사효(師孝)의 윤리와 출가정신의 딜레마 -- 한암(漢岩)의 『선사경허화상행장(先師鏡虛和尙行狀)』 을 중심으로=Dilemma between the Ethics of Discipular Piety and the Pabbajja Spirit Focusing on Hanam(漢岩)’s Seonsa-Gyeongheo-Hwasang-Haengjang (先師鏡虛和尙行狀)
경허=Gyeongheo; 한암=Hanam; 만공=Mangong; 석전=Seokjeon; 선사경허화상행장=Seonsa-Gyeongheo-Hwasang-Haengjang=先師鏡虛和尙行狀=A Critical Biography of the late master Gyeongheo; 『경허집』=『Gyeongheo-Jip(Collected Works of venerable Gyeongheo)』; 행리=Haeng-li=deed; 사효=discipular piety; 출가정신=pabbajja spirit
摘要
이 글은 불교의 출가정신이 무엇인지를 탐색하는 일련의 논문 중 하나이다. 종래의 연구를 통해서, 불교의 출가정신은 인도의 바라문교/힌두교와 중국의 유교가 공유하는 ‘효(孝) 이데올로기’를 탈피하는 것으로 파악하였다. 이는 역설적으로 인도에서나 중국을 비롯한 유교적 지배질서가 통용되었던 동아시아의 불교는 ‘효 이데올로기’를 맞닥뜨리지 않을 수 없었으며, 그로부터 많은 압박을 받지 않을 수 없었음을 의미하는 것이었다. 그 압박에 대하여 불교에서는 호교론을 다양한 측면에서 전개하지만, 이 글은 그런 움직임에 보다도 유교적 효가 얼마나 깊이 압박하고 있는가, 그럼으로써 불교 안에 유교적 효담론이 얼마나 깊이 내면화되어 있었던가 하는 점을 살펴보고자 한다. 그러한 하나의 사례로서 한암이 스승 경허의 삶을 정리하고 평가한 「행장」 속에서, 윤리적으로 문제되고 있는 경허의 행위를 그가 어떻게 말하고 있는가 하는 것을 살펴보았다. 거기에서 한암은 스승에 대한 효, 즉 사효(師孝)의 윤리가 주는 무게와 함께 ‘법’의 옹호를 위해서는 스승의 행위를 후학들이 따라하지 못하도록 경계해야 한다는 이중의 과제를 다 이루고자 한다. 그 결과 한암은 한편으로는 승화 내지 미화를 하면서, 다른 한편으로는 비록 ‘저자의 의도’는 아니었지만 ‘미필적 비판’으로 수용(受容)될 수 있는 후학에의 경계를 동시에 행한다. 이러한 한암의 딜레마는 출가정신의 견지(堅持)가 얼마나 어려운 일인가 하는 점을 말하기에 부족하지 않은 것이었다.
In 1931, venerable Hanam wrote an article Seonsa-Gyeongheo-Hwasang-Haengjang 先師鏡虛和尙行狀(A Critical Biography of the late master Gyeongheo, Haengjang for the rest) which arranges and evaluate his late master venerable Gyeongheo’s whole life. This Haengjang , however, compared to other kinds of Haengjang, connotes an uncommon part which appraises the meaning of his master’s Haeng-li(行履, deeds) especially about not keeping away from liquor and women upon occasion. Thereafter, this part gets a name ‘Boon-Byul-Haeng-Li-Boon (分別行履分)’ by a translator (Yeonnam). By conventional, there have suggested some opinions about this stance of Hanam’s appraisal of his master Gyeongheo in the ‘Boon-Byul-Haeng-Li-Boon (分別行履分)’. Some opinions were that Hanam had glorified or sublimated his master’s deed, and others, in contrast, were that he had criticized or took moderate views. Then what position indeed he stood with his master? Most of all, in this article, the key issue can be suggested as organizing my own point of view. Therefore I tried to put this part in the third chapter that can be the core section. At first, I tried to categorize the whole text of ‘Boon-Byul-Haeng-Li-Boon (分別行履分)’, because in my opinion, those disagreements of conventional scholars could be due to the lack of getting a wide view of the text. This categorization is presented by a table which shows the whole and parts of the text at the same time. Through this process, I could find out two facts. The first one is that there are two layers in which the word ‘Haeng-li(deed)’ of Gyeongheo that Hanam suggested. One can be said as an extensive interpretation, which includes not only liquor and women issues(酒色) in a narrow sense bringing up religious precepts but also mingling himself in the secular world(同塵行) which is considered to be worthy of the highest admiration. By using same word ‘Haeng-li(deed)’on both of those superordinate and subordinate concepts, Hanam caused confusion. However, it was the result of great deliberation to euphemize it avoiding the word like ‘liquor and women(酒色)’ or ‘violation the precepts(犯戒)’. Because he wanted to fulfill his duty as a disciple to his master. The second one is that Hanam made some mentions which can be regarded as sublimation or glorification on appraising his master’s ‘Haeng-li(deed) in narrow sense’. Especially in the sentence “If one is not fully enlightened, how can he be free from trifling matters?”, we can read his intention to glorify his master’s deed in a narrow sense even though Lee Neunghwa(李能和) criticized it as ‘violation the precepts’. However in the same time Hanam said that “Learn Gyeongheo’s teachings, but do not follow his deed” for his future information. It conforms with the teachings of the Buddhist canon saying “Lean on the dhammas, not on a person”. In this mention which can be regarded as a ‘discipline for his younger pupils’, we can hardly find an intention to criticize his master’s deed. In other words, the ‘intention of the author’ was not for criticism. Though he could not criticize his master, he wanted to address to his younger pupils not to imitate rashly after his master’s deed if they are not fully enlightened like his master. Thereby, Hanam s
目次
Ⅰ. 머리말 303 Ⅱ. 경허의 ‘행장의 철학’ 305 Ⅲ. 경허의 행리에 대한 한암의 분별 309 Ⅳ. 한암의 분별에 대한 상반된 평가 333 Ⅴ. 맺음말 345
