鶴鳴의 禪農佛敎에 보이는 結社的 性格 (Fraternal Aspect Represented in Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국선학회
· 수록지 정보 : 禪學(선학) / 27호 / 101 ~ 138페이지
· 저자명 : 김호성

초록

학명은 근대 한국에서 선농불교를 주창하고 실천한 선구자이다. 용성 보다 시기적으로 빠르다는 점에서 ‘효시’로까지 볼 수 있다고 평가하였다. 이러한 관점은 선농불교를 단순히 禪家 전통의 普請과는 다른 차원에서 이해함으로써 가능하게 되었다. 물론 선농불교는 보청의 전통을 잇고 있지만, 보청과는 달리 뚜렷한 역사적 특수성을 반영한다. 그 시대 상황 속에서 교단의 존재양식에 대한 반성에서 출발하므로 개혁적 성격이 있다. 학명이나 용성의 선농불교가 선가 전통의 보청과는 다른 측면이다. 이 점을 주목할 때 ‘역사’는 형성된다.
또 한편으로 학명의 선농불교에서 주목할 점은, 학명 스스로가 ‘결사운동’이라고 自任하거나 표방한 일이 없음에도 불구하고 하나의 ‘결사’로 볼 수 있다는 점이다. 선농의 결사, 즉 선농결사로 자리매김할 수 있다고 나는 본다. 이 논문은 바로 그 점을 드러내고자 한 것이다.
우선 학명의 선농불교를 하나의 결사로 볼 수 있으려면, 결사의 개념 정의에 있어서 스스로 ‘결사’라고 하는 의식이 있었는가 하는 점은 결정적인 기준이 되지 않아야 한다. 그러한 표방 여부와는 별도로, 결사를 구성하는 데 더욱 중요한 것은 그것이 避隱 속의 개혁인가, 또 脫권력/脫정치의 수행운동인가 하는 점에 있었던 것으로 보았다. 이런 나의 결사 개념에 비추어 볼 때, 학명의 선농불교는 손색이 없는 결사였던 것으로 평가하였다.
또 하나 그의 선농불교 현장에서 활용되었던 텍스트 속에서, 학명의 선농불교가 결사임을 증거하는 성격의 텍스트를 확인할 수 있다는 점이다. 결사는 공동체 운동이므로 참가한 대중들의 윤리적 실천강령이 필요하다. 그것은 역시 禪家의 전통을 이어서 ‘淸規’라는 형태로 나타난다. 내장사에서 행해진 학명의 선농불교에는 「內藏禪院 規則」이 제정되어 있었으며, 여기에는 선농불교를 행해야 할 이유나 목표 등이 간략하지만 분명하게 표방되어 있었다. 結社文에서 밝혀야 할 성격의 내용까지 포괄하고 있었던 것이다. 하지만 결사의 논리적 이유와 방법을 밝히고 있는 結社文의 역할을 대신해 줄 텍스트가 없었던 것은 아니다. 바로 「禪園曲」이라는 불교가사이다. 거기에는 선농불교의 반대자를 설득하는 논리와 農이 禪 안에서 차지하는 의미 등을 밝히고 있어서, 시기적으로 늦게 발표된 것이므로 結社文이라 보기는 어려울지 몰라도 결사의 이유를 적은 理由書라 해도 좋을 것으로 평가하였다.
이러한 두 가지 접근방법을 통하여, 나는 학명의 선농불교는 그 자체가 결사적 성격을 갖는 것으로서, 보통명사적 의미에서 ‘선농결사’로 불러도 좋으리라 본다.

영어초록

Hak-Myung(鶴鳴) was a Sŏn master, a buddhist reformer, a performer of combinational practice of Sŏn and Agriculture, a poet, and a painter who drew the paintings of Bodhi-Dharma(達磨圖). Therefore overall studies should be done on his varied facets, but before that, deep researches on his individual aspects should be preceded.
Previous studies on Hak-Myung as a reformer, as a performer of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism, and as a poet have been done a little. Especially the studies on his thought and conduct of combinational practice of Sŏn and Agriculture have been received lots of attention along with his reformative position on the history of modern Buddhist order in Korea. Considering small quantities of primary and secondary sources which remain now, I was not sure if there could be a new understanding. However researching more concretely, I realized that there are still some parts which need to be organized.
One of them is the point that the first of the Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism which had conducted combinative practice of Sŏn and Agriculture in modern Korean Buddhism was not Yong-Sung(龍城) but Hak-Myung unlike existing theory. I have already re-examined in my previous study. In addition, through this study, it could be re-appraised that Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a Gyŏl-sa(結社, Fraternitas). It is obvious to me who has been interested in the Gyŏl-sa(結社, Fraternitas) for a long time and evaluated it as a restoration of spirit of renunciation.
First of all, there is one problem in my perspective that regards Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a Gyŏl-sa. He has never said his Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a 'Gyŏl-sa' in his own words. In regard of appraising a new Buddhist movement as a Gyŏl-sa, usually it is an important criterion that the advocate of the movement is aware of a previous Gyŏl-sa and willing to succeed it. However, I think it is not a decisive criterion that the advocate claims and regards his/her movement as the Gyŏl-sa. Because fulfilling those components which construct a 'Gyŏl-sa' is much more important.
The first component is that if it is a reformation held on condition of seclusion. Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism tried to practice within its power first--"in a corner"-- realizing properly the problems of Sŏn order and the entire Buddhist society.
The second component is that if it is a movement of practice held for non-power/ non-political purpose, and it satisfies the condition. Hak-Myung practiced the Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism under the banner of 'Half Farm and Half Sŏn-ism' at Naejangsa temple, but his purpose was not controlling the whole Buddhist order. Moreover, his position was only a chief monk of a branch temple.
The third component is that even if Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism was a small-scale moral community, it was definitely a Gyŏl-sa.
In the light of the definition of the Gyŏl-sa, it is possible to regard Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a Gyŏl-sa. Moreover if it is accepted, there should exist two elements : 'Pure Rules' which the participants follow and 'a statement of reason' which defines logical reasons or methods.
On the 'Pure Rules', the previous researchers also --even if they didn't point out that it was not the 'Pure Rules of the Gyŏl-sa'-- have been agreed that <Rules of Naejang Sŏnwŏn> is the Pure Rules. There, the principle, the purpose, the method of the Gyŏl-sa and the concrete standards of daily life are enacted. In the sense that the <Rules of Naejang Sŏnwŏn> includes the principle and purpose of the Gyŏl-sa, it can be regarded that Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a Gyŏl-sa of Sŏn-Agriculture.
But it is no doubt that if there exist a proclamation, it could be regarded as a definite associational movement. Considering it is general that a proclamation is issued in the beginning of the Gyŏl-sa, it seems that there is no such a thing in hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism. But, even though the time of announcement was delayed a bit, there is a noteworthy buddhist poetry <Sŏnwŏngok> which gives the particulars of the reasons and the methods of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism. It is hard to be called exactly a proclamation, but I think it can be evaluated as the 'statement of reason of the Gyŏl-sa' because this text performs a role what a proclamation usually does. And it might be used as a textbook for the participants to understand the Gyŏl-sa.
Thus, in respect of conceptual perspective and fulfillment of required texts, it is possible to say that Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism is a kind of Gyŏl-sa.
Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism is also an Gyŏl-sa of Sŏn-Agriculture. It is noticeable that Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism takes on a specific historicity which cannot be evaluated as a mere cooperation requesting of Sŏn society. As an attempt which tried to ultimately reform the malady of modern Korean Buddhism that had been turned away from labour and digressed from the spirit of renunciation, Hak-Myung's Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism should be re-appraised its historical value.
Now we are at a fork in the road : one that moves us away from Hak-Myung, and the other that goes together with him. Which road would the Korean Sŏn performer choose? The future of Korean Buddhism might depend on it.

참고자료

· 없음