두 유형의 出家와 그 정치적 含意 : 힌두교와 불교에서의 權力과 脫權力의 문제=Two Aspects of 'Leaving-home' and its Political implication: The relationship between Power and Non-Power within in Hinduism and Buddhism
이 글은 정치참여에 대한 불교의 입장을 모색하고, 그 속에 담겨 있는 의미가 무엇인지를 살펴보고자 하였다. 과연 불교는 기독교의 일부 세력들이 정당을 결성하여 선거에 참여한 것과 같은 방식의 정치참여를 할 수 있을까? 이러한 문제에 답하기 위하여, 힌두교 고전인 『바가바드기타』와 불전문학(佛傳文學)인 『붓다차리타』안에서 에피소드를 수집하여, 대비하는 방법을 취하였다. 이들 두 텍스트는 공히 현실정치에 참여할 것인가 하는 점을 화두로 삼고 있기 때문이다. 『기타』의 경우에는 아르쥬나가 잠깐 회의를 하였으나 결국 그같은 방법은 정당성을 부여받지 못하고 만다. 전쟁을 포함한 현실정치에 참전한 뒤, 말년에 출가하는 방식을 선택한다. 이는 在家의 의무를 다한 뒤에 출가한다는 점에서 재가주의라고 부를 수 있는데, 왕법과 해탈법을 함께 행하자는 입장이다. 한편, 싯다르타 태자는 그러한 재가주의적 입장을 권유받았으나, 無常하다는 이유와 왕법의 본질은 폭력의 행사에 있음을 지적하면서 출가해 버리고 만다. 출가주의라고 부르는 까닭인데, 불교의 출가주의에는 脫권력/脫정치의 의미가 있음을 알 수 있다. 한편, 불교사 안에서 힌두교적 재가주의의 입장을 취한 사례가 등장하였다. 왕법과 불법을 함께 행하자는 입장인데, 일본불교사에서 그 사례를 찾을 수 있었다. 僧兵이나 침략을 정당화하는 이데올로기 등에서 王佛一體論을 확인할 수 있다. 특히 왕법에의 참여가 식민주의를 지지하는 형태를 취하고 있었다는 점에서, 불교의 출가정신에는 脫식민주의의 의미까지 내포되어 있음을 알 수 있었다.
With the advent of religious parties, such as Gidog-dang(Christianity Party), Pyunghwa-Tangil-Gajung- dang(Family's Party for Peace and Unification) the 18th National Assembly have been faced with the issue of the relationship between religion and politics. What is their ideal relationship and how do religions or religious leaders involve themselves in the secular politics? In addition, under the stimulus of the situation in which the parties based on Christianity directly engage in Parliamentarianism, should Buddhists likewise attempt to form a political party? If so, would the doctrine of Buddhism support such a move? The purpose of this article is to answer those questions. To this end I have explored cases where religious groups have participated in secular politics in Buddhist texts and in Hinduism and then contrast them to determine Buddhist principles respective to the question. Arjuna’s skepticism as characterized in the first chapter of the Bhagavadgītā—which was originally categorized into the Bhīṣmaparva of the Mahābhārata, volume VI, after which it independently spread—reveals the Hindu accounting for the relationship between religion and politics. Arjuna agonizes over the issue of whether secular power obtained through war is morally correct. Initially, Arjuna tries to avoid the war and its inherent bloodshed and turmoil if he could have done so, he could have been said to be a renouncer. Moreover, this type of renunciation could have been evaluated not so much in line with the normative Hindu perspective, in which he could be supposed to renounce after achieving household duty as a kṣatriya(dharma kṣatriya), but rather might be closer to the Buddhist notion of a renouncer as one who has transcended secular duties. I have already discussed Arjuna’s skepticism in some other articles however, as I re-explored it here it was comparable to the case of Yudhiṣṭira’s skepticism in the Śāntiparva in the Mahābhārata, volume XII. Arjuna’s and Yudhiṣṭira’s skepticism are both in keeping with the ‘leaving home’ perspective and the logic by which they are persuaded to abandon that skepticism is strongly predicated on a ‘staying home’ trope. In other words, the relationship between religion and politics in Hinduism can be understood as rooted in ‘staying home’ viewpoints, with the primary goal being the fusion of King-Rule(rajādharma) and Liberation-Rule(mokṣadharma). Thus, Hinduism condones Hindus’ participation in secular politics. In contrast, the Buddhist view in chapter 9-11 in the Buddhacarita is contingent upon a ‘leaving home’ perspective. Buddhism criticizes the Hindu claim, which is based on a chronological arrangement in which Liberation-Rule(mokṣadharma) can be practiced only after achieving King-Rule(rajādharma), by countering it with the theory that “everything is momentary.” Buddhism also condemns the argument that some kings have legitimately achieved both King-Rule(rajādharma) and Liberation-Rule (mokṣadharma) by suggesting that King-Rule is essentially derived from violence, or ‘a stick’(daṇḍ), and therefore the two cannot be harmonized. Based upon the logic of this perspective I suggest that, when faced with the dilemma, Prince Siddhārtha chose
