고암스님의 율맥, 계율사상과 계율의 응용

Abstract

Although Goam (1899-1988) loyally inherited his master Yongseong’s (1864-1940) spirit of precepts and vinaya along with his dharma brothers Dongsan (1890-1965) and Jaun (1911-1992), he made efforts to realize his master’s vision in ways quite different from his master’s other disciples. While Yongseong opposed the imperial Japanese government which imposed married and non-vegetarian monasticism on Korean Buddhists and sought the restoration of Korean Buddhism’s celibate and vegetarian tradition during Japanese occupation, 1910-1945, his followers, including Goam, developed the Purification Buddhist Movement, 1954-1970, thereby removing married monastics from the Jogye Order and finally recovering the Korean Buddhist tradition. However, because the disciples did not interpret precepts and vinaya in a social context, they did not respond to social issues, particularly democratization and opposition to the despotism imposed on Koreans by the civilian dictator Rhee Syngman (1875-1965) and the military dictator Park Chung-hee (1917-1979). Goam flexibly interpreted the vinaya lineages and considered as being inclusive and complementary two major vinaya lineages of Guxin (1535-1615) and Daeeun (1790-1841) adopted and inherited among modern Korean Buddhists. He did not emphasize a vinaya lineage(s) but considered how seriously and actually each vinaya master preserved precepts and vinaya. While his elder dharma brother Dongsan applied precepts and vinaya and restored the traditional monasticism of Korean Buddhism in the Jogye Order and his younger dharma brother Jaun extensively conducted research on vinaya texts and officially standardized various rituals in the order, Goam required monastics and Buddhists to preserve precepts and vinaya mainly at an individual level, not so much at an organizational level. So, we can conclude that Goam placed more emphasis on precepts at the individual level than his master and his dharma brothers who more seriously applied vinaya to the organization level than Goam. In conclusion, we need to critically interpret precepts and vinaya which Goam mainly used in individual and religious contexts and extensively apply them to a broader social context in order to widely respond to various social issues today.