대한불교조계종 비상종단의 의미와 한계 (Significant Implications and Limitations of the 1983-1984 Emergency Order of the Korean Buddhist Jogye Order)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국불교학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국불교학 / 78호 / 596 ~ 626페이지
· 저자명 : 정승석

초록

1983년 9월 5일에 발족하여 1984년 8월 1일에 해체되었던 대한불교조계종의 비상종단은 미완의 개혁종단으로 각인되어 있다. 이에 따라 이 짧은 기간에 강구되고 일부 시도되었던 비상종단의 개혁안들도 공식적으로는 미완의실패작인 것으로 인식되기 쉽다. 그렇지만 비상종단이 추구했던 개혁의 지향점과 일부 제안들은 이후 1994에 결성된 개혁회의에서 반영되어 오늘에 이르고 있다. 이 점에서 비상종단의 의미와 한계를 재조명해볼 필요가 있다.
비상종단은 불교의 시대적 사명을 개척하고 불교의 사회적 기능을 발휘할수 있는 대안을 승가 내부보다는 출가와 재가의 연합에서 찾았다. 이 대안은미래를 내다보는 혜안에서 비롯된 것이었지만, 그 추진 과정에서 종단의 중진세력을 포용하지 못한 경험 미숙과 조급성은 비상종단의 결정적인 한계로 지적된다. 이는 결국 비상에 대한 불안과 거부감에 대처하는 역량의 부족이다.
그러나 바로 이 점에서 비상종단의 한계는 그 자체가 귀중한 교훈이다. 그러한 시행착오를 반성하여 중도의 실천 이념을 일신할 때, 비상종단의 개혁정신도 이에 부합하여 다시 발동하고 약동할 것으로 기대할 수 있다. 1994의 개혁회의를 예로 들 수 있듯이, 개혁정신을 미래에 대한 기대로 유지시킬 수 있는 비상수단은 성공한 것으로 간주해도 무방할 것이다.

영어초록

On September 5, 1983, the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism attempted to enact a sweeping set of democratizing reforms, popularly and collectively known as the Emergency Order. However by August 1, 1984, the Emergency Order was dissolved, and a lack of complete success of the proposals of the Emergency Order have earned it a reputation as an unfinished reform. It is true enough that reform proposals hastily deliberated and implemented are likely to be recognized as incomplete; nevertheless, in retrospect many of the proposals of the Emergency Order found a more sympathetic hearing in the Jogye order’s 1994 Reform Conference and have been successfully implemented today.
To be sure, the Emergency Order was flawed. It did not offer solutions to be applied specifically within the community of monastic monks rather, it put forward solutions addressed to the combined community of monastics and lay Buddhists. Although these alternatives were based on insightful attempts to anticipate current and future needs of the Buddhist community, their execution was not embraced by influential senior members of the Jogye order because of the alleged inexperience and impatience of reform measures’ supporters. And ironically, the very environment in which the Emergency Order was created one in which the inability to cope with change and denial of the circumstances it was meant to address made the Emergency Order necessary also rendered it vulnerable to challenges by those skeptical of proposed reforms despite the failure of the Jogye Order to meet the needs of its increasingly democratic constituency. Moreover, the highly specific nature of much the Emergency Order’s guidance may have undermined more pragmatic reformist solutions.
Nevertheless, the Jogye order needs to reevaluate the assertion that the Emergency Order failed or was an incomplete reform. It should consider the implications of the Emergency Order’s language and context, and reconsider its strengths and its limits. The Emergency Order was enacted in response to the demands (Buddhist mission) of the times and to reiterate Buddhism’s social responsibilities. If the Jogye Order reflects on its repeated trial-and-error approaches at reform and re-establishment of the Middle Way as a practical philosophy, it could re-establish and reinvigorate the spirit of reform that originally inspired the Emergency Order. Furthermore, when compared with the 1994 Reformist Order of the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism, the 1983-1984 Emergency Order might likewise be considered successful, both as an emergency measure addressing immediate needs, and as a tactic that buoyed the spirit of reform into the future.

참고자료

· 없음