근대 인도의 ‘노동의 철학(karma-yoga)’과 근대 한국불교의 선농일치(禪農一致) 사상 비교 - 간디와 학명(鶴鳴)을 중심으로 - (A Comparative Study on the Consonance of ‘Philosophy of Labor’ in Modern India and the Thought of Sŏn-Agriculture in Modern Korean Buddhism ― Focused on Mahatma Gandhi and Hak-Myung ―)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 인도연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 남아시아연구 / 17권 / 1호 / 97 ~ 132페이지
· 저자명 : 김호성

초록

근대 인도의 힌두교 사상을 배경으로 하여 사회적 실천운동을 전개한 마하트마 간디(Mahatma Gandhi, 1869-1948)와 근대 한국불교에서 불교혁신운동의 일환으로 선농불교(禪農佛敎)를 실천한 학명(鶴鳴, 1867-1929)선사는 공히 육체노동을 행하자고 부르짖었다. 그들은 각기 처해 있었던 시대적 상황 속에서 어떻게 노동을 바라보았으며, 어떤 이유로 노동을 실천하는 삶을 살아가자고 했던 것일까? 이 글은 이를 비교함으로써, 근대에 인도의 힌두교와 한국의 불교가 각기 어떻게 근대화의 길을 걸었던가를 살펴보고자 하였다.
간디의 경우에는 러스킨이나 톨스토이로부터의 강한 영향을 받았고, 그러한 영향 속에서 힌두교 전통의 텍스트인 『바가바드기타』를 재해석하였다. 그리하여 노동은 빵(빵을 위한 노동)이고, 수행이며, 제사이고, 마침내는 대중들에 대한 봉사로 보았다. 학명은 노동이 게으름을 극복하는 근면이며 자조(自助)라고 주장하였고, 동시에 수행이 되고 중생에 대한 봉사와 공익(公益)이라는 점을 강조하였다. 특히 그 사회적 의미로서는 계급사회의 완화라는 측면이 있었다.
한편 양자의 차이점은 간디의 경우, 보다 더 철저하게 사회봉사를 위한 노동이라는 측면을 강조하였고, 학명은 선(禪)을 위한 노동, 선과 하나가 되는 노동의 차원에 대한 언급이 보다 자세하다. 이는 양자의 삶 자체의 차이가 반영된 결과일 것이다. 이러한 비교고찰을 통해서, 오늘날 한국불교에 다시금 노동과 수행의 겸행(兼行)이라는 문제를 제기하고자 하였다.

영어초록

We would raise a question whether it is said “Philosophy of Labor”, giving a high value on labor, because everybody labors. However, this kind of evaluation is a post-modern stance which pursues ‘emancipation of labor’ than ‘labor’. In the course of modernization, the period from medieval age to modern society, labor issue became a main concern. It is no wonder because labor retained the hierarchical characteristic in the medieval times. While the upper classes were excluded from labors, the lower classes took charge of most of it. This hierarchical characteristic of labor has not resolved completely even now and still remained a problem to solve.
There is another field which concern the labor issue in a little different context. It is religion. In this article, I tried to consider what labor means to the religion. More concretely, I tried to examine what kind of ‘philosophy of labor’ meant those two, namely Mahatma Gandhi(1869-1948), who has Hindu religious background in Modern India, and Hak-Myung(1867-1929), whose background was Buddhism in Modern Korea. The labor issue represents much to Korean Buddhism until now. Indeed what the correct relationship between Buddhism and labor? Besides, what is the meaning of labor while pursuing the original purpose of Buddhism? If labor has more meaning than mere economical notion, then what is it? On these questions, I pursued to get the significance through considering Gandhi and Hak-Myung’s ‘philosophy of labor’ together. It can be explained as follows.
Firstly, Gandhi and Hak-Myung coincide in the point that both of the two claimed that people should maintain their lives through physical labors of their own. Gandhi called it ‘bread-labor’. Moreover, in the tradition of Sŏn Buddhism, which Hak-Myung was belonged to, it was an old-established virtue. The Venerable Baek-Jang(百丈, 720-814), a Sŏn master of Tang dynasty, already had established the “Pure Rules(淸規)” which contains “No work for a day, no food for a day.” However, in Hak-Myung’s case, he tried to overcome the ‘indolence’ which was pervaded in Buddhist order at that time through the self supporting practices. It is certain that both of Gandhi and Hak-Myung regarded earning bread through physical labors as a fundamental precondition for realizing the high ideals.
Secondly, Gandhi and Hak-Myung coincide in the point that they see religious meanings in labor. In other words, they thought that they can devote themselves to reach the highest stage that their religion has suggested, through the labor, namely in the process of labor.
Gandhi differs from Hak-Myung in the point that his theory of labor has two contexts, one is related with god and the other is related with individual completion, because his religion was theistic Hinduism. He defined the labor, in the relation with god, as a ceremony. At the same time he regarded it as a practice for liberation. I think he emphasized the labor as a ceremony more than the practice. He tried to draw the religion to the mundane world by defining that the true ceremony is not a material one but a ceremony of labor. It means that he interpreted the labor in the notion of karma-yoga. He expanded the ‘philosophy of labor’ to social movement(satyāgraha) by saying that the action of ‘spinning’ is the ceremony.
Hak-Myung’s stance is not different from Gandhi’s in the point that he thought that one can reach the ultimate experience of one’s own religion through the labor. However there is no context of the god. Rather he focused on the practice for liberation. In this point, he suggested more detailed methods(方便) than Gandhi did. Of course Gandhi also regarded the labor as a method for liberation, but it can be said that his thought was a little softer than Hak-Myung, who said that “If you cannot see the true yourself, then your labor is fake.” in the site of labor. In this way, Hak-Myung claimed the Sŏn through the labor, the labor through the Sŏn at the same time.
Thirdly, both of Gandhi and Hak-Myung pursued the happiness of all living beings(sarvabhūtahita) through the labor. It is obvious that Gandhi pursued the happiness of all living beings through the labor. This ideology was contained in the title of the book Sarvodaya, which was John Ruskin’s work Unto This Last, and translated by Gandhi in Gujarati, his mother tongue. Meanwhile, Hak-Myung also criticized the Buddhist order which did not labor saying that “Non-existence of altruism and common good.” Therefore, he emphasized on labor of monks so that they can take actions for altruism and common good. It is told that Hak-Myung was held in spontaneous honor by the people by cultivating the wasteland with them and extending the benefits to them for six years(1923-1929) in Nae-Jang temple. Especially compared to the other temples as landowners, which was in conflict with tenant farmers under the Japanese colonial rule, his activities stand out greatly.
Ultimately, we can learn two lessons from Gandhi and Hak-Myung. In the first place, even though the practice is for the liberation of their own, ‘practice through labor’ is better than ‘practice without labor’. Second, one should serve the general public through labor. In short, by labor, people can throw out their hierarchical superiority and can be humbled as servers for public, therefore they become a doer(a karmayogī of Hinduism, a bodhisattva of Buddhism) who serve the public. I think ‘the practice of labor’, even though its appearance is different, can be a prescription for representing the feature of a true renouncer that Buddha has showed through ‘the renouncement of labor’ especially in the crisis of Korean Buddhism nowadays. Times has changed.

참고자료

· 없음