한국불교사 기술에 나타난 주제와 쟁점 (The Themes and Issues reflected in Studies of the History of Korean Buddhism)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국불교사학회 한국불교사연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 한국불교사연구 / 1호 / 101 ~ 133페이지
· 저자명 : 김용태

초록

본고에서는 근현대 한국불교사 기술의 성과와 주제, 쟁점을 근대불교학의 수용과 적용, 한국불교 전통에 대한 학술적 해석이라는 관점에서 고찰하였다. 식민지기는 權相老, 李能和, 忽滑谷快天, 金映遂 등의 연구서를 검토하였고, 해방 이후는 우정상, 김영태, 안계현, 鎌田茂雄의 한국불교 통사를 분석하였다. 또한 한국불교의 특성에 대한 주요 쟁점으로 通불교론, 護國불교, 선종 위주의 전통인식 세 가지를 들어 문제를 제기하였다.
약 100년에 걸친 한국불교사 기술의 성과는 괄목할 만하여 한국불교 전통의 전체상이 그려졌다. 하지만 각 시대별, 주제별 연구와 구체적 각론에서는 미흡한 부분이 많으며 역사학이나 철학 등 유관분야에 비해 연구의 양과 수준에서 뒤쳐져 있는 것이 사실이다. 특히 역사 서술에서 자의적 해석이나 편향적 기술은 지양되어야 하며 선험적 가치를 배제하고 ‘있는 그대로’의 사실을 객관적으로 밝히는데 주력해야 한다. 즉 한국불교사는 비판이 실종된 ‘종사’가 아닌 보편타당한 ‘역사’로서 접근해야 하며 종학이나 민족주의적 관점에서의 미화의 태도는 버려야 한다. 나아가 특수와 보편의 접점, 즉 한국불교의 고유성과 보편성을 동시에 고려하는 균형감 있는 인식과 서술이 요구된다.

영어초록

Examined in this article are the achievements secured in the writings of the history of Korean Buddhism. Especially the themes and issues are analyzed, to evaluate them all and also their academic nature, in terms of their level of embracing modern Buddhist studies, and also their level of examining the Buddhist traditions of Korea.
For the Occupation period, the studies of Gweon Sang-no/權相老, Yi Neung-hwa/李能和, Nukariya Kaiten(忽滑谷快天), and Kim Yeong-su/金映遂 are examined. And for the period after the Liberation, studies of Wu Jeong-sang, Kim Yeong-tae, An Gye-hyeon, and Gamada Shige'o(鎌田茂雄) (as studies of the Entire Korean Buddhist history) are examined. At the same time, the perceptions and points of view revealed in all those studies are also critically examined here. It seems like most of the studies listed above perceived the history of Korean Buddhism from mainly three angles: Korean Buddhism as a Buddhism that evolved in a linear and undisrupted fashion(通佛敎), Korean Buddhism as a Buddhist belief considered useful in protecting the country(護國불교), and Korean Buddhism as a Zen-based tradition. Such manners are evaluated in this article as well.
The history of Korean Buddhism has been studied for over a hundred years, and many achievements, including depicting the overall picture of the traditions of Korean Buddhism, were secured. Yet in individual areas, for example in cases of some time periods and in cases of some areas, there are many examinations and analyses that are really yet to be done. The overall quantity (as well as the general quality) of the announced studies are also relatively small, compared to the studies currently presented in the areas of General history and Philosophy.
In historical descriptions and analyses, arbitrary interpretations or prejudiced writings should be avoided at all cost, and the past should be depicted in just the way it was, without any transcendental determination conducted on the examiner's part. Historical studies of Korean Buddhism should not be a mere historical reconstruction of the Buddhism's past and devoid of any critical perspective to examine it. It should be construed as a legitimate part of the universal history of the world, and it should not be decorated with a nationalistic view or a mere religious appreciation of Buddhism itself. Also, the unique nature of Korean Buddhism, as well as the traits that it shared with other religions not only in Korea but also abroad, should both be considered in the writing process, in a balanced fashion.

참고자료

· 없음