초록 close

9세기 초, 당대를 대표로 하는 마조선은 ‘自心是佛’ ‘此心卽佛’을 원점으로 하여 그 취지는 ‘卽心是佛’ ‘平常心是道’라는 成句로 요약된다. 중국선종의 실질적인 형성은 바로 마조문하의 이러한 이념에서 비롯된다. 선종은, 당말에서 五代에 걸쳐 5家로 분류되며 북송기 임제종은 황룡․양기파로 분기되고 이 兩派에서는 당대선에 대한 비판의식이 고조된다. 특히 양기파 원오극근의 경우, 사상적으로는 唐의 마조선류의 연장선상에 있다고 생각되지만 ‘있는 그대로의 자기가 부처’라는 생각으로 안주함을 비난하고, 現狀을 타파하는 결정적인 大悟가 반드시 있어야 한다고 주장했다. 본 논문은 이러한 당․송대의 선자들의 開悟에 대한 의미와 인식에 대해 究明해 보았다. 당대선의 주류가 되는 마조를 비롯한 그 문하의 선자들은 본래성과 일상영위는 둘이 아니며 평상이 그대로 佛作佛行이며 이를 ‘平常․無事’라고 하였다. 그러나 평상․무사라고 하여 그대로 안주하는 것은 아니었다. 마조는 문답으로 제자를 접화하여 수행자 스스로가 ‘心是佛’을 실지로 깨닫게 했다. 이러한 접화 방식은 석두계측도 마찬가지였다. 그들은 본래성의 체득을 중요시하였고 개오가 없는 무사는 인정하지 않았다. 당대선을 더욱 발전시킨 임제, 조주, 덕산, 등은 모두 본래 평상․무사인임을 모르고 求佛求心하는 수행자에게는 拳, 棒, 喝, 등을 사용하여 대오하게 했다. 그런데 북송대의 선자들은 당대선을 대오가 없는 무사선이라고 비판 했다. 황룡문하의 照覺(東林)만이 무사선을 계승하지만 동문인 晦堂과 眞淨은 이를 크게 비판했으며 양기문하의 白雲, 五祖, 등 역시 대오를 주장했다. 오조를 嗣法한 원오는 이들의 영향을 받아 그의 저술과 어록 등에서, 無事는 선의 究竟이지만 이는 반드시 개오를 통해서 이며, 방법으로 ‘화두참구’ ‘休歇’등을 제시하였다. 이 같은 원오의 무사에 대한 비판은, 선사상적 내실을 경시하고 선을 개오의 방법론으로만 취급하려는 편향적인 경향이 있음을 살필 수 있었다. 당대선이 평상․무사인임을 실지로 깨우치도록 하는 선이었고 송대선 또한 참된 무사는 대오이후라고 강조하는 선이라고 볼 때, 당․송대 선은 모두 개오를 중요시 했다고 보며 다만 개오에 대한 인식이 禪者의 견해에 따라 그 의미가 變移되었다고 본다. 이는 역으로 시대별 선류를 결정짓는 원인이 되었다고 볼 수 있다.


The Mazu (馬祖) Chan, representing Chan of the Tang dynasty in the early 9thcentury, started from ‘One's own mind is Buddha (自心是佛)’ or ‘This mind is in itself Buddha (此心卽佛)’, and its main teachings are summarized as the phrases; ‘The mind is Buddha, just as it is (卽心是佛)’ or ‘One's original mind is, as it is, the Way (平常心是道)’. The substantial formation of the Chinese Chan School (禪宗) originated from these ideas under the Mazu School. The Chan School (禪宗) was divided into ‘Five Houses’ (五家) over the period from the late Tang to the Five Dynasties(五代). Later on, in the North Song dynasty, the Linji School (臨濟宗) branched off into the Yangqi branch (楊岐派) and the Huanglong branch (黃龍派). In these two branches, critical minds were heightened about the Chan in the Tang dynasty. Especially, the Yangqi branch (楊岐派) blamed the Chan traditions in the Tang dynasty on the point that the tradition, though ideologically believed to be extensions of the Mazu (馬祖) Chan , remained steadfast in peace in the thought of ‘The mind, just as it is, is Buddha’, and further claimed that there should be an enlightenment which sees into the truth breaking through the present state. Mazu (馬祖) and his disciple practitioner, as the mainstream of the Chan in the Tang dynasty, said that original nature and everyday life are not the two but one and the same, and the ordinary as it is, is the deed of Buddha, so was called “the ordinary is No hindrance.” However, “the ordinary is No hindrance” meant no ‘remaining steadfast in peace.’ Mazu (馬祖), through connecting him with his disciples and leading them to the Way by means of question and answer, let the practitioners themselves realize that ‘the mind is Buddha, just as it is.’ This method of ‘connecting by means of question and answer’ was also performed in Shitou (石頭) lineage. They regarded mastering of original nature as important and did not recognize ‘No hindrance without enlightenment’. Linji (臨濟), Zhaozhou (趙州), Deshan (德山), etc. altogether made Chan practitioners, who seek for Buddhahood and the mind without knowing that the ordinary is originally no hindrance, acquire enlightenment by using a fist-punching, a stick-striking or a sudden shouting. Chan practitioner in the North Song dynasty criticized the Chan in the Tang dynasty for its being ‘No Hindrance Chan’ without enlightenment. Although Zhaojue (照覺) (Donglin; 東林) of the Huanglong branch (黃龍派) alone had succeeded to ‘No hindrance Chan’ tradition, his fellow disciplines such as Huitang (晦堂) and Zhenjing (眞淨) criticized severely his succession. Further, Baiyun (白雲) and the Five Patriarchs (五祖) etc. of the Yangqi branch (楊岐派) insisted upon acquisition of enlightenment. Yuanwu (圜悟), who had inherited the dharma from the Five Patriarchs (五祖), being influenced by them, emphasized in his writings and recorded sayings that ‘No hindrance’, though it being the ultimate culmination of Chan, is necessarily to be thoroughly penetrated into and proposed as methods thereof ‘breaking the gong-an’ and ‘repose yourselves with mindfulness’ etc. In my inquiries, however, I could find out that Yuanwu (圜悟)'s criticism on the doctrine of ‘No hindrance’ of the Chan in the Tang dynasty has the inclination to treat a Chan as a mere methodology of enlightenment, while thinking light of its internal stability in the historical context of Chan thoughts. This criticism is believed to have originated from the way of thinking of Yuanwu (圜悟) and the like, which intends to evaluate thoughts by the difference in methodology rather than in content. Viewing that the Chan in the Tang dynasty was one which made practitioners themselves realize the doctrine of “the ordinary is No hindrance” and that the Chan in the Song dynasty was also one which emphasized the knowledge of true “No hindrance” only after enlightenment, it is considered that Chans in the Tang and Song dynasties altogether highly regarded the enlightenment and that its perception alone varied according to the viewpoint of each practitioner. It can be said that such variations inversely became the very causes which determined the Chan tradition by era.