朝鮮時代 護佛論 硏究 : 涵處와 白谷을 中心으로 = (A) Study on the theory of advocationg Buddhism in Chosun erafocused on Hamhur and Baikgok

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The excluding policy of Buddhism of Chosun Dynasty started at the early Chosun era. The government ordered the temples under certain standard to give up the land, fields and servants they had possessed. Many kinds of Buddhist rituals and services were prohibited and many sects were closed by force. This made Buddhism lose its prestiges and social influences. Therefore most of the priests quitted the priesthood, social status of them fell down to the ground, and the public relationship between the Buddhists and the government was cut off.
The suppression on Buddhism was completed in the early Chosun era. Generally speaking, however, the protest of the side of Buddhism was slight. Of course there were some resistances in the form of demonstration even if they were weak. Some priests defended the existing value of Buddhism by emphasizing the fact that the ultimate aims of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism were the same. Some reported directly to the king. Even though they were defensive, the Advocating Buddhism theorists, Buddhism protectionists, coped theoretically with the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism(排佛論) of Confucianists who took aim at justifying the replacement from Buddhism to Confucianism as a public thought. This is the subject of this dissertation.
This study is going to look into the Theory of Advocating Buddhism(護佛論) of Chosun Era, focusing on following things.
First of all, this study will analyze the Theory of Advocating Buddhism in accordance with the grounds of the argument and development phases of the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism, because the Theory of Advocating Buddhism was introduced on the condition of the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism. The Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism which had been introduced from the late Koryo criticized the dogmas of Buddhism, many evils of Buddhists and its social uselessness or harmfulness. This study classifies the various faces of the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism and researches the Theory of Advocating Buddhism coping with each theory.
Next, this study will research the Theory of Advocating Buddhism of Chosun era in relation to the history of Chinese Buddhism because the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism and the Theory of Advocating Buddhism were developed originally in China. Also this study will research the Theory of Advocating Buddhism on the condition of the confrontation of the two because the Theory of Advocating Buddhism had a character of a counter theory against the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism even though there was no direct argument between Confucianism and Buddhism in Korea.
This study will research the thoughts of those who left remarkable marks on the Theory of Advocating Buddhism, Hamhur(涵虛), Bowoo(普雨), Baikgok(白谷) and Yeondam(蓮潭). The thoughts of Hamhur and Baikgok are the main subject of this study. They wrote excellent books about the Theory of Advocating Buddhism. In addition, Hamhur is the most important theorist of Advocating Buddhism .in the early Chosun, and Baikgok is the representative of the Theory of Advocating Buddhism in the late Chosun.
A textual analysis is used in this study. History books such as 'Koryo History'(高麗史) and 'Chosun Dynasty Chronicles'(朝鮮王朝實錄), writings of both sides of the Theory of Advocating Buddhism and the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism are the main objects of analysis. Writings related to the Chinese Buddhism history will be also investigated.
It should not be overlooked that the confrontation was not between equal powers. Confucianists who had superior political and social power criticized and suppressed Buddhists one-sidedly, and Buddhists under inferior condition only made a passive resistance by protecting their dogma. Therefore, to approach and analyze the Theory of Advocating Buddhism it is needed to compare the contention and logic of both sides about the issues and seek after the cause and background which brought about the confrontation from the view of the world, human beings and values. So I make it clear in advance that this study doesn't have theoretical and philosophical but historical point of view.
This study shows the following results. First, the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism is classified into four groups: the Theory of Excluding Buddhism(斥佛論), the Theory of Rejecting Buddhism(闢佛論), the Theory of Slandering Buddhism(毁佛論), and the Theory of Oppressing Buddhism(抑佛論). The Theory of Excluding Buddhism condemned Buddhism by pointing out the evils and antimorality of Buddhists. The Theory of Rejecting Buddhism criticized the dogma itself of Buddhism with the introduction of Sung Confucianism. The Theory of Slandering Buddhism emphasized harmfulness and wickedness of Buddhism by pointing out heresy and giving examples. The Theory of Oppressing Buddhism insisted the priests and temples should be decreased or excluded in order to weaken the religious body of Buddhism. This is a pure logical classification, however the theories of the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism are in fact mixed with each other.
Hamhur, Bowoo, Baikgok, and Yeondam insisted on the Theory of Advocating Buddhism on the basis that the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism was unfair. If it were fair, the Theory of Advocating Buddhism had no logical basis. They supported the Theory of Advocating Buddhism because they were sure that Buddhism was worth being socially and the measures to suppress or exclude Buddhism were unjust. Putting arguments and opinions of the Advocating Buddhism theorists together, we can see the side of Buddhism refuting various kinds of the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism whatever its form is.
How the Theory of Advocating Buddhism refuted each category of the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism is like this. First of all, the Theory of Excluding Buddhism pointed out the evils of Buddhists and criticized that Buddhism was unsuitable for the principles of every day life and governing state because it lacked the sense of reality and denied the order of human duties. In opposition to this, the Advocating Buddhism theorists admitted the evils of some Buddhists but they argued that the evils were not the problems of Buddhism itself but those of human beings because all Buddhists could not practice the teachings completely. Against the criticism that the commandments, rules and habits of Buddhism were not actually useful, Hamhur pointed out that the teachings and rules of Confucianism were rather difficult to keep.
All theories and dogmas of Buddhism were not the targets of criticism of the Theory of Rejecting Buddhism. They attacked mainly transmigrationism, retribution theory and heaven and hell theory, which were very different from the dogmas of Confucianism and were linked directly with practical evils. They also criticized 'the theory of mind and nature'(心性論), the disposition theory of Buddhism, from the viewpoint of Sung Confucianism(性理學). Transmigrationism, retribution theory, and heaven and hell theory which were the main targets of criticism were the logic of Chinese Buddhism, far from Buddhism itself. Refutations of the Theory of Advocating Buddhism about these were not coherent and showed different ways of logic developments each other. Of all the arguments Hamhur's were found to be the most minute and logical. The focus of Confucianism's criticism about the theory of mind and nature of Buddhism was that its concept was different from that of Confucianism.
The Theory of Slandering Buddhism aspersed and distorted Buddhism, pointing out the heresy and harmfulness of Buddhism by saying that Buddhism was only the teachings of the savage foreigners and would bring misfortunes. About the problem of the heresy, the Advocating Buddhism theorists had similar arguments. They argued that calling the people of the regions except China barbarians wasn't right and everything of China wasn't right and good. They also insisted that Buddhism and Confucianism were not essentially different.
Not like China where both Taoism and Confucianism were in the side of the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism, the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism in Korea was raised by the side of only Confucianism. So it follows necessarily that in order to analyze the Theory of Advocating Buddhism we should research the relationship between Confucianism and Buddhism. In the Koryo Dynasty where Buddhism had the realistic superiority to Confucianism, we could see that the attitudes about the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism were differentiated according to the periodic characteristics of Confucianism. However, as the introduction of new Confucianism of the late Koryo Dynasty made the theory of Confucianism systematic and clear, the full-scale criticism about the doctrine of Buddhism began and the idea that Confucianism was sole and only came to be prevailing.
About the attitudes of people advocating Buddhism towards Confucianism, Hamhur in the early Chosun Dynasty asserted the fusion of Buddhism and Confucianism on one hand and the superiority of Buddhism to Confucianism in the instruction and practicality on the other hand. Bowoo in the middle Chosun Dynasty asserted the complete accord of Buddhism and Confucianism. Baikgok in the late Chosun Dynasty made an assertion that because Buddhism and Confucianism could be harmonized, Buddhism had a value in some degree. The change of views of people advocating Buddhism in the relationship between Buddhism and Confucianism reflected the tendency that the power and status of Confucianism were strengthened by the policy of respecting Confucianism and oppressing Buddhism of the Chosun Dynasty while those of Buddhism were weakened.
The conflicts between the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism and the Theory of Advocating Buddhism were mainly evaluated and by comparing Hamhur representing the Theory of Advocating Buddhism in the early Chosun Dynasty with Baikgok representing it in the late Chosun Dynasty, the characteristics and value of the Theory of Advocating Buddhism were explained. When we consider the relationship between the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism and the Theory of Advocating Buddhism conflictive, we can divide main arguments into four points: The first is the problem of ethics and morality of Buddhism. The second is about the heterodoxy of Buddhism. The third is the irrationality of the doctrine of Buddhism. The fourth is the problem of the compatibility of Buddhism and Confucianism.
We can compare and analyze Hamhur and Baikgok, the typical supporters of Buddhism in the Chosun Dynasty in many respects. They were versed in Confucianism as well as Buddhism. All supporters of Buddhism, not only Hamhur and Baikgok but Bowoo and Yeondam had a systematic understanding of Confucianism through long education of it. Especially Hamhur was educated in SungKyunKwan(成均館), the most professional education institution in the Chosun Dynasty, and was converted to Buddhism. It is very contrastive to the fact that most people Ostracizing Buddhism had almost no basic knowledge and education of Buddhism. When we think of Confucianism of Hamhur and Baikgok and their views about Son(禪) and Kyo(敎), we find meaningful differences between the two scholars. In the book of Baikgok, there were no distinct differences between the ideas of Buddhism and those of Confucianism. In the book of Hamhur, he contrasted nature(性) with temper(情), and explained Buddhism and Confucianism based on this contrast that nature was more fundamental and superior to temper. In other words, Hamhur thought that temper was a kind of trace which was visible while nature was a kind of truth which was invisible and idealistic and Buddhism focusing on truth was superior to Confucianism focusing on visible trace.
On the views about Son and Kyo, Hamhur differentiated Son and Kyo and recognized both Son and Kyo but argued the superiority of Son whereas Baikgok had the view that Son and Kyo were entirely united and the division itself between Son and Kyo was wrong. In other words, Hamhur contended that there were clear differences between Buddhism and Confucianism just like there were distinctions between Son and Kyo. Baikgok just advocated Buddhism seen from the viewpoint of Confucianism according to his idea that there were no distinctions between Son and Kyo.
The eventual idea that Confucianism of the Chosun Dynasty really meant was the obliteration of Buddhism. People opposing Buddhism ostracized it extremely based on the idea that Confucianism was a sole and only doctrine and that Confucianism was superior to Buddhism and made efforts to build a society without Buddhism. Supporters of Buddhism tried to prove the unreasonableness of the opposers of Buddhism and laid emphasis on the usefulness of Buddhism and its existence. But the opposers of Buddhism were in the stronger position than the supporters in the fighting. Confucianism having the realistic superiority and leadership drove Buddhism out unilaterally while Buddhism tried to prove its value of existence through a very passive countercheck that both theories could be harmonized.
The contrasting aspects of the two theories about Buddhism in Korea have the following characteristics. First, the bases of arguments of both theories just followed without any serious consideration the results that China had gotten from the long fighting between the Theory of Advocating Buddhism and the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism in the development of Buddhism of China. Second, there were almost no arguments shared by both parties based on the common consciousness about problems. Finally the conflicts between the two were not on an equal status, which meant that Confucianism was the only ideology of the times. Because of these characteristics, both parties couldn't make creative developments in their theories. In case of China, achievements and results of thousands of year's confrontations between the two parties blossomed into the Chinese Buddhism while, in Korea, we couldn't make any creative developments of Buddhism in culture and ideology.
The idea that Confucianism was a sole and only doctrine, a kind of principle that something right was all right, was exclusive and prejudiced and brought undesirable results into Buddhism and was a great hindrance to Confucianism itself. Nevertheless, the Theory of Advocating Buddhism raised by the monks in the relatively low echelon of society against the criticisms and attacks of Confucianism was meaningful and worth remembering. And the fact that it emphasized on the inappropriateness of the Theory of Ostracizing Buddhism on one hand and the value of Buddhism on the other hand should be highly appraised.
Considering the situation of those days, their assertion that Buddhism and Confucianism could be harmonized was the only method that they could take to survive in the surroundings of extreme oppression of Buddhism. And emphasizing on the existence of Buddhism against the absolute and powerful Confucianism could be regarded as the cultural-relativism pursuing the varieties of ideas and cultures.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 緖論 = 1
• 1. 問題 提起와 硏究 目的 = 1
• 2. 硏究 方法과 硏究 範圍 = 4
• II. 排佛의 類型과 護佛論 = 7
• 1. 排佛의 理論 基底와 展開 = 7
• (1) 佛敎의 弊端과 斥佛論 = 7
• (2) 敎理 批判과 闢佛論 = 17
• (3) 佛敎의 有害性과 毁佛論 = 26
• (4) 崇儒 政策과 抑佛論 = 32
• 2. 護佛論의 背景과 動機 = 36
• (1) 護佛論의 時代的 背景 = 37
• (2) 排佛論의 不當性 = 60
• (3) 佛敎의 存在 價値 = 64
• (4) 廢佛 施策의 撤回 = 70
• III. 護佛의 論理와 展開 = 77
• 1. 弊端說에 대한 反論 = 77
• (1) 時弊에 대한 論議 = 77
• (2) 無用論 批判 = 89
• (3) 滅人倫性에 대한 反駁 = 102
• 2. 敎理 批判에 대한 論爭 = 111
• (1) 神不滅說과 輪廻說 擁護 = 112
• (2) 因果報應說에 대한 辯論 = 121
• (3) 心性論 批判의 批判 = 130
• 3. 佛敎 誹謗에 대한 論駁 = 135
• (1) 異端性에 대한 反駁 = 135
• (2) 有害論에 대한 反論 = 150
• 4. 敎團 抑壓에 대한 抗論 = 164
• (1) 廢佛의 不當性 = 165
• (2) 寺刹과 僧侶의 有用性 = 171
• IV. 儒佛 關係와 護佛論 = 175
• 1. 儒佛 關係論의 沿革과 展開 = 175
• (1) 三敎鼎分說과 三敎融合說 = 175
• (2) 儒佛調和說 및 儒佛一致說 = 182
• 2. 護佛論者들의 儒佛觀 = 186
• (1) 涵虛의 三敎融合과 佛敎優位說 = 187
• (2) 普雨의 儒佛一致論 = 205
• (3) 白谷과 蓮潭의 儒佛融合論 = 217
• 3. 儒學의 佛敎觀 變化 = 226
• (1) 排佛 意識의 深化 = 227
• (2) 儒學的 理念의 實踐 = 231
• V. 護佛論의 評價 및 意義 = 239
• 1. 排佛論과 護佛論 對立의 評價 = 239
• (1) 入世間主義와 出世間主義 = 240
• (2) 倫理主義와 宗敎主義 = 247
• (3) 中國 中心主義와 普遍主義 = 257
• (4) 儒學 獨存主義와 儒佛 調和主義 = 261
• 2. 朝鮮朝 護佛論의 特性과 意義 = 266
• (1) 涵虛와 白谷의 比較 = 267
• (2) 護佛論의 特性과 評價 = 286
• (3) 護佛論의 現代的 意義 = 292
• VI. 結論 = 299
• 參考文獻 = 305
• ABSTRACT = 312