조선후기 불교계의 心性 논쟁 - 雲峰의 『心性論』을 중심으로 - (An Argument Concerning the Nature of the Mind within the Buddhist Community in the Late Joseon Dynasty -Focused on Woonbong’s “shimseongnon (心性論)”-)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 보조사상연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 보조사상 / 29호 / 261 ~ 294페이지
· 저자명 : 이종수

초록

17세기 후반에 雲峰大智는 『心性論』이라고 하는 책을 출간한다. 이 글은 두 가지 문제를 다루고 있다. 첫째, 불교의 心性說이 유교보다 더 근원적이라는 것이다. 조선전기의 『유석질의론』을 인용하면서 성리학이 근원으로서 이야기하는 太極은 불교의 業相 즉 報身에 해당하는 것이지만, 불교에서는 이 보다 더 근원적인 것으로서 無極 즉 法身을 이야기 하고 있다는 것이다. 둘째, 운봉은 ‘一法身’ 내지는 ‘一性’을 부정하며 ‘各各圓滿’ 즉 多性說을 주장한다. 『심성론』에서 이야기하고 있는 一性說은 ‘사람마다의 법신을 전체적으로 합해야 하나가 된다’는 설로서, 중생 각각의 완전한 법신을 부정하고 각각의 총합만을 완전한 법신이라고 주장한 것이다. 이에 비해 多性說은 ‘사람마다 각각 법신을 원만하게 갖추고 있다’는 설로서, 중생 각각의 완전한 법신을 긍정한 주장이다. 그런데 이러한 一性說과 多性說의 논쟁이 80여년이 지난 후에 蓮潭有一과 黙庵最訥에 의해 다시 논쟁되었다. 이 내용은 연담의 「심성론서」에 나타나 있다. 연담은 ‘모든 부처님과 중생의 마음은 각각 원만하지만 원래는 하나다’라고 주장하였고, 묵암은 ‘모든 부처님과 중생의 마음은 각각 원만하여 일찍이 하나였던 적이 없다’라고 주장하였던 것이다. 이로써 볼 때, 연담과 묵암은 운봉의 ‘사람마다 각각 법신을 원만하게 갖추고 있다’는 多性說을 인정하면서도 性의 근원이 하나인가, 아니면 여럿인가에 관해 논쟁했던 것으로 보인다. 그리고 ‘근원이 원래 하나였던 적이 없다’고 주장한 묵암의 견해가 운봉의 多性說에 보다 가까운 것으로 생각된다. 이와 같이 조선전기 『유석질의론』에서의 심성에 관한 문제의식은 운봉의 『심성론』으로 계승되었고, 『심성론』의 논쟁은 다시 연담과 묵암의 심성 논쟁으로 계승되어 심성 논의는 한층 심화되어 가고 있음을 볼 수 있다.

영어초록

Neo Confucianism is recognized as a main ideology in the Joseon Dynasty. During the 17th century, an academic argument arose concerning the predisposition of nature(理氣)and the nature of the mind(心性) between two schools: Lee Hwang(李滉) and Lee Yi(李珥). While previously, Buddhism had been marginalized as a political and academic power, in the late 17th century, a Buddhist monk named Woonbong Daeji(雲峰大智), who had been unknown to the world, published a book titled “shimseongnon(心性論 a thesis on the nature of the mind)”. This book introduced an original argument concerning the nature of the mind within the Buddhist community. In the late 18th century, a script titled ‘shimseongnonseo(心性論序 a preface of a thesis on the nature of the mind)’ was discovered from the works of a well-known scholar monk of the day named Yeondam Yuil(蓮潭有一 1720-1799). ‘shimseongnonseo’ is a preface of "shimseongnon" of Mukam Choinul(黙庵最訥 1718-1790). Mukam published a book of the same title 80 years after Woonbong’s publication. Yeondam’s ‘shimseongnonseo’ contains brief comments concerning the argument between his theory of the nature of the mind and that of Mukam’s. This subject is similar to the content of Woonbong’s "shimseongnon". Unfortunately Mukam’s "shimseongnon" was destroyed by fire--a record of its destruction is contained in ‘songgwangsaji(松廣寺誌 the historical record of Songgwangsa temple)’. The aim of this study is to identify and understand the similarities between the ideological views in the works of Woonbong, Yeondam, and Mukam.
There were two important assertions in Woonbong’s "shimseongnon". Firstly, he asserted that the theory of the nature of the mind in Buddhismcontains more esoteric aspects than that of Confucianism. He said, referring to "yuseokjil-euiron(儒釋質疑論 the recording of a question between Buddhist and Confucian)" from the early Joseon period, taekeuk(太極 the source of the dual principle of yin and yang)--which is regarded as the foundation of all phenomena in Neo Confucianism--corresponds to upsang(業相 the condition of karmic action) or boshin(報身 the Buddha’s reward body) in Buddhism. Mukeuk(無極 limitless) or beopshin(法身 the body of the dharma)--which are regarded as the foundation of all phenomena in Buddhism--is more esoteric than taekeuk.
Secondly, he advanced a theory of the mind which asserts that all beings possess an autonomous mind and all beings are complete and contain perfect beopshin(多性說). He criticized the popular assertions of his day which advanced the theory of a monistic nature of the mind(一性說), which held that all beings possess beopshin, but that it only achieves completion and perfection when all minds are united.
The second assertion mentioned above also exists in Yeondam’s ‘shimseongnonseo’. Yeondam asserted that all beings and Buddha each possess their own particular mind nature, but that they (the nature of the mind) were originally the same one. On the other hand, Mukam stated that all beings and Buddha each have their own mind nature and they have never been the same one. Thus it could be said that Yeondam and Mukam both acknowledged the theory of the autonomous nature of the mind, but they disagreed about the source of the nature of the mind. Moreover, it can be observed that Mukam’s theory shares more similarities with Woonbong’s theory.
In this way, Woonbong’s "shimseongnon" inherited the debate over the nature of the mind from the "yuseokjil-euiron". The debate was taken up and carried on by Yeondam and Mukam. However, the argument seems to end after Mukam’s "shimseongnon" was destroyed.

참고자료

· 없음