역사학=history; 한국불교=Korean Buddhism; 전통의 생성=the formation of the “tradition”; 상식의 확산=the distribution of “common sense”; 통불교=“synthetic Buddhism”=通佛敎; 호국불교= “state-protection Buddhism”=護國佛敎; 선종 전통=Sŏn(禪) tradition
摘要
지난 100년의 한국불교사 연구 성과를 개관하면서 전통의 생성과 상식의 확산이라는 관점에서 근대 식민지기와 해방 이후의 주요 연구서, 통사적 개설서를 검토하였다. 또한 한국불교의 정체성과 관련하여 통불교, 호국불교, 선종 위주의 전통인식이라는 쟁점에 대해 재고해 보았다. 한국불교의 역사와 사상, 문화를 종합하여 전통의 상을 본격적으로 그리게 된 것은 문헌텍스트 집성과 근대학문의 실증적, 객관적 연구방법론이 적용된 20세기부터였고, 이에 역사성을 담보한 한국불교사의 조형이 이루어졌다. 식민지기 일본인 학자들의 한국불교 연구는 전통의 형상화라는 점에서 크게 기여하였지만, 오리엔탈리즘에 입각한 동양학적 접근과 타자에 대한 폄하의 시각이 드러나 있다. 해방 이후 연구성과가 축적되었고 한국불교 1700년 역사에 대한 학계의 통설이 정립되면서 이는 일반의 상식으로까지 확산되었다. 그러나 부정적 타자로서의 전통상을 완전히 불식시키지는 못했으며, 한국불교사에 대한 인식의 측면에서 민족주의, 종파주의의 편향 또한 극복하지 못하였다. 역사학, 철학 등 유관 학문분야와 비교할 때 한국불교사 연구는 여전히 많은 문제점과 한계를 노정하고 있다. 한국불교사는 고유성, 특수성과 함께 그 안에 내재된 상호성, 보편성의 원리를 복합적으로 추구해야 하며 이를 통해 한국사에서 차지하는 불교의 위상을 다각도로 규명할 필요가 있다.
This article briefly reviews the accomplishments of the 100 years of research on Korean Buddhism, and examines the research history of Korean Buddhism in detail in terms of the formation of the “tradition” and the distribution of “common sense,” dividing that history into two subsequent periods: (a) colonial; (b) contemporary. This article reviews major research publications that chronologically cover the history of Korean Buddhism, and then examines a few controversies regarding the identity of Korean Buddhism. First, I discuss the question of “synthetic Buddhism”(通佛敎) as one major feature of Korean Buddhism. Second, it is the notion of “state-protection Buddhism”(護國佛敎). Third, it is a prevalent view in the Buddhist and scholarly fields that Korean Buddhism is mostly a Sŏn tradition. The traditional image of Korean Buddhism which would include its history, philosophy and culture was not portrayed until the early twentieth century. The formation of the history of Korean Buddhism had begun only since modern methodology such as the positivist approach was applied by Japanese scholars to its research, along with the compilation of the primary texts. Even though Japanese scholarly research on Korea contributed to the formation of the “tradition,” however, it cannot be denied that orientalism and its derogation of other cultures were deeply rooted in its approach. The research on the history of Korean Buddhism has still a number of problems and tasks, considering the research results and their quality that have fruited in such related fields as historial studies and philosophy. However, some negative images of the “tradition,” formed during the colonial period, still lingered within these popular theories. The bias and limitation from nationalism and sectarianism also remain in the discourse on the identity of Korean Buddhism. The research methods and approaches should aim at history rather than a history of certain schools as well as the history of East Asia rather than the history of Korea. It is of course possible to look at the history of Korean Buddhism only throught the framework emphasizing its uniqueness and particularity. However, considering the fact that Buddhism has been transmitted to various regions, including East Asia, interacting with the indigenous cultures throughout its long history, it could not be overlooked that Buddhism surely has maintained its open and universal feature, and that this feature also has had significant influence on the development of Korean Buddhism.
目次
I. 머리말 197 II. 한국불교사 연구 100년의 성과 198 III. ‘전통’의 생성: 근대의 연구와 시각 204 IV. ‘상식’의 확산: 현대의 개설과 쟁점 208 V. 맺음말 214
