근대 한국의 禪農佛敎에 대한 재조명 - 鶴鳴과 龍城을 중심으로 - (Re-appraisal of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism in the Modern Korea Re-appraisal of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism in the Modern Korea)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 동국대학교 불교문화연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 불교학보 / 55호 / 383 ~ 410페이지
· 저자명 : 김호성

초록

선승들이 선원에서 참선을 하면서 농사를 함께 짓자고 하는 禪農佛敎의 전통은 중국의 百丈淸規에서부터 확립된 전통이다. 이는 걸식을 위주로 하면서 수행을 하는 인도불교의 전통과는 다른 것으로서 중국에 와서 토착화된 것이다. 이러한 변화는 그 이후 동아시아 불교에 적지 않은 영향을 미친 것으로 짐작된다. 이러한 수행가풍의 변화가 가져온 의미는 적지 않을 것으로 보인다. 특히 노동을 통한 근면이 강조되는 근대화의 과정에서 선농불교가 주창되었다는 점에서 주목을 받을 만한 것으로 평가된다.
이 논문 역시 그러한 의미의 탐색을 위한 과정에서 얻어진 수확의 일부이다. 의미의 천착을 시도하는 작업 중에서, 뜻밖에 우리 근대불교에서 이루어진 선농불교의 두 사례, 즉 鶴鳴과 龍城의 선농불교 실천을 두고서 누가 먼저 행하게 되었는지 하는 嚆矢의 문제에서 異說이 확인되었다. 종래 이 분야의 연구를 개척한 金光植은 용성을 선농불교의 효시로 자리매김하고 있다. 그런 용성의 선농불교를 기준으로 하여, 학명의 선농불교를 평가하는 방법론을 취하고 있었던 것이다.
이 논문은 金光植의 효시에 대한 관점이 오류임을 밝히고자 한 것이다. 그러한 과정에서 자연스럽게 “과연 선농불교라는 것이 무엇인가”라는 개념의 定義문제를 제기하게 되었다. 선농불교의 개념을 어떻게 설정하느냐에 따라서, 용성의 북청광산 투자까지 선농불교라 볼 수 있는지 하는 점이 결정된다. 그러한 점이 분명해 진다면 누가 선농불교를 가장 먼저 실천했는가 하는 점은 저절로 명백해 지기 때문이다.
이러한 과정을 통하여 종래 김광식이 주장한 것처럼, 근대 한국에서 선농불교를 가장 먼저 실천한 효시는 용성이 아니라 오히려 학명이라는 점을 밝히고자 하였다.

영어초록

This report is tried to shed new light on Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism(Buddhism of getting together Sŏn and Farm) made by Sŏn Master Hak-Myung(鶴鳴) and Yong-Sung(龍城) through the First and the concept of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism as a clue. But my purpose for this study is to put the First and the concept of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism right in the modern Korea to criticize for view of Kim, Kwang-Sik(金光植) whose research is arisen problems from both the First and the concept aspects, even though it is left a pioneering academic legacy more directly.
It was possible by depending on so-called "Historical - Philosophical Methodology ", which tries to apply philosophical views that was easy to neglect in terms of traditional statements and appraisals of history. It was also possible to make clear a problem that who practiced as the First by asking the concept that what is indeed Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism. Of course, the philosophical concept composes induction to analyze historical examples in details, not to compose deduction in the idea. I could get a dictionary's definition of Buddhism of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism to count on such a methodology.
Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism : It says that monks work(farm) under an instruction by a master for not only a self-sufficient economical motive but a Sŏn practice by work or boosting monks' fad. The working place(farm) for a main management must be temple or located near a temple. The master works with monks together, showing monks means of finding enlightenment as well and monks can practice sitting in Sŏn meditation the time of working in the front and the rear. In this way, Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism is cultivating farm and Sŏn together and aiming for doing farm is practising Sŏn.
The most basic thing in this definition is "monks work(farm) under an instruction by a master". Therefore participation for mine management by Sŏn master Yong-Sung is not participation for physical work by monks. There is no evidence. It is nothing but capital investment. So it can not be considered Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism. It would rather appraise Buddhism for production. In other words, the case of Daigaksa temple(大覺寺) in the Gan-Do(間島) and Hwaguawon temple(花菓園) in the Ham-Yang(咸陽) practiced by Sŏn master Yong-Sung could be regarded Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism. On the other hand, the case of Book-Chung(北靑) mine could not be regarded the case of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism.
In this way, it is come out that the case of Sŏn master Hak-Myung purely maintains Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism to distinguish between Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism and Buddhism for production, while the case of Sŏn master Yong-Sung coexists Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism and Buddhism for production. Furthermore, as looking at a method of entering enlightenment which doing farm as a level of Sŏn and doing farm enter the Sŏn, it is difficult to say about the case of Sŏn master Yong-Sung owing to absence of the detail resources. On the other hand, Sŏn Master Hak-Myung reveals certainly through the poetry named 'Sunyongok(Song of Sŏn and Farm)' that they should work in the position of practicing asceticism and let ascetics enter by farming tools. In that way, practice of Sŏn master Yong-Sung also has Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism, but it had better appraise that practice of Sŏn master Hak-Myung satisfies connotation contained definition more faithfully. As clearing such a discussion one more time, the mine management performed by Sŏn master Yong-Sung in 1916 is not Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism, but Buddhism for production. Therefore, the first of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism in the modern Korea surely should make a seat to Hak-Myung Sŏn master practiced 'Half Farm and Half Sŏn-ism'. Because practice of Sŏn master Yong-Sung in the Daigaksa temple in the Gan-Do and Hwaguawon temple happened from 1926 to 1927.
As stipulating History rightly, I have to make clear who is the First of Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism, actually there is separate more important fact. Both Hak-Myung and Yong-Sung in deed suggested and practiced Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism by answering problems raised at that time, which are theory of anti-religion and demand of modernization. Hak-Myung and Yong-Sung seem to bring up the conversation as follows to now Korean Buddhism of the twenty-first century, especially Sŏn monks of Korea. Is it enough to practice Sŏn only without farm or work? Aren't there any problems? However, Can we say future of Korean Buddhism is very promising?Having such a critical mind, after appraising Sŏn-Agriculture Buddhism of Hak-Myungr as a association by next thesis, I'm suppose to compare philosophy of the synthesis of Sŏn(Jñāna) and Agriculture(Karma) between Hak-Myung in the modern Korea and Mahatma Gandhi(1869~1948) in the modern India.

참고자료

· 없음