李穡의 高麗大藏經 印出과 奉安 (A Study on the Printing and Enshrinement of the Tripitaka Koreana by Lee Saek)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국사연구 / 163호 / 143 ~ 188페이지
· 저자명 : 남동신

초록

This study analyzes Lee Saek (1328-1396)’s printing of a copy of the entire Tripitaka Koreana housed at Haeinsa Temple and its subsequent enshrinement at Sillŭksa Temple in Yŏju from an internal perspective.
Lee Saek was one of the prominent leaders of the new reforms group at the forefront of social change during the final period of Koryŏ and beginning of Chosŏn. In this regard, his publication of the Tripitaka Koreana created a stir among the new reforms group. The division of the new reforms group over dynastic revolution saw those who supported such a move start to politically attack Lee Saek, who was seen as one of the main opponents of such a course of action. Lee Saek was officially impeached for his publication of the Tripitaka Koreana, and more specifically for his adulation of Buddhism despite his status as a master of Confucianism.
The paradoxical expression ‘adulation of Buddhism by a master of Confucianism’ first appeared in the impeachment appeals submitted by the enemy group in 1391. The terms ‘master of Confucianism’ and ‘adulation of Buddhism’ were contradictory in nature. The supporters of dynastic revolution who cast suspicion on Lee Saek in 1391 (3rd year of King Kongyang of Koryŏ) clearly also perceived in this manner. Nevertheless, could they make this logic applicable to Lee Saek by going back to the period of 1379-1383 when the publication of the Tripitaka Koreana was carried out? This study started with this question and analyzed Lee Saek’s role as a ‘master of Confucianism’ and ‘adulator of Buddhism’.
In Chapter Ⅱ of this study, it was clearly proven that the spiritual origins of Lee Saek clearly lay in Neo-Confucianism. However, while he criticized heresy, he did not firmly exclude it. Lee Saek’s failure to exclude Buddhism outright was explained by factors such as his placid temperament, deep sense of companionship with Buddhist monks, and by the ideology of the Koryŏ dynasty (Protection of Buddhism = Protection ofthe State), an ideology that had persevered since the foundation of the dynasty. Lee Saek sought solace in Buddhism when he found himself subjected to poverty, illness, and loneliness in his 50s. As a result of this reality, Lee Saek started to gradually favor Buddhism and to become absorbed in the latter while abandoning the confrontational attitude he taken toward it in his younger days. Lee Saek also fell into the mold of ‘Start with Confucianism and End with Buddhism’ or ‘Externally Confucianist but internally Buddhist’ that became so commonplace among the Confucian intellectuals of East Asia during the Medieval Age.
Against this backdrop, the researcher set out in Chapter Ⅲ to reexamine Lee Saek’s motivation for implementing the publication of the Tripitaka Koreana, the detailed process, and the implications of the publication of this work. This reexamination was based on Lee Saek’s statements in 1383 and on the <Record of the Publication of the Tripitaka Koreana at Sillŭksa Temple> written by the disciple of Lee Saek, Lee Sungin. In his youth, Lee Saek introduced four principles which he regarded as ‘Buddhist works permitted of a Confucianist’. They consisted of the following: Loyalty and filial piety must be duly justified; The national finances should not be wasted; The public should not be pained; and Profligation should not be permitted. In order to satisfy his own suggestions, Lee Saek claimed to stand for the justification of loyalty and filial piety (King Kongmin and his father Lee Kok) and entrusted the monks from the Naong School of Buddhism, with whom he had a relationship, to deliver the necessary human and physical resources needed to print and enshrine the Tripitaka Koreana.
Lastly, in Chapter Ⅳ the researcher analyzed the list of 263 sponsors who provided economic support or their labor named in <Record of the Publication of the Tripitaka Koreana at Sillŭksa Temple>. A look at this list makes it evident that Lee Saek called on all his personal connections, with the exception of the king, to print and enshrine the Tripitaka Koreana, and this regardless of whether they were secular men, Buddhist monks, men and women, or high or low-ranking officials. The scale of the work, list of sponsors, and the reputation of Sillŭksa Temple prove that the printing and enshrinement of the Tripitaka Koreana was a large-scale undertaking the likes of which few Confucian scholars even dreamt of undertaking. This clearly shows that although Lee Saek’s printing and enshrinement of the Tripitaka Koreana started as an individual venture, it consequently became a group and official Buddhist undertaking by the ruling class at the end of the Koryŏ dynasty. In this regard, Lee Saek firmly believed that his work was officially accepted by the ruling class at the time.
The problem was that as he became further absorbed in Buddhism, he started to remain silent about the economic corruption and moral depravity of the Buddhist sects. More to the point, his private relationship and connections with Buddhism eroded the critical awareness he needed to possess as a renowned public figure. The ‘printing and enshrinement of the Tripitaka Koreana by a master of Confucianism’ can be seen as a sign of the contradictory nature of the existing system that supporters of dynastic revolution could never accept and had to be overthrown. Lee Saek’s printing and enshrinement of the Tripitaka Koreana was permissible to ‘Confucianists operating under the system of the Koryŏ dynasty dominated by the national policy of Protection of Buddhism = Protection of the State’. However, this basic principle had collapsed by the end of 14th century. The revolutionary group denounced that the protection of Buddhism was a prelude to the ruination of the state. They also disparaged Buddha as a barbarian rather than a saint. They started to attack Lee Saek by leveling charges of ‘adulation of Buddhism by a master of Confucianism’ as part of the anti-Buddhism movement at the heart of social reforms.

영어초록

This study analyzes Lee Saek (1328-1396)’s printing of a copy of the entire Tripitaka Koreana housed at Haeinsa Temple and its subsequent enshrinement at Sillŭksa Temple in Yŏju from an internal perspective.
Lee Saek was one of the prominent leaders of the new reforms group at the forefront of social change during the final period of Koryŏ and beginning of Chosŏn. In this regard, his publication of the Tripitaka Koreana created a stir among the new reforms group. The division of the new reforms group over dynastic revolution saw those who supported such a move start to politically attack Lee Saek, who was seen as one of the main opponents of such a course of action. Lee Saek was officially impeached for his publication of the Tripitaka Koreana, and more specifically for his adulation of Buddhism despite his status as a master of Confucianism.
The paradoxical expression ‘adulation of Buddhism by a master of Confucianism’ first appeared in the impeachment appeals submitted by the enemy group in 1391. The terms ‘master of Confucianism’ and ‘adulation of Buddhism’ were contradictory in nature. The supporters of dynastic revolution who cast suspicion on Lee Saek in 1391 (3rd year of King Kongyang of Koryŏ) clearly also perceived in this manner. Nevertheless, could they make this logic applicable to Lee Saek by going back to the period of 1379-1383 when the publication of the Tripitaka Koreana was carried out? This study started with this question and analyzed Lee Saek’s role as a ‘master of Confucianism’ and ‘adulator of Buddhism’.
In Chapter Ⅱ of this study, it was clearly proven that the spiritual origins of Lee Saek clearly lay in Neo-Confucianism. However, while he criticized heresy, he did not firmly exclude it. Lee Saek’s failure to exclude Buddhism outright was explained by factors such as his placid temperament, deep sense of companionship with Buddhist monks, and by the ideology of the Koryŏ dynasty (Protection of Buddhism = Protection ofthe State), an ideology that had persevered since the foundation of the dynasty. Lee Saek sought solace in Buddhism when he found himself subjected to poverty, illness, and loneliness in his 50s. As a result of this reality, Lee Saek started to gradually favor Buddhism and to become absorbed in the latter while abandoning the confrontational attitude he taken toward it in his younger days. Lee Saek also fell into the mold of ‘Start with Confucianism and End with Buddhism’ or ‘Externally Confucianist but internally Buddhist’ that became so commonplace among the Confucian intellectuals of East Asia during the Medieval Age.
Against this backdrop, the researcher set out in Chapter Ⅲ to reexamine Lee Saek’s motivation for implementing the publication of the Tripitaka Koreana, the detailed process, and the implications of the publication of this work. This reexamination was based on Lee Saek’s statements in 1383 and on the <Record of the Publication of the Tripitaka Koreana at Sillŭksa Temple> written by the disciple of Lee Saek, Lee Sungin. In his youth, Lee Saek introduced four principles which he regarded as ‘Buddhist works permitted of a Confucianist’. They consisted of the following: Loyalty and filial piety must be duly justified; The national finances should not be wasted; The public should not be pained; and Profligation should not be permitted. In order to satisfy his own suggestions, Lee Saek claimed to stand for the justification of loyalty and filial piety (King Kongmin and his father Lee Kok) and entrusted the monks from the Naong School of Buddhism, with whom he had a relationship, to deliver the necessary human and physical resources needed to print and enshrine the Tripitaka Koreana.
Lastly, in Chapter Ⅳ the researcher analyzed the list of 263 sponsors who provided economic support or their labor named in <Record of the Publication of the Tripitaka Koreana at Sillŭksa Temple>. A look at this list makes it evident that Lee Saek called on all his personal connections, with the exception of the king, to print and enshrine the Tripitaka Koreana, and this regardless of whether they were secular men, Buddhist monks, men and women, or high or low-ranking officials. The scale of the work, list of sponsors, and the reputation of Sillŭksa Temple prove that the printing and enshrinement of the Tripitaka Koreana was a large-scale undertaking the likes of which few Confucian scholars even dreamt of undertaking. This clearly shows that although Lee Saek’s printing and enshrinement of the Tripitaka Koreana started as an individual venture, it consequently became a group and official Buddhist undertaking by the ruling class at the end of the Koryŏ dynasty. In this regard, Lee Saek firmly believed that his work was officially accepted by the ruling class at the time.
The problem was that as he became further absorbed in Buddhism, he started to remain silent about the economic corruption and moral depravity of the Buddhist sects. More to the point, his private relationship and connections with Buddhism eroded the critical awareness he needed to possess as a renowned public figure. The ‘printing and enshrinement of the Tripitaka Koreana by a master of Confucianism’ can be seen as a sign of the contradictory nature of the existing system that supporters of dynastic revolution could never accept and had to be overthrown. Lee Saek’s printing and enshrinement of the Tripitaka Koreana was permissible to ‘Confucianists operating under the system of the Koryŏ dynasty dominated by the national policy of Protection of Buddhism = Protection of the State’. However, this basic principle had collapsed by the end of 14th century. The revolutionary group denounced that the protection of Buddhism was a prelude to the ruination of the state. They also disparaged Buddha as a barbarian rather than a saint. They started to attack Lee Saek by leveling charges of ‘adulation of Buddhism by a master of Confucianism’ as part of the anti-Buddhism movement at the heart of social reforms.

참고자료

· 없음