야나기 무네요시(柳宗悅)의 『나무아미타불』에 나타난 해석학적 眼目 (Yanagi Muneyoshi’s Hermeneutic discernment in the Namuamitabutsu)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국불교학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국불교학 / 74호 / 255 ~ 287페이지
· 저자명 : 김호성

초록

야나기 무네요시(柳宗悅)의 『나무아미타불』은 일본 정토불교의 호넨(정토종), 신란(진종), 그리고 잇펜(시종)이라는 세 전통을 함께 논의하고 있다. 정토교학에서 문제되는 주요한 주제들에 대해서 세 사람의 조사가 어떤 관점의 차이를 보이는지를 살피는 책이다.
그런데 나는 그러한 세 전통의 비교에 대해서 논의하려는 것은 아니다. 그것은 일단 차치하고, 저자 야나기가 어떠한 해석학적 안목으로 세 분의 조사를 함께 고찰하고 있는가 하는 점에 초점을 맞추어 보았다.
우선 야나기가 이 세 분의 조사를 함께 고려할 수 있었던 까닭은, 그 자신이 특정 宗門에 소속되지 않아서임을 주목하였다. 이는 종파불교적 성격이 강한 일본불교에서는 특이한 접근법이고, 오히려 회통불교적 성격이 강한 한국불교와 親緣性이 강한 것이었다. 종문에 소속되지 않았으므로 종학을 벗어날 수 있었고, 종학에 개재되어 있는 권력으로부터 자유로울 수 있었다. 그렇지만 그 자신의 지향성 역시 나름으로는 종학적 지향성을 갖고 있었으니, 그것은 바로 잇펜의 시종을 선양하고자 하는 데 있었다.
또 하나 주목할 것은, 그는 정토경전에 등장하는 법장보살이나 아미타불, 그리고 극락과 같은 것들이 현실에 실재하지 않는 가공의 것이라고 하여 배척하는 풍조를 비판한다는 점이다. 오히려 그렇기에 진실할 수 있다는 관점을 갖고 있다. 이는 삼법인을 설하는 초기불교의 입장에서 정토사상이, 곧 극락이나 아미타불이 건립될 수 있음을 밝힌 것인데, 일찍이 義相이 말한 ‘卽虛現實’의 미학과 상통하는 것이었다.

영어초록

Namuamitabutsu(『南無阿彌陀佛』)written by Yanagi Muneyoshi(柳宗悅) deals with the history of Pure Land thoughts in Japan. Though he discussed about three traditions that is Honen(Jyodoshu), Shinran(Sinshu), and Ippen(Jishu) diachronically and synchronically, I do not intend to remark its overall content. In this article, I try to focus on his creative understanding of those three masters ―or orders. It is considered that there is a hermeneutic perspective of his own. The purpose of this article is to highlight his own perspective which has four aspects as follows.
First, Yanagi regards those three masters ―or orders― as an identical personality which has different developments aiming at Ippen(Jishu)’s Buddhism. Especially in the plot of Namuamitabutsu, not only it is represented in the introduction(序分) and the dissemination(流通分), but also in the main part(正宗分) it culminates with Ippen. In this article, it is discussed in Ⅱ.2.
Second, the reason why Yanagi could have integrated approach to the three masters ―or orders― is that he did not belong to any specific orders. If he had been a religion scholar of a specific Buddhist order, then he could not acknowledge enough to the other two masters ―or orders. In this respect, it could be said that his methodology has more affinity with Korean Buddhism which has syncretic tradition rather than Japanese Buddhism which features sectarian tradition. Upon this subject, it is represented in Ⅲ.1.(1).
Third, in consideration of his understanding is not based on a specific religious order, it holds syncretic Buddhism characteristics. At the same time, he takes his stand on deconstructing method which is free from quasi-historical restraints and is not bound by Buddhist traditions or doctrines. Though it has so-called genealogical feature, it does not mean that there is not any devotional or practical directivity in him. It is regarded that he stands both sides of methodology which are post-Buddhist order(脫宗門) and religious directivity internally. It is discussed in Ⅲ.1.(2).
Fourth, bringing Pure Land thoughts into question, Yanagi who was an aesthetician shows a special interpretative realm. Especially replying to a question whether heaven and hell are fictional existence or not, he demonstrated that it could be more real because they are not histories but stories. I call his aesthetic approach as ‘fictional reality(卽虛現實) aesthetics’ which is borrowed from Uisang(義相)’s concept. In this point, Yanagi tries to get rid of preconceptions of modern/contemporary people who cannot accept Pure Land faith due to their scientific/empirical approach.
Among those four features, the first one that he regards the Pure Land thoughts of the three masters ーor ordersー as an identical personality aiming at Ippen(Jishu)’s Buddhism can be acknowledged as an original stance of his own. This point of view, as he wanted, has aided materially in developing close-up 櫻井哲夫, 2014, pp.29〜32.
of Ippen(Jishu). Though, there is nothing new because it has been pointed out several times already and well known, I summarized as a preliminary consideration.
The second and third features, however, show that his approach has more affinity with Korean Buddhism rather than Japanese Buddhism. Even Yanagi might not expect this affinity. And this is the reason why I, who empathize deeply with him, started to translate Namuamitabutsu into Korean.
Finally, the fourth feature can be regarded the most significant attainment that I have learned from Yanagi’s Namuamitabutsu. It could be said as an aesthetic demonstration which shows the existence of heaven or Amitābha to me/us who is/are destined to belong to contemporary society. Moreover, as this point of view enables harmonious coexistence(和諍) of early scriptures and Mahāyāna canons, it can prepare the ground for overcoming several side effects caused by ‘Human Buddha’ debates in some academic fields of Buddhism in Korea.

참고자료

· 없음