|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
바가바드 기타에 대한 틸락의 행동주의적 해석=Speculation and Criticism of Tilak’s Understanding of the Main Subject of the Gita |
|
|
|
| 著者 |
김호성 (著)=金浩星 (au.)
|
|---|
| 掲載誌 |
인도철학=印度哲學=Korean Journal of Indian Philosophy
|
|---|
| 巻号 | n.22 |
|---|
| 出版年月日 | 2007 |
|---|
| ページ | 275 - 311 |
|---|
| 出版者 | 印度哲學會 |
|---|
| 出版サイト |
http://krindology.com/
|
|---|
| 出版地 | Korea [韓國] |
|---|
| 資料の種類 | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| 言語 | 韓文=Korean |
|---|
| ノート | 저자정보: 동국대학교 인도철학과 교수 |
|---|
| キーワード | 기타= GItA; 틸락= Tilak; 행동주의= Activism; Activistic Monism=행위일원론; 지행겸수; 행위의 길=the way of Action; 믿음의 길=the way of Faith; the way of Wisdom=지혜의 길; harmonization of Wisdom and Action |
|---|
| 抄録 | 틸락은 『기타』를 해석한 자신의 저서 『기타라하스야』를 통하여 『기타』에 대한 샹카라, 라마누자, 그리고 마드바 등으로 대표되는 전통적인 베단타 祖師들의 해석을 비판한다. 전통적 해석들은 『기타』를 지혜의 길이나 믿음의 길에 초점을 두고 해석하여 왔으나, 틸락은 『기타』가 오직 행위의 길 하나만을 설하는 텍스트라고 판정한다. 그의 입장을 그 스스로 ‘행동주의’라고 부른다. 이 글에서는 틸락이 지혜중심의 전통적인 교판과는 달리 지혜와 행위의 兼修를 지향하는 교판을 내세우면서 인도철학사를 새롭게 바라보고 있었으며, 다른 주석가들과 달리 과목 나누기를 동의하지 않았다는 점을 주목하였다. 틸락은 행위와 지혜가 관련되면서도 지혜보다 행위가 중요하다고 하였다. 이들은 모두 그 스스로 행위의 길 하나만을 내세우는 행동주의적 해석을 정립하기 위한 것이었다. 하지만 나는 그의 행동주의적 해석이 믿음의 길을 배제하고서 행위의 길 하나만을 설한다는 점에서, 그가 비판하였던 전통적 해석자들과 마찬가지로 종파주의적 한계를 띠고 있었던 것으로 평가한다. 행위의 길을 중시하더라도, 그것은 다시 지혜나 믿음과 조화를 이룰 수 있는 것으로 『기타』에는 제시되어 있기 때문이다.
First, let us look into Tilak's understanding of the Gītā on the basis of the doctrinal evaluation. Tilak presents his own doctrinal evaluation, criticizing the mainstream style of his predecessors. The Vedānta school focused on the way of Wisdom. According to Tilak, one of the canonical texts of the Vedānta school, the Upaniṣads (particularly the Iśa Upaniṣad), present the way of harmonization in which Wisdom and Action are meant to be pursued equally, and that such a tendency is canonically maintained up until the era of the Gītā. However, the Gītā marks the greatest peak where the value of Action was impeccably emphasized according to Tilak. Regarding this aspect, Tilak, not totally out of sync with Vedāntic thought, can be considered as one of the most important thinkers to criticize Śankara's Advaita Vedānta, along with Aurobindo Ghose(1872-1950). Next, Tilak was also critical about the analysis diagram categorizing the Gītā into 18 chapters according to the contents of the story. Some philosophers in medieval times, such as Yamuna and Madhusudanah, etc., have understood the Gītā by dividing it into three large parts. Tilak, however, puts down his own analysis diagram because he objects to the notion that there are three ways, those of Wisdom, Action, and Faith, combined together in the Gītā. He considers the way of Action as the only message the entire work of the Gītā displays. I designate Tilak’s perspective as a kind of monism(一合說) in which stands out an activist viewpoint. After analyzing Tilak's activist exposition with the aid of the two methodological instruments shown above, I looked into the contents of his work more precisely and investigated how he understands the notion of 'Action.' First, he does not simply regard Action as meaning religious ritual or social duty, but enlarges the notion into every action in everyday life. Second, he sees that it is necessary to keep one's intelligence as an ability of discrimination, clean and firm for the sake of the way of Action. Third, it is considered that enlightenment can be achieved by the way of Action only. Fourth, Wisdom and Action are closely related, though, Action is regarded as the more advanced device. Concludingly, Tilak excludes the way of Faith, then tries to establish his own unique style of interpretation by prioritizing Action over the other two—Wisdom and Faith. On one hand, I do approve of the meaning and status of Tilak's interpretation in the history of the Gītā commentaries; on the other hand, I do not agree with the viewpoint maintaining that the Gītā presents exclusively 'the way of Action'. I do not, however, take the same position with Śaṅkara, who does not evaluate the way of Action in a proper way, for I fully recognize the meaning of the way of Action as Tilak suggests. Yet, I cannot agree with Tilak in proclaiming that the Gītā addresses exclusively the way of Action, not willing to properly recognize the way of Wisdom or, especially, the way of Faith. What seems more important is to decode the philosophy, re-unifying the ways of Faith and Action in the Gītā, rather than to rule out the way of Faith in order to promote the way of Action. This is because the way of Faith serves as a presupposition for the way of Action. I think it was Ramanuja and Gandhi who had realized this point. Considering the facts mentioned above, the terminology often utilized |
|---|
| 目次 | I 머리말. 275
II 행동주의적 해석의 확립. 278
III 행동주의적 해석에 대한 비판. 294
IV 맺음말. 304 |
|---|
| ISSN | 12263230 (P) |
|---|
| ヒット数 | 45 |
|---|
| 作成日 | 2023.09.29 |
|---|
| 更新日期 | 2023.09.29 |
|---|
 |
Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac)での検索をお勧めします。ＩＥではこの検索システムを表示できません。
|
|
