초록 열기/닫기 버튼
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 hermeneutics. With a different perspective, I attempted the strategy of exhibiting Bul-yeon’s methodology in a positive sense. There I noticed that a positive hermeneutical circle is being displayed. There are two directions to this circle. One is the direction ‘from Reality to Text’ Bul-yeon always thought of the application into the real world while interpreting Wonhyo’s texts, with a great enthusiasm of reading Wonhyo as a way of finding solutions to the various kinds of problems arising in real world. It does not, however, necessarily mean that his consideration based on the real world has resulted in the practical method of reading, as Mahātma Gandhi or Sin-haeng demonstrated, by which are brought out different outcomes of the interpretation of the same text due to their varied standpoints in the context of reality. His interest was more about precisely understanding Wonhyo or the text's point of view, and embodying it in reality. It seems to me that his interpretations always embrace concerns about reality only because he was the first one to discover the useful effect and meaning of the text/Wonhyo. The more significant point is the other direction ‘from Text to Reality’. Bul-yoen tried his best to look into reality based on the texts. He made an effort to compare Wonhyo’s thought to modern philosophy, such as the thoughts of Schopenhauer, Jaspers, and Christianity, and to adjust or complement modern ideas from the perspective of Wonhyo. Another important fact is that he made an attempt to reflect the multi-faceted reality of our lives, such as politics, economics, society, and culture, and to suggest plausible answers. His reflection of reality appears, needless to say, to be different from ‘Practical Buddhism,’ which has been performed according to a formula of ‘Buddhist studies + α’. His emphasis was not on the other scholastic pursuit as ‘+ α’, but on Buddhist Studies;thereafter, he only suggested the most fundamental ideas on the issue of unification in the Korean Peninsula. It might be pointed out as his limitation, though, as such a limitation can also be the suggestion of a different direction for the younger scholars of the next generation, who would easily neglect the basic element, Buddhism. Last, the examination of the contents of Bul-yeon’s Wonhyo-hermeneutics seems yet to be preceded by more professional Wonhyo scholars. Considering the proper way of delivering the theory of Buddhist hermeneutics, I believe it is worthwhile to pay attention to Bul-yoen’s role as a pioneer in the field of hermeneutical methodology, which could not secure its status in the streams of various methodologies such as Jonghak, scientific methodology, and philology, even though he hardly presented his struggle to suggest his own philosophy, as I have been questioning. I would like to estimate, therefore, that the hermeneutical circle between Text and Reality, found in Bul-yoen’s work of Wonhyo-hermeneutics, deserves to be well appreciated. A pioneer means one who leaves a great deal of tasks yet to be completed along with initiative accomplishments. The task should be well taken care of by us as the younger generation.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Bulyeon Lee Gi-yoeng, Wonhyo, Hermeneutics, Buddhist hermenuetics, hermenuetical circles, text, reality
