칼릴 지브란과 파울루 코엘류의 신비주의 사상 비교연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This thesis compares two writers from a different time and place, Khalil Gibran from Lebanon and Paulo Coelho from Brazil with regard to the main philosophy of mysticism: resistance and the union of existences. Gibran is raised as a catholic in Islam and Coelho is Islamic from a catholic country. Even though they come from a different time and place, it is true that the earlier writer, Gibran influences Coelho in many aspects, which can be noticed in their similarities in philosophy. Therefore, this means that these two writers have in common the notion of mysticism.
However, having been introduced to these writers from differing backgrounds and grown in a unique way, this same notion of mysticism has been developed into many different ways. To study these differences in detail, this thesis explores the general notion of mysticism at first. In addition, it analyses two writers’ countries where they were first introduced to mysticism, and accordingly developed their unique notion of mysticism, the conditions of their period, as well as their autobiographies. Through this analysis, the thesis attempted to discover what their unique notion of mysticism means in their work and analyze the main ideas they shared in common: good vs. evil; life and death; body and soul; and the relationship between human and God.
At first, this thesis has analyzed the origin of mysticism with its main focus on Christianity and Islam as well as the definition of mysticism in each religion. As a result, it has been noticed that the general notion of mysticism is to seek the communion with God through individual experiences and the underlying thoughts are resistance and the union of existences. Here, resistance is ultimately based on human will and desire for eternal freedom. More specifically, it does not comply with the existing order of religious hierarchy and seeks the individual communion with God. In addition, it has been noticed that there is his country, Lebanon, in Gibran’s notion of resistance and there is an issue of discovering one’s identity in Coelho’s notion of resistance.
Furthermore, with regard to these two writers’ main themes on good vs. evil, life and death, body and soul, and the relationship between human and God, their unique notion of union of existences is included. That is to say, the two writers’ theories on the union of existences is in fact the idea of an universal Godly figure of all religions. It is not limited to the meaning of complimentary state of conflicting factors, which is the general concept of religion. Once again, the union of existences for Catholic or Islam is to mean the union in their church or bible, or in their mosque or Koran. Accordingly, from the viewpoints of Gibran and Coelho, this notion of union of existences is not to cope with the distinction of ‘you’ and ‘I’ which results in mankind suffering in war or conflict.
However, these two writers’ mysticism is beyond such a limit and boundary, and do not distinguish mankind with any kind of standard or prejudice. So, they could criticize the conflict between religions or countries, which led to love for humanity. The previous factors have been confirmed by Gibran who said that all kinds of religions including Catholic, Islam, Brahman, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are ultimately ‘the fingers of one hand’ and Coelho who said that there exists only one God and although the names of God are different in each religion, all the gods are towards ‘one light’.
That is why there are more similarities than differences in Gibran’s and Coelho’s mysticism. This does not mean that Coelho was handed down the ideas from the earlier writer, Gibran; rather they led to their ideas through their different backgrounds and life. Gibran’s influence on Coelho is like one footstep of forbearers.
Even though Gibran had to live as an outsider because of many wars and conflicts, and had to suffer all his life because of his country’s safety and not because of himself, and then Coelho almost suffocated from the values of existing society which did not allow for individual identity, they reached their own unique notion of mysticism. Regardless of how it started, whether it started from his country or from individual identity, it reached the ultimate point, humanity, through all the adversities. That’s why it has touched so many readers all around the world though different in skin, language and culture. Especially, since the problems they suffered from are universal to human beings, not just mysticism from imagination or abstract thought, their pieces of work have become second only to the Bible as most read, beyond the boundaries of East and West and have inspired millions of readers all around the world in more than 56 languages.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 서론 = 1
• 1. 연구 목적 = 1
• 2. 선행 연구 검토 = 4
• 3. 연구 방법과 범위 = 8
• II. 신비주의의 정의와 수용 = 15
• 1. 신비주의의 기원과 정의: 저항의식과 존재의 합일 = 17
• 2. 신비주의의 수용 = 27
• 2.1. 지리적 요인 = 28
• 2.1.1. 지브란의 레바논: 종교ㆍ문화적 다원주의 = 28
• 2.1.2. 코엘류의 브라질: 다인종ㆍ다문화주의 = 33
• 2.2. 시대적 상황과 예술적 풍토 = 38
• 2.2.1. 지브란: 세기말과 아방가르드 = 38
• 2.2.2. 코엘류: 히피와 구체주의(concretism) = 44
• 2.3. 전기(傳記)적 요인 = 49
• 2.3.1. 지브란의 이주민 체험: 보스턴, 파리, 뉴욕 = 49
• 2.3.2. 코엘류의 종교체험: ‘산티아고의 길’ = 59
• III. 신비주의의 문학적 표현과 의미 = 70
• 1. 저항으로서의 신비주의 = 71
• 1.1. 지브란의 저항의식 = 71
• 1.1.1. 외세와 조국 = 71
• 1.1.2. 인간과 자연 = 82
• 1.2. 코엘류의 저항의식 = 92
• 1.2.1. 대안사회 = 92
• 1.2.2. 정상과 비정상 = 105
• 2. 존재의 합일로서의 신비주의 = 120
• 2.1. 선과 악 = 121
• 2.1.1. 지브란: 보다 큰 자아 = 123
• 2.1.2. 코엘류: 우주의 존재 원리 = 136
• 2.2. 삶과 죽음 = 149
• 2.2.1. 지브란: 순환과 윤회 = 149
• 2.2.2. 코엘류: 자아의 신화 = 157
• 2.3. 육체와 영혼 = 171
• 2.3.1. 지브란: 본원으로의 회귀 = 171
• 2.3.2. 코엘류: 신의 현시로서의 육체 = 178
• 2.4. 인간과 절대자 = 186
• 2.4.1. 지브란: 사랑과 구원 = 187
• 2.4.2. 코엘류: ‘막툽 makt?b’과 연금술 = 201
• IV. 결론 = 213
• 참고문헌 = 224
• 영문초록 = 238