earticle

영어

Chusa was a representative calligrapher in late Joseon dynasty and had profound knowledge of documental archaeology, exegetics, realistic school of Confucianism, epigraphy, Buddhism and the theory of calligraphy and paintings. He was called ‘a master with realizing his nature’ or ‘Wéimójūshì(維摩居士, Vimalakīrti grhapati) in the East’ because he especially had an extensive knowledge of Buddhism and a unique perspective on Zen. Chusa thoroughly denied Kànhuàchán(看話禪, Zen-Buddhist meditation through dharma topic) which was commonly conducted in Zen-Buddhism in those days. Distrust and criticism of Zen-Buddhism resulted from the spirit of seeking truth from fact, and he believed that he could only achieve the stage of Buddha though Buddhist classics. He considered Zen-Buddhism as a heresy of Buddhism and treated Dharma’s perspective on Zen as an imitation of Sēngzhào(僧肇, a famous Buddhist master of the Eastern Jin dynasty). Alternatively, Chusa regarded Ānbānshǒuyìjīng(安般守意經) as a sequence of a correct perspective on Zen and suggested a correct posture and a means of Zen-Buddhist meditation with indicating a negative effect of the atmosphere of Zen-Buddhism. Also, he highly appreciated Xiějīng(寫經, copying Buddhist classics), Fójīngkānxíng(佛經刊行, publication of Buddhist classics) and Niànfógōngdé(念佛功德, to practice good deeds through an invocations to Buddha). He was a big grhapati of Buddhism who has practiced Bōyúgòngyǎng(鉢盂供養, monastic meal) and Cìhuǒchànhuǐ(刺火懺悔, repentance receiving the commandments of Buddhism) when he stayed in Bongeun temple in his latter years. Chusa’s perspective on art adhered to the thought of regarding all the principles of poetry, calligraphy, paintings and Zen as one based on the spirit of classical scholars. His perspective on art was systematized, applying his perspective on Buddhism and the principle on Zen, based on the art spirits of literati in Song dynasty and Korean ancestors who have accepted those of literati in Song dynasty. Therefore, his stage of calligraphy and paintings of the principle of Zen had more values on internal world of spirits than external form of artworks. Chusa’s stage of calligraphy and paintings could be strange, abnormal and extraordinary. He thoroughly denied Kànhuàchán(看話禪, Zen-Buddhist meditation through dharma topic), but his calligraphy and paintings resembled closely as Huàtóu(話頭, dharma topic) or Bànghè(棒喝, to rebuke with a rod) of a Buddhist priest of high virtue could not be thoughtlessly evaluated. In conclusion, Chusa’s literature, Buddihsm, calligraphy and paintings have both advantage and disadvantage. However, it is obvious that Chusa would be awed and respected as he has been so far. The reassessment about him would not be disappeared. Finally, whether or not Chusa’s calligraphy and paintings would be established as a characteristic of Korean beauty with supports of contemporary calligraphers and painters left for further discussion.

한국어

추사는 조선 후기를 대표적인 서예가일 뿐만 아니라 고증학․훈고학․실학․금석학․불교학․서화론 등에 조예가 깊은 인물이다. 특히 불교에 해박한 지식을 가지고 있었으며 또한 독특한 禪觀을 견지하고 있었던 까닭에 ‘見性한 先生’ 또는 ‘海東의 維摩居士’라고 불리었다. 추사는 당시에 禪門에서 두루 행해지고 있던 看話禪을 철저하게 부정하였다. 당대 선종에 대한 불신과 비판은 실사구시 정신에 기인한 것으로 부처님의 경전을 통해서만이 부처님의 경지에 들 수 있다고 여긴 것이다. 특히 당대 禪宗을 佛門의 이단으로 여겼고 達磨의 禪觀까지도 僧肇의 아류로 치부하였다. 그 대안으로 추사는『安般守意經』을 선의 바른 안목의 귀결 처로 삼아 선풍의 폐단을 지적하면서 참선의 바른 자세와 방법을 제시하였다. 또 寫經이나 佛經刊行 그리고 念佛功德을 크게 여겼음은 물론, 특히 晩年에 봉은사에서 지내면서 鉢盂供養과 刺火懺悔까지 하였던 신행불교의 큰 居士였다. 추사의 예술관은 선비정신에 입각한 詩理․書理․畵理․禪理 一體의 관념을 견지하였다. 이러한 추사의 예술관은 송대 문인들의 예술 정신과 이를 수용한 우리나라 선인들의 예술 정신을 바탕으로 해서 자신의 불교관과 선의 원리를 채용한 것이다. 그러므로 그의 선리적 서화경지는 외재적인 작품형식보다는 그 내재적인 정신세계에 가치를 둔 것이었다. 추사의 서화경지는 怪․奇․險絶하다고 할 수 있다. 그는 철저하게 看話禪을 부정했지만 살상 善知識의 話頭나 棒喝같은 것을 함부로 평할 수 없듯이 추사의 서화도 그것과 방불한 점이 있다. 결론적으로 추사의 문학과 불교와 서화 모두 장점 단점을 공유하고 있다. 다만 지금까지도 그랬듯이 앞으로도 외경의 추사가 될 수밖에 없을 것이라는 점은 분명하다. 아울러 그에 대한 ‘재평가’ 같은 운운도 사라지지 않을 것이다.