and vipassanā. Rather than treating the sutra as a purely paradoxical or nihilistic text, this study argues that its primary concern lies in the transformation of ordinary cognition through the dissolution of discriminative and boundary-making mental activity. Samatha is interpreted as the cessation of conceptual fixation and dualistic boundaries, while vipassanā is understood as the observation of phenomena within causal and dependent arising once such fixation has ceased. Special attention is given to the sutra’s recurring linguistic pattern, “A is not A, therefore it is called A,” which this paper reads as expressing the dynamic relationship between non-discrimination and functional language. In addition to conventional interpretations, the author proposes a personal reflective insight: that naming itself may arise only after the dissolution of discriminative boundaries, allowing language to operate without reification. Through close analysis of key verses—including “If one sees all forms as non-forms, one sees the Tathāgata” and “All conditioned phenomena are like dreams or illusions”—the paper argues that the Diamond Sutra presents awakening not as transcendence of ordinary life, but as a radical reorientation within it. Ordinary mind thus emerges as a post-discriminative mode of awareness in which ethical action, language, and everyday activity continue without attachment or grasping.

This paper explores Seon (Zen) Buddhism as the historical and philosophical culmination of Mahāyāna thought, representing a decisive leap from theoretical understanding to the lived realization of enlightenment in daily life. Rooted in the insights of the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra) and the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, Seon transforms the conceptual discourse of emptiness (śūnyatā) and suchness (tathatā) into direct experiential awareness. The Seon tradition, beginning with Huineng (慧能) and maturing through the Chinese Chan and Korean Seon lineages, actualizes the profound Mahāyāna formula: “Afflictions are none other than enlightenment, and birth and death are none other than nirvāṇa.” This equation, far from paradoxical, expresses the very essence of Seon practice — the realization that delusion and awakening, samsara and nirvāṇa, are not two. In this context, the ordinary mind (pingshangxin, 平常心) of Zhaozhou (趙州從諗) becomes the living expression of this unity, signifying the dissolution of all dualities and discriminations. Such realization transcends theoretical cognition and intellectual analysis, leading to a metanoic transformation of perception itself — the return to immediacy, to life-as-it-is. By integrating doctrinal foundations from the Diamond Sutra, Awakening of Faith, and Huayan (華嚴) cosmology, this study situates Seon as the existential completion of Mahāyāna: not as a negation of thought, but as its fulfillment through direct insight and uncontrived practice. The “ordinary mind” thus embodies the total convergence of theory and realization, marking Seon as the absolute practice of enlightenment in the midst of phenomena.

This paper presents a comparative philosophical exploration of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, analyzed through the lenses of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of will and Nietzsche’s existential thought. The First Noble Truth (Dukkha) is examined in light of Schopenhauer’s concept of the ceaseless striving of the will and Nietzsche’s notion of eternal recurrence, elucidating the structural inevitability of suffering in human life. The Second Noble Truth (Samudaya) investigates the origin of suffering, focusing on craving, attachment, and the mind’s evaluative projections, integrating Buddhist Vipassana insights with Nietzschean ideas of the Übermensch and absolute affirmation (Amor Fati). The Third Noble Truth (Nirodha) addresses the cessation of suffering, incorporating Schopenhauer’s recognition of the identity of the will and Nietzschean life affirmation and creative value generation. The Fourth Noble Truth (Magga) is interpreted as the integrated path to liberation, linking the Noble Eightfold Path with the threefold practice of ethical discipline (Śīla), meditative cultivation (Samādhi), and wisdom (Prajñā), with explicit reference to Korean Seon Buddhist practices. This interdisciplinary approach demonstrates that suffering is both structurally inherent and experientially transformable, emphasizing the interplay of insight, ethical engagement, and existential affirmation as a framework for liberation. The study provides a novel synthesis of Buddhist, German, and existential philosophical perspectives, offering practical and theoretical guidance for understanding, alleviating, and transforming human suffering.

This essay presents a personal and philosophical interpretation of Buddhist rebirth (saṃsāra), emphasizing momentary dependent arising rather than linear temporal succession. Conventional interpretations that reduce rebirth to past, present, and future lives misrepresent the Buddha’s avyākata (undeclared questions). Drawing upon early Nikāya texts, the essay foregrounds rebirth as conditional, momentary processes of consciousness. The essay further integrates Mahāyāna developments, including the Avataṃsaka Sūtra’s unobstructed interpenetration doctrines (i-sa-mu-ae, sa-sa-mu-ae, won-yung-mu-ae) and the Heart Sutra’s emptiness (śūnyatā), demonstrating the evolution of Buddhist philosophical insight over two and a half millennia. A comparative discussion with Pauline theology highlights Buddhism’s dynamic, evolving nature. This study offers a comprehensive framework for understanding rebirth, consciousness, and the interdependent nature of reality.

This essay presents a personal philosophical reflection on reincarnation (saṃsāra), emphasizing the Buddha’s teaching on dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), momentary causality (kṣaṇika-pratītyasamutpāda), and non-self (anattā). Drawing on early Buddhist canon and Mahāyāna sutras, I argue that reincarnation is a continuous, causally emergent process rather than a linear passage of a fixed self. The essay integrates canonical quotations, detailed exegesis, and personal reflection to provide a comprehensive understanding of the process of rebirth from a Buddhist philosophical perspective.

This essay reconsiders the concept of karma not as a mere moral law of retribution but as the ontological and phenomenological structure of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). By integrating early Nikāya sources, Abhidharma analyses, and Mahāyāna elaborations, karma is explored as the logic that underlies existence itself. Rather than reducing karma to linear causation across lifetimes, this essay situates it in the framework of aśūnyatā—the emptiness of both self and phenomena (ātma-śūnyatā and dharma-śūnyatā). Karma, understood as conditional arising, becomes the foundation upon which Buddhist philosophy, ethics, and soteriology unfold. The essay concludes that the recognition of karma as dependent arising provides the ground for liberation: by seeing karma as empty yet conditionally real, one realizes that freedom from the binding chain of action is possible.

The Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Arising (Paṭicca-samuppāda) has long been interpreted in multiple ways: doctrinally as the structure of samsara, psychologically as the unfolding of mental processes, or philosophically as an illustration of emptiness (śūnyatā). In this essay, I propose a personal perspective: the core insight of the Buddha’s awakening lies in the momentary origination of all phenomena—the direct, experiential awareness that each event, sensation, and impulse arises and passes away in an instant. Drawing upon my own reflections and recurrent dream experiences, I explore how the twelve links can be seen not merely as an abstract schema but as a living, immediate insight into the flux of existence.

This paper explores the concept of ordinary mind and its political significance, arguing that ordinary mind does not arise from advanced theory, rare insight, or demanding spiritual discipline. Instead, it becomes evident when habitual patterns of ego-centered interpretation loosen and perception returns to a simple awareness of causes and effects. Ordinary mind is not extraordinary; it is accessible, practical, and already implicit in everyday experience. By reframing ordinary mind in this way, the paper challenges the assumption that political clarity requires moral intensity or ideological certainty. Contemporary politics is often shaped by identity-driven judgment, emotional escalation, and the need for moral self-affirmation. Under such conditions, political phenomena are easily transformed into symbolic struggles rather than examined as processes that produce concrete outcomes in human life. Drawing on Buddhist insights into sameness (samathā), the distinction between representation and reality, and the absence of a fixed ego, as well as on Schopenhauer’s notion of the identity of the will, the paper proposes a causal approach to political judgment. From this perspective, policies and institutions are evaluated not by their symbolic meaning or moral rhetoric, but by their actual effects on suffering, stability, and shared well-being. The paper introduces the concept of non-egoic politics to describe a form of political action that is free from egoic ownership, moralized identity, and the need for recognition. In non-egoic politics, leadership becomes functional rather than heroic, power is treated as instrumental rather than possessive, and responsibility is shared rather than claimed. Such politics is not passive; on the contrary, it enables clearer, more flexible, and more effective action. Finally, the paper argues that ordinary mind is not a pre-political retreat, but the psychological condition that makes non-egoic politics possible. Resonating with the Daoist principle of wei wu wei—acting without forcing—ordinary mind allows political life to become effective without domination and ethical without aggression. In a time of heightened polarization and moral conflict, ordinary mind offers a quiet but realistic foundation for political judgment grounded in causality, humility, and care for human flourishing.

Modern political life is marked less by the absence of critique than by its endless repetition. Ideological conflicts persist, yet public suffering remains largely unchanged. This paper argues that the core problem of modern politics lies not merely in institutional failure or deliberate deception, but in ego-centered rationalization embedded in political deliberation itself. Drawing on Yogācāra philosophy, particularly the concept of manas, this study interprets ideological hypocrisy as a structural outcome of ignorance (avidyā), rather than as a product of malicious intent. Political elites often articulate policies through language that appears reasonable and morally justified, yet this language functions primarily to preserve authority, coherence, and identity. As a result, political speech becomes increasingly detached from lived experience. The paper further examines how this ego-centered structure extends beyond political elites to shape public participation. Citizens recognize hypocrisy but experience powerlessness, leading to fatigue, cynicism, and the fragmentation of political discourse. Awareness without efficacy reproduces the very logic it seeks to oppose. Against this backdrop, the paper proposes the idea of non-egoic politics—not as a new ideology or moral ideal, but as a practical shift in political awareness. Non-egoic politics begins with the deconstruction of manas: the loosening of rigid self–other distinctions and the exposure of rationalized self-preservation in political language. This shift enables public articulation of structural connections among power, ideology, and suffering, opening space for more responsive and accountable deliberation. Rather than offering a utopian solution, this study presents non-egoic politics as an ongoing practice of awareness. It suggests that meaningful political transformation depends less on replacing ideologies than on transforming the cognitive habits through which political meaning is produced and sustained.

Modern political systems repeatedly fail not because of a lack of ideals, but because of the way absolute values are used to protect human ego. Parliamentary democracy speaks in the name of the nation, communist socialism in the name of the people, and theocratic systems in the name of ultimate truth. Despite their differences, these systems share a common structure: an abstract absolute is elevated beyond critique, while political power hides behind it. As a result, suffering is not reduced but justified. This paper argues that the core problem of contemporary politics is not ideological error but egoic governance—the identification of personal or factional power with an unquestionable value. In response, it proposes non-egoic politics not as a new ideology, but as a discipline of restraint. Non-egoic politics rejects the sanctification of any collective identity and emphasizes limitation, withdrawal, and the timely relinquishment of authority as primary political virtues. By examining the structural failures of parliamentary democracy, communist socialism, and theocracy, this study demonstrates how each system converts its highest value into a moral shield. Against this pattern, non-egoic politics offers a minimal yet demanding alternative: a political posture grounded in humility, accountability, and the refusal to fuse ego with power. The paper concludes that the most radical political act in the modern world may not be the conquest of authority, but the disciplined capacity to step aside.

This paper continues a critical inquiry into political ideological hypocrisy by shifting the focus from institutions and doctrines to the deeper psychological structure of action itself. While modern political life often treats power, dominance, and self-assertion as natural expressions of human reality, this study questions whether such pursuits can genuinely answer the human desire for fulfillment and happiness. Drawing on Arthur Schopenhauer’s distinction between the objectification of the will and the identity of the will, the paper argues that political hypocrisy is not merely a moral failure but a structural outcome of ego-centered action. When political agency is driven by the need to secure and assert the self, ideals inevitably become instruments of justification rather than expressions of shared responsibility. To explore an alternative mode of action, the study brings Schopenhauer’s insights into dialogue with key concepts from the Daodejing, especially 無爲 (non-forcing action) and 自然 (naturalness). Rather than interpreting 無爲 as passivity or withdrawal, the paper understands it as action free from artificial manipulation—action that arises when the ego no longer stands at the center of decision-making. In this sense, 無爲 appears as the political expression of the identity of the will. The historical example of Admiral Yi Sun-sin provides a concrete illustration of this orientation. His leadership demonstrates how effective action, responsibility, and courage can emerge without self-display or ideological performance. Through this comparative framework, the paper argues that power cannot answer the question of true happiness because happiness does not arise from domination or control, but from the quieting of egoic striving. Ultimately, the study proposes a non-egoic vision of political life grounded not in new ideological systems, but in a transformation of the agent who acts. A politics beyond ideological hypocrisy, it suggests, begins where the ego’s need to dominate gives way to a deeper recognition of shared existence.

This paper offers a reinterpretation of the Confucian concept of 仁 (ren, 인) as presented in the Analects, arguing that ren should not be understood primarily as a moral virtue, social ideal, or emotional benevolence. Instead, ren is examined as a transformed condition of human existence in which ego-centered will loosens its grip and ethical harmony arises spontaneously. Focusing on Confucius’s formulation 克己復禮爲仁, this study interprets 克己 (keji, 극기) not as moral self-restraint, but as the overcoming of ego-centered identification rooted in the illusion of absolute individuation. Within this framework, 禮 (li, 례) is reinterpreted as the natural ethical form that manifests once ego-driven calculation has fallen silent, rather than as an externally imposed system of ritual or propriety. To articulate the philosophical depth of this transformation, the paper places Confucian thought in dialogue with Arthur Schopenhauer’s analysis of the will. Schopenhauer’s notion of the identity of the will provides a metaphysical articulation of the experiential shift implied by 극기, while his concept of aesthetic contemplation illuminates Confucius’s appreciation of the Book of Songs, encapsulated in the remark 詩三百 思無邪. The absence of 邪 is interpreted as freedom from the highest form of the will’s objectification—reflective human egoism—thereby revealing 사무사 as a poetic analogue to aesthetic contemplation. On this basis, 禮 is defined as the ethical counterpart of aesthetic contemplation: action arising without ego-centered calculation. By integrating ontological, aesthetic, and ethical dimensions, this paper argues that ren names a lived realization of shared human ground rather than a system of moral prescriptions. In doing so, it presents Confucian ethics as a deeply philosophical tradition that addresses the roots of human conflict and articulates the possibility of non-coercive ethical harmony through transformed perception and practice. Keywords.

Non-egoic politics refers to a mode of political thought and practice that arises from the deliberate withdrawal of ego-centered will, allowing a deeper and shared dimension of willing to operate without distortion. This paper explores the philosophical foundations of such politics through a comparative reading of Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations and the Daodejing, interpreted in light of Arthur Schopenhauer’s concepts of the world as representation, will-objectivity, and the identity of the will. Rather than presenting politics as a field of competing intentions and moral assertions, both texts emphasize restraint, self-effacement, and alignment with an order that precedes individual desire. Stoic endurance and Daoist wu-wei are examined not as passive attitudes, but as disciplined responses to the dangers of ego-driven governance. By reframing political action as the careful limitation of the self rather than the expansion of power, this study argues that non-egoic politics offers a quiet yet enduring alternative to modern political models shaped by identity, domination, and incessant intervention.

This essay explores a philosophical convergence between Marcus Aurelius and Admiral Yi Sun-sin through a close, reflective reading of Meditations and Nanjung Ilgi. Rather than pursuing doctrinal comparison or cultural analogy, the paper approaches both figures as exemplars of a shared ethical form that emerges under conditions of extreme historical crisis. It argues that the emotional restraint, self-discipline, and inward orientation evident in both texts reveal a mode of political action grounded in the dissolution of egoic attachment rather than its assertion. By examining themes of inner sovereignty, ethical stability amid chaos, bodily weakness, and the affirmation of fate, the essay shows how Marcus Aurelius and Yi Sun-sin transform suffering into a medium for ethical clarification rather than resentment. Drawing implicitly on the notion of the identity of the will, the paper suggests that their actions arise not from personal ambition or ideological conviction, but from fidelity to an impersonal moral form that remains intact despite injustice, illness, and uncertainty. The convergence between these two figures thus illuminates a model of non-egoic political ethics in which value is not proclaimed or imposed, but quietly created through sustained responsibility and inner coherence. In an age increasingly shaped by reactive politics and performative morality, their shared ethical posture offers a compelling alternative: a form of leadership grounded in restraint, affirmation, and the disciplined disappearance of the self.

This paper explores the persistent duplicity and moral inconsistency that characterize modern political ideologies by examining the deeper psychological roots of human motivation. Drawing on Arthur Schopenhauer’s diagnosis of the “objectification of the will,” I argue that many political ideals—whether progressive, conservative, or revolutionary—often conceal a fundamental self-interest that operates beneath the surface of public moral rhetoric. Yet Schopenhauer does not merely diagnose the problem; he also gestures toward a possible transcendence through the concept of the identity of the will, most clearly embodied in the universalized experience of compassion. To illuminate this possibility, the paper presents the historical example of Admiral Yi Sun-sin, whose recorded reflections after the Battle of Myeongnyang reveal a rare psychological structure in which the suffering of the people is experienced as indistinguishable from one’s own. This case allows us to ground Schopenhauer’s metaphysical insight in an actual political and ethical practice. Finally, the paper suggests that integrating the Buddhist non-dual perspective—one that dissolves rigid self–other boundaries—provides a complementary philosophical framework for envisioning political action rooted beyond ideological self-interest. Together, these elements offer a proposal for a future political philosophy capable of overcoming the ideological hypocrisy that shapes much of contemporary political life.