비베카난다의 붓다관에 대한 비평 : 遊行(sannyāsa)과 出家(pabbajjā)를 중심으로 (Criticism on Vivekananda's view of Buddha Focused on Sannyāsa and Pabbajjā)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 인도철학회
· 수록지 정보 : 인도철학 / 29호 / 137 ~ 172페이지
· 저자명 : 김호성

초록

비베카난다는 서양에 힌두교를 전했을 뿐만 아니라 실천적 베단타를 주장하면서, 라마크리쉬나 미션을 설립하였다. 종래의 아드바이타 베단타와 달리 사회적 실천을 강조하는 그는 붓다와 불교에 대하여 많은 언급을 남기고 있다.
특히 붓다를 이상적 카르마요기로 평가하였다. 이는 붓다가 가진 여러 특성 중에서 하나를 강조한 것으로 보이며, 붓다의 자비실천을 그렇게 이해하는 것도 가능한 것으로 보았다.
문제는 힌두 전통 안에서 네 번째 인생기에 해당하는 산냐시로서 붓다를 이해하는 것이었다. 여기에는 세속을 떠난 산냐시를 세속 안에서의 봉사자, 즉 카르마요기로 전환시키려는 비베카난다의 의도가 투영되어 있다. 그러나 카르마요기가 곧 산냐시라고 한 뒤에, 붓다 역시 산냐시라고 하는 관점에는 간과할 수 없는 문제가 개재되어 있다. 하나는 산냐시들이 붓다처럼, 사제자들의 문화를 비판하면서 자비실천의 이타행을 했던가 하는 점이다. 다른 하나는 붓다는 가주기의 의무를 건너 뛴 출가자인데, 가주기의 의무를 다 하고 난 뒤의 출가자인 산냐시와 동일시 할 수 없다는 점이다.
그렇게 비베카난다는 불교의 출가가 갖는 함의를 충분히 인정하지 않았는데, 그 이유는 불교를 힌두 전통의 개혁 정도로 보았기 때문이다. 붓다를 베다의 개혁자라고 말함으로써, 비베카난다의 붓다관은 불교를 있는 그대로 인정하는 것이 아니라 힌두교 속으로 포용해 버리고 마는 포용주의적 관점을 갖고 있었던 것이다. 이리하여 비베카난다 안에서 불교는 다시 한 번 사라지고 말았다.

영어초록

Vivekananda didn't live a long life, but left a significant mark. He introduced Hinduism to western society through 'the Parliament of Religions' held in Chicago, 1893. Moreover he established 'Practical Vedānta' not only succeeding Śaṅkara's Advaita Vedānta but also putting sociality in it. Furthermore, he founded 'Ramakrishna Mission' to put his theory into practice, so that he should be called as the founder of a new religion in Hindu religious history.
Unlike other contemporary leaders of Neo-Hinduism, Vivekananda made a lot of references to Buddhism. Praising and criticizing Buddhism, he put Buddha into the Hindu religious system. Then in what way did he try to praise and learn from Buddha, and in what point did he criticize? Besides, in what logical way did he include Buddha into Hinduism?About these subjects, it looks like there have been reported few researches not only in Korean academia, but also in the world. I analyzed the Buddha and His Message which compiled Vivekananda's references to Buddha and Buddhism. As a result, I found that Vivekananda constructed three types of Buddha figure as follows. I tried to summarize each of three types with my own criticism.
The first one is 'Karma-yogī Buddha'. Vivekananda, who recognized the reality of India which had been ruled by Britain, started to aim for transformation of the Hinduism and reformation of the Vedānta. And he took his direction for serving the public. This kind of ideology is found in the Bhagavadgītā which contains the Karma-yoga. Even though the text stressed Karma-yoga very much, there hasn't been a practical role model. And he had a new understanding of Buddha as a role model who had lived a life renouncing obsession and desire, serving the public with compassion. He highlighted the aspect of 'Karma-yogī Buddha'. Of course we cannot simplify Buddha's feature as one, 'the Practice of compassion'. But these kinds of Vivekananda's evaluation and acceptance can be regarded that he stressed 'the Practice of compassion' in the aspect of Karma-yoga in Buddha's features and teachings. I evaluate it positively, and in this point, we cannot deny the influence of Mahāyāna Buddhism on Vivekananda.
The second one is 'Sannyāsī Buddha'. Again, Vivekananda regards Buddha as Sannyāsī. He understands Hindu traditional religion as an opposition, 'Brahmī VS Sannyāsī'. And he thinks the Sannyāsīs were the critics, just like the prophet in the Old Testament, who criticized corruptions of the Brahmīs. In his historical awareness, perception of Christianity which can be said as 'Jewish priests VS prophets(the prophet in the Old Testament, and Jesus)' is projected. But is it possible that the Sannyāsa, which is regarded as the fourth stage of life in Hindu tradition, is identified with the prophet in the Judaism-Christianity tradition? I don't think it's possible. Compared with the prophets relatively, did the Sannyāsīs criticize the Brahmīs' rituals or discriminations based on the castes as much as the prophets did to the Jewish priests? It is hard to think like that for me. Complementing these kinds of images that hadn't been in Hindu tradition, the presence of Buddha was helpful in creating a new image. Calling Buddha as Sannyāsī, Vivekananda tried to change the images of Sannyāsīs. Furthermore, he claims that the Sannyāsīs who were in Hindu tradition lived their lives just as Buddha.
The third one is 'Buddha as a reformer of the Veda'. Because Buddha became a Sannyāsī in the Hindu tradition, it is natural for him to be included in the Hindu tradition. Vivekananda thinks that Buddha was not a founder of a new religion, but a reformer of the Vedic religion who preached Vedic religious spirit. Saying "Buddhism, the Fulfillment of Hinduism", Vivekananda put the images of the Jesus, who preached "I came not to destroy, but to fulfill", on Buddha. That's why Vivekananda cannot be a religious pluralist who acknowledges the values and the significance of existence of other religions, but a inclusivist who pretends to admit other religions, including them in his religious system. However, his logic contradicts itself on two points. One is the difference between Buddhism and Hindu tradition in metaphysical viewpoint which defines the essential difference of religions as he pointed out. The other is the difference between pabbajjā(pravrajyā) in Buddhist tradition and sannyāsa in Hindu tradition. He also criticized strongly the difference because Buddhist pabbajjā was not fulfilling the svadharma which should be done in gṛhastha stage in Hindu tradition. Ultimately, Buddha's pabbajjā was denying to be a sannyāsī of Hindu tradition, and it led to the 'Birth of Buddhism' as a brand new religion which is different from Hindu traditional one.
As a result, Vivekananda, on one hand, brought the positive side of Buddha into relief saying 'Karma-yogī Buddha'. But the other hand, he included Buddhism into Hinduism saying 'Sannyāsī Buddha', and 'Buddha as a reformer of the Veda', not evaluating Buddhism itself. It can be said that he distorted both of Buddhism and Indian religious history.
Against my expectations that the Buddhism could be alive in Vivekananda, the Buddhism has rather died once more in him. It can be said as 'absence of Buddhism in Modern India' especially being focused on Vivekananda. The history was obliged to flow in that way. But the philosophy should save the Buddhist pabbajjā from the inclusion into Hinduism which has been led to the absence of Buddhism. That is the way to protect the identity of Buddhist pabbajjā.

참고자료

· 없음