이노우에 엔료(井上円了)의 활동주의와 그 해석학적 장치들 - 『분투철학(奮鬪哲學)』을 중심으로 (Inoue Enryō’s Action-ism and its Hermeneutical Devices -focused on Struggle Philosophy)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국불교연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 불교연구 / 42호 / 353 ~ 385페이지
· 저자명 : 김호성

초록

이노우에 엔료는 일본의 메이지시대에 활약한 계몽주의자의 한 사람이다. 그는 진종의 사원에서 출생하여, 진종의 장학생으로 동경대학 철학과에 유학을 했다. 그렇지만 철학을 지향하면서 진종으로의 복귀를 거부한다. 시대의 요구에 부응하는 철학을 모색하면서 진종을 포함한 불교를 비판하고 불교개혁에 새로운 바람을 불어넣었던 것이다. 이러한 입장은 근대 한국불교에도 일정부분 영향을 미친 것으로 평가된다.
이 글은 이러한 이노우에 엔료의 만년의 작품으로서, 그의 사상 전반을 아우르고 있는 것으로 보이는 저서 『분투철학』을 대상으로 하여, 그가 ‘활동주의’를 구축하기 위하여 어떤 해석학적 장치들을 활용하고 있는지 탐색코자 한 것이다.
활동주의가 내용이라고 한다면, 해석학적 장치들은 방법이라 할 수 있다. 내용과 방법이 분리될 수 없는 것처럼, 이노우에 엔료를 이해하기 위해서는 활동주의와 해석학적 장치들은 분리될 수 없다.
특히 세 가지에 초점을 두었다. 첫째는 ‘사(死)’와 ‘활(活)’을 나눈 뒤에, ‘활’을 선택하는 그의 교판에 대해서이다. 둘째는 책과 현실 사이에서는 책을 읽지 말고 현실사회나 자연을 읽으라고 하는 독서법에 대해서이고, 마지막으로는 중송(重頌)과 패러디(parody)를 활용하는 시적인 글쓰기에 대해서이다.
그 결과, 몇 가지 문제점도 지적할 수 있었다. ‘활’을 지향하는 것 자체는 긍정적인 의미가 있지만, 현실이나 자연을 읽은 뒤에 그런 관점으로 다시 책을 읽으면서 재해석하자고 말하지는 않는다. 또 글쓰기에서 시를 활용하는 것은 좋은 방법이지만, 시가 모두 계몽을 위한 메시지 전달의 수단으로 밖에 활용되지 않는 다는 점에서 문제가 있었다. 결국 정서나 감정적 측면을 배제하는 그의 불교관은 정서나 감정을 담을 수 있는 신앙(진종)의 기반 위에 활동을 말하지 못하고 메마른 이성과 계몽(철학)에만 입각한 활동을 말하고 말았다는 한계 역시 있었던 것으로 비판할 수 있었다.

영어초록

Inoue Enryō(1858〜1919) had lived from the Meiji(1868〜1912) to Taisho period (1912- 1926), on the other hand, I have lived from the late 20th century to the early 21st century. He was born in Japan, having a life as ‘a Japanese’ which is same as the name of the magazine that he participated in launching. I, meanwhile, was born in Korea, having a life as ‘a Korean’. In addition, he assented to wage war for national prosperity and military power of Japan, instead of praying for peace to people, even though he had travelled around the world. However, I've never left Asia. I yearn for peace over nationalism. Lastly, he was born in the temple of Shin Buddhist sect, highly affected by Western philosophy rather than Buddhism, and had lived as a philosopher. On the contrary, I have been also influenced by Western philosophy, sometimes contemplate Buddhism with Western philosophy, and still live as a Buddhist.
For those reasons, there is an unfordable abyss between Inoue and me. However, the abyss is an unavoidable critical situation and condition because we are human. Therefore, reading his book makes it appear the difference of the unfordable abyss. It strongly means that I am not reading his book from his Era's perspective but from my perspective in 21th century. I could accept something which we have in common through this process.
He made the assessment of his reading method. His interest lays in distinguishing between ‘the living’ and ‘the dead’. He tried to do it by reading ‘the living books’ and ‘the dead books’ made of paper. According to him nature and social phenomenon is living book, of course, it is good for us to read the living books.
Although He was from shin sect, He was influenced by zen, in which it was necessary to read the mind but he recommended to read the books i.e. the living books or the social phenomenon.
In this situation his method of reading i.e. the pratical reading-method is similar to that of Mahatma Gandhi(1869〜1948). But there is big difference between Gandhi and him. while Gandhi was interpreting in the social phenomenon depending on his experience in social activities. There is no hermeneutical circle in Inoue.
Lastly I focussed on Inoue’s writing styles. Inoue thinks of himelf as a philosopher when he wrote this book, Struggle Philosophy, in which he used the verses and the other way. It reminds of the Geyya in Buddhist sūtras. He called many verses as the old as well as used them to make the parody, also changed some verse to new. I was also interested in this kind of writing, Therefore now there is need to write these kind of writings. But there is a problem in way of songs, as his songs are for enlightment, always a message to give for the people. But it is not necessary to have a message in each song or lyrics.
In other words Inoue focussed on the nationalism. In this regard, his verses didn’t reflect his emotions and faith. I think that it is possible to have the activism based on emotions and faith. In this regard Inoue prevents the possibilities of connection with others, therefore he became a Nationalist who preferred war .The fact is I am sorry for him.
In the end his hermeneutical method is the way to establish his activism . So he really tried to spread his ideas in the conviction for modernism or enlightment. He has therefore no doubt about or no question about his way. I think Inoue forgot about fundamental spirit of modern philosophy which is questionable, doubting and full of suspension. For me living in the 21st century is inclined to the post-modernism which Inoue pursed is nationalism or secularism which has to be overcomed.

참고자료

· 없음