韓國 傳統思想과 自由民主主義

金鎬城 동선사학회 2001 역사학논총 Vol.2 No.-

觀音信仰の類型に對する考察

金浩星(キ ホソン) 한국일본불교문화학회 2010 일본불교문화연구 Vol.- No.3

觀音信仰の中に多樣な類型があることを整理してみることにより,よ り望ましい觀音信仰を摸索してみようと思う。大きく見ると,觀音と衆 生の關係に関しては3つの類型があり,觀音を信仰する方法に関しては 千手陀羅尼信仰と千手觀音信仰の2つがあると考える。前者については 華嚴 般若 法華 禪との關連性の中で觀音信仰について再照明し,後者 については『千手經』を中心として,韓國と日本における受容の樣相の 違いを考察する。この章は,本書 ( 『千手經の新硏究』 ) に掲載した論文の中で唯一硏究 費の支援を受けて執筆したもので,天台宗の天台佛敎文化硏究院の支援 を受けて『天台學硏究』第7號 ( ソウル:天台佛敎文化硏究院, 2005 年 )を通じて發表したものである。感謝申し上げる。また發表當時 (2005.6.1 8 .金剛大學校 ) ,より深い論議を可能にするように,予め樣々な問題を 提起してくださった權奇悰 ( ク ン キジョン ) 敎授に感謝申し上げる。ま たその時金剛佛敎大學の敎法史課程の大勢の學生が授業時間に多くの質 問をしてくれたことで,論理の筋道を一層整理することができるように なったことをここに明らかにしておく。勿論,この文章の內容に對する 責任は全的に私自身にある。

텍스트와 현실의 해석학적 순환 - 不然 李箕永의 元曉解釋學 : 텍스트와 현실의 해석학적 순환

金浩星(Kim ho-sung) 한국불교연구원 2007 불교연구 Vol.26 No.-

The history of Buddhist philosophy evolves based on the exposition on the former thought/text by the scholars of the next generation. Such a chronological order has been maintained so far since the time of the Buddha. In a tradition that attaches great importance to its classical texts, such as Buddhist studies, greater attention will likely be paid to the work of interpreters who stay chronologically closer to the ancient text. This may have been unavoidable, though we cannot totally deny the fact that the contemporary interpretations have tended to be less valued. There seems to be a tacit presupposition that the ancient interpreters are spiritually far superior to our contemporaries. We cannot, however, simply overlook the merits of our current interpreters. One reason is that the volume of information they can collect and utilize is much more extensive than that of their predecessors. The other reason is the fact that the context of time and space of the ancient scholars is different from that of modern scholars. For these reasons, the contemporary expositors are able to produce a different outcome ― an important fact here aside arguing over the superiority ― which was not possible for the former interpreters. Therefore, it is necessary for us to pay attention to our contemporaries who share the same tine period with us. How did they precede their interpretation of the former ideas/text? Through the clarification process of this question, we can assure a coordinating point or starting line of our own. Bul-yeon Lee, Gi-Young, in this respect, is one of our contemporary interpreters who has been waiting to be recognized. Bul-yeon left a great volume of writings and theses. He followed the path, seeking after truth, equipped with the two wheels of study and practice. His life seems to be a full devotion itself. He has never failed to be attentive to anything, being always busily engaged in the advancement of the both wheels. As a scholar, he has displayed considerable achievements in the field of research. His contributions in the rediscovery and enhancement of the value of Korean Buddhism are especially noteworthy. Looking into his research on Korean Buddhism, Wonhyo is at the very center of it. In other words, he set up a standard of understanding Korean Buddhism through his study on Wonhyo. The main subject of this article is Bul-yeon’s study on Wonhyo. More precisely, I have made an attempt to make a closer observation of his main written work, The thought of Wonhyo, along with his articles on Wonhyo. First of all, I have tried synchronic analysis on his works related to Wonhyo, and I have attempted a diachronic evaluation of his position in the history of Wonhyo studies. The former suggests that a great deal of importance has been placed on the arguments of the hermeneutical circle between Wonhyo and reality the latter indicates that he is, actually, the one who rediscovered Wonhyo in the history of 20th century Korean Buddhism. I think the colligated/overall evaluation of him, covering the volume of his works, his influence on younger scholars, as well as his efforts to embody Wonhyo’s thoughts into practice, validates such points as suggested above. Based on such kinds of fundamental research and analysis, I was able to deduce that he was basically a hermeneutical interpreter. For verification, I have inspected Bul-yeon’s methodology of reading Wonhyo in two dimensions. One is to trace his critical statements on methodological attempts he disagrees with, which are scattered about here and there in his writings. As a result, first, he intended to cope with Jonghak (宗學), or traditional Gyohak(敎學); second, he rejected the modern scientific methodology; third, he was indifferent to modern philological methodology. I assume that he meant to indirectly display, through such kinds of negative statements, that his favorite methodology is

「겨울의 유산」에 나타난 한‧일불교

김호성,金浩星 한국일본불교문화학회 2009 일본불교문화연구 Vol.- No.1

한국인으로 태어났으나 일본인으로 귀화한 일본작가 다치하라 마사 아키(立原正秋, 1926〜80)는 그의 체험을 토대로 자전적 소설 「겨울의 유산(冬のかたみに)」을 남기고 있다. 특히 한국의 무량사와 일본의 건각사에서의 선 체험을 작품 속에 녹여내고 있다는 점에서, 선소설(禪 小說)로 평가받고 있다. 그런데 나는 이 작품 속에 한국불교에 대한 묘사와 일본불교에 대한 묘사가 공존하면서, 한국의 선과 일본의 선이 교류하는 모습에 주목하여 한, 일불교의 소통이라는 문제에 천착해 보았다. 그러면서 이상적인 불교의 모습이 이 작품 속에 그려지고 있다고 보아서, 그것을 ‘상상의 불교’라고 이름 하여 보았다. 우선「겨울의 유산」유산 속에는 1930년대 중반 무렵의 한국불교에 대한 묘사가 행해지고 있다. 여기에는 이미 작가가 일본불교에 충분히 습윤 (濕潤)된 뒤에 작품이 씌어졌다는 점에서 일본불교적인 영향이 없지 않아 보인다. 그러면서도 스승들의 묘사나 조선시대 선승들의 선시를 인 용하는 등 우리 불교에 대한 올바른 묘사 역시 존재한다. 이런 예비적 고찰을 행한 뒤에, 작품 속에서 한국과 일본의 선은 어떻게 만나고 있는지, 또 왜 그는 돌아가야만 한다는 강박관념을 이기고서 돌아오지 않고 일본에서 살아가게 되었는가에 대하여 고찰해 보았다. 작가는 일본의 선이 자칫 알음알이에 떨어질 수 있는 가능성을 경계하면서, 주인공이 임제선과 조동선의 어록을 함께 읽는 모습을 통하여 우리 불교와는 다른 일본불교의 모습을 제시한다. 또한 선승 세끼링 (碩林)의 존재를 통하여 스승은 어디에나 존재하고, 나라(奈良)의 고사 (古寺)에서 일본 안에서도 무량사가 존재함을 자각하게 된다. 이러한 작품의 결론은 ‘한국’과 ‘일본’이라는 역사적 업연의 한계를 벗어나서, 불교 안에서 하나로 어우러지며 소통할 수 있다는 점을 우리에게 일러주고 있는 것은 아닐까 평가하고 싶다. 一体どうして私は日本仏教を語ろうとするのか。この問いの答えは即ち我々が日本仏教に関して話すことを忌む所以と表裏を成して いると思う。もともと仏教を伝えあげた方は我々だったとの一種の歴史的な優越感と言うか、または源泉指向意識によるインドや中国への関心の重々しさに比べられる相対的な疎外などとを挙げよう。いや、おそらくそれより帝国主義時代の日本にやられた植民地体験、別けても仏教に対して加えられた弾圧の記憶が未だ生々しく 残っている所以かもしれない。その理由は如何であろうと、我々にとって日本仏教とはあまり度外視するべき存在であったのが事実で ある。もちろん近世․近代の不幸な歴史から目を背けることはできない である。そうではあるが我々の中の憎みや怨みなどの呪縛を断ち切 れ、束縛からもトラウマからも自らを束縛から、トラウマから開放 できればそれより大した自由があろうか。その一方法で私は、仏教 を通じる韓国･日本お互いの実体と存在を認めて理解していくによっ て相互間に会通/疎通ができようはずであると信じている。こうし た訳で「日本仏教を勉強しましょう」という旗じるしを掲げてき た。そのうちに一人物が目についてきた。彼は立原正秋(1926-80)という作家であり、彼の作品の『冬のかたみに』のためである。この作品は「少ししかない自力門/聖道門の小説の代表作」として評価されているだけでなく、いろいろな面で問題作になってきた。別けても私が着目したのはこの作品に描かれている韓国仏教と日本仏教の有様の断面であった。 作家の自伝小説として、或いは自伝に準じるものとして知られているこの『冬のかたみに』の第1部と第2部には1920,30年代の韓国仏教が描かれている。それは当時の純な韓国仏教の有様もあるし、また作家の理想としてのあらざるをえない韓国仏教の像もあ る。また日本仏教風とうか日本仏教的要素が混じて塗られている韓国仏教の様子もある。その上で作品の第3部「建覚寺山門前」には主 人公の渡日後の日本生活とともに仏教体験が述べている。即ち日本仏教の姿がうかがえる。たとえ文学的に形象化されている形にしてもこの作品『冬のかた みに』を検討していく際、私は韓･日仏教の疎通の光というか一すじ の希望のようなものを感じられた。作品に描かれている韓･日仏教の有様や面影、また両者の間の相違というか対立的または区別される 様子[二相]を越えて義相(625-702)の「法性円融無二相」という語 句まで浮かばせるようになった。即ち主人公の梵海禅文はそんなに 長いあいだ懐かしんでいた無量寺に、いつかはきっと戻るべき所として思っていた無量寺についに帰れない。その代わりに奈良の唐招提寺の金堂の瓦葺き屋根の曲線美から、また鎌倉の建覚寺(建長寺と 円覚寺の合称であるか)の居士林での修行などから、『徒然草』や『方丈記』などの日本中世の古典から、無量寺または韓国仏教の風土を見つけ出している。それは一生を通して彼(作品の主人公または 作家自身)を日本にいられるようにする力であり、また韓･日仏教の 疎通であった。従って仏教的な立場から見ると彼が住するところが 韓国であっても日本であっても、それは非本質的なものに過ぎないと言える。彼の居所は何処でも良い。なぜなら彼は、もはや「仏教 の内」、「仏教の中」で生きていられる所以である。自分の姿を映してみるには鏡が必要である。それは他者という鏡であろう。すなわち他者という鏡に自分を映して自らを省みることは基本的に自分と他者をの比較であり、融合でもある。そうした他者という名の存在は多様すればするほどもっと多面的な自分の面目が見つけよう。我々の仏教の現実を映し、融合させる鏡になってく れる対象は実に色々ある。チベット仏教もあり、ヴィパッサナー(Vipassana)修行に関わる南方仏教もあり、書物の翻&#

S자형 들보에 의해 지지되는 micromirror의 제작 및 동작특성 분석

金鍾國(Jong-Kook Kim),金鎬成(Hoseong Kim),愼炯宰(Hyung-Jae Shin) 대한전기학회 1999 전기학회논문지C Vol.48 No.11