초기경전과 대승경전의 和諍論 : 불교해석학 연구의 自註, 혹은 補論 (Harmonization(Samuccayavāda) between Āgama/Nikaya and Mahāyāna Sūtras)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 보조사상연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 보조사상 / 34호 / 355 ~ 420페이지
· 저자명 : 김호성

초록

초기불교와 대승불교의 관계를 어떻게 보아야 할 것인가? 이 문제를 나는 초기경전과 대승경전을 바라보는 관점의 관계로 치환해서 논술하였다. 근래 우리 학계에서 행해진 ‘불설과 비불설’ 논쟁 역시 그러한 문제를 해결하는 방식의 불일치에서 초래한 것으로 본다. 이 논문 역시 그러한 문제에 대한 나름의 해답을 제공하는 것으로 볼 수 있다.
다만 종래의 ‘불설과 비불설’ 논쟁 등은 초기경전과 대승경전의 성립을 둘러싼 역사적 측면의 접근이라 한다면, 이 글은 역사적 입장에 서지 않는다. 오히려 역사적 측면의 논의는 가능한 배제하고, 철학적 내지 해석학적 입장에서 이 문제를 다루어 보고자 하였다.
기실 이러한 언급은 이미 나의 『불교해석학 연구』를 통하여 표명한 바 있으나, 그 책의 주된 초점이 초기경전과 대승경전을 바라보는 관점에 있는 것이 아니었으므로 주목을 받지 못하였다. 이에 이 글을 통하여 바로 그러한 점을 집중적으로 부각하여 재조명코자 하였다. 미처 『불교해석학 연구』에서는 활용하지 못하였던 다양한 방법론을 활용하여 보았다.
예를 들어서 자크 데리다의 해체철학, 보르헤스의 단편소설에서 다루어진 상호텍스트성, 롤랑 바르트의 ‘저자의 죽음’, 義相의 ‘저자의 부재’, 이케미 쵸류(池見澄隆)의 심성사적 방법론, 야나기 무네요시(柳 宗悅)의 민예미학 등의 입장을 원용하여 아함/니카야와 대승경전은 공히 불설이라 볼 수도 있고, 공히 비불설이라 볼 수도 있음을 논하였다. 결국은 초기경전과 대승경전 사이에는 어떠한 가치의 우열도 있을 수 없다는 것이다.
이러한 논의를 전개해 감에 있어서, 나는 인도철학사의 저술전통에서 볼 수 있는 것처럼 前主張을 먼저 내세운 뒤에 그에 대하여 비판하면서 자신의 正義를 제기하는 글쓰기 방식을 채택하였다.

영어초록

How should we understand the Mahāyāna sūtras? The focus of the problem with the Mahāyāna sūtras is placed on the absence of the authors. while, the sutras of Early Buddhism are believed to have the 'original' words of the Buddha himself and, therefore, have an author. For this reason, the sutras of early Buddhism are considered to be more trustworthy and authoritative than the Mahāyāna sūtras which is regarded as relatively unreliable. I criticized this claim(pūrvapakṣa) by presenting my own philosophy(siddhānta) and tried to suggest possible solutions to the six important points at issue I'm going to bring up.
The first point is over the assertion that the Mahāyāna sūtras have no actual authors while the sutras of Early Buddhism do. According to J. Derrida, neither of them none the more has authors although the names have been written on the covers. He believes that creating a proper noun is the same as its elimination or obliteration. If anyone assumes that the author exists just by looking at the marking of an author, it would just be an illusion of looking at a proper noun as an exposure of a substance. From the standpoint of causality(paṭiccasamuppāda) explained in the sūtras of Early Buddhism, a proper noun do not exist at all.
The second point I'm trying to mention is that, in matter of the claim that the authors of the Māhāyana sūtras have brought down an unnecessary disturbance by creating them, it was inevitable. Because time and historicity have to intervene as shown in the philosophical hermeneutics of Heidegger and Gadamer. Looking further at Jorge Luis Borges' novel, "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote", people claim that, no matter how well we copy Āgama or Nikāya, it should be understood accordingly in the context of space and time. They could, therefore, become very different texts from the originals. The Mahāyāna sūtras are the literation of the new understanding.
With the third claim which argues that it is wrong to call the Mahāyāna sūtras the original teaching of the Buddha, I mean to prove otherwise with the example of Borges' another novel "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" that "all books are anonymous and written by only one person." Here, we can neither assume that "one person" as God nor as an actual being. In fact, no books have authors. The names of the authors are only needed as an expedient or a hypothesis. This is how only one name is put up as an author. In the same context, 'the Buddha' is called upon to be the author in both the sutras of Early Buddhism and the Mahāyāna Buddhism. They become to be called Buddha's Āgama and Buddha's Mahāyāna.
In the fourth, I criticized from four different perspectives the on-going argument that the sūtras of Early Buddhism are indeed the Buddha's original words and have higher values over those of the Mahāyāna Buddhism.
1) Āgama or Nikāya does not explain the original words of Buddha, but 'the original words X' which originally existed regardless of the fact that the Buddha renounces the world. The Mahāyāna sūtras are also an interpretation of this original words X.
2) It's a well known fact appeared in both Āgama and Nikāya that the founder of the original words X is not the Buddha. There were 6 Buddhas of the past including Vipaśyin Buddha of 91 eons ago. Assuming that the theory of 6 Buddhas of the past has been added later, it proves that the founder of the original words X existed even before the Buddha.
3) The Buddha and Mahākāśyapa are equal as founders of the original words X. From that fact, it could be said that the Buddha not only approved Mahākāśyapa's enlightenment of the original words X, but he, at the same time, was approved by Mahākāśyapa as well. Between the founder and the one who experiences the original words X, we can't place one above the other simply according to the time differences.
4) In matter of enlightenment of the people like Mahākāśyapa in later times, in other words, the discovery of the original words X, the claimants might not be convinced of how those people could be given the same value as the Buddha. I would say that I 'believe' they have achieved the same enlightenment as the Buddha. How can Buddhism be established without 'a belief'?The fifth claim is that the reason the authors of the Mahāyāna sūtras didn't put up their names more proudly arose from their personal desire to extend the authority of the sūtras enlisting that of the Buddha and to further spread their ideas more easily. Against this claim, I suggested two methodologies in order to prove that they were misled.
1) One is a methodology of characteristic history which implies that the authors of the Mahāyāna sūtras merely meant to write about a 'Buddha', not the historical human Buddha, Śakyamuni. The writers didn't believe that they could be the master of the teaching if there has to be one, but it's the 'Buddha'. That's how they, with all due respect, called the sūtras 'the words of the Buddha'. It's such a shame to assume that the late writers of the Mahāyāna sūtras have done their work out of their selfish desire.
2) I have provided circumstantial evidence that even in the western societies, it's only recently that a copyright or the rights of the writers started to be considered legally and financially important matters.
Yet another criticism from two aspects rises on the sixth claim that there found many mythological stories and fictitious tales in the Mahāyāna sūtras and, therefore, they are not as reliable as the 'rational' sūtras of Early Buddhism.
1) The theme of emptiness that resulted from causality can be much better described through the form of fiction or art. Through the poem "Shadow Play", I tried to make my point that the aesthetic value of the Mahāyāna sūtras should be appreciated as its content and form coincide with each other.
2) Furthermore, as Yanagi Muneyoshi(柳 宗悅), a Japanese philosopher and founder of the mingei (folk craft) movement said, stories of a real life are uncertain and ever changing. But made-up stories stay unchanged and more truthful. Emptiness and the everyday world can be reversed as we can again see in the poems, 'Drama' and 'Mail from Pure Land'. The writer chose a form of a poem to express his ideas that writers should not be particular about formality.
In summary, I have strongly criticized the above six claims at all points. The sūtras of Early Buddhism don't necessarily be the original words of the Buddha just like the Mahāyāna sūtras aren't. Or, the Mahāyāna sūtras could be the original saying of the Buddha as are the sūtras of Early Buddhism. We can't make any discrimination between them. As they both are of immeasurable value, they should be kept well, read, copied and explained for others with care.
The future of Korean Buddhism I hope for with this syncretic philosophy point of view is that various Buddhism in the country should be in healthy competition where one can accommodate the stimulation from the others in order to attain full growth, maintaining a complementary, cooperative relationship among them. What do we have to do then to make that peaceful coexistence of diversity possible? Buddhists who take up the Mahāyāna sūtras as guiding texts should study the sūtras of Early Buddhism more seriously and vice versa. Yet, it will be the best to adopt all the sutras from both sides as guiding texts. That was the syncretism that Wŏnhyo(元曉) practiced. He thought that from the point of view of the sutras of Early Buddhism, the sūtras of Early Buddhism are right as it works the same the other way around. The reason that we lack this kind of syncretic mind and keep arguing in vain is because instead of having extensive knowledge, we just rest on our laurels making no progress, deplored Bojo Jinul(普照知訥). I believe Wŏnhyo and Jinul's syncretic stance and way of life were right. I myself would like to walk on the same path, dreaming the path stays in the world for good.

참고자료

· 없음