야나기 무네요시(柳宗悅)의 『나무아미타불』에 나타난 해석학적 眼目

Abstract

Namuamitabutsu(『南無阿彌陀佛』)written by Yanagi Muneyoshi(柳宗悅) deals with the history of Pure Land thoughts in Japan. Though he discussed about three traditions that is Honen(Jyodoshu), Shinran(Sinshu), and Ippen(Jishu) diachronically and synchronically, I do not intend to remark its overall content. In this article, I try to focus on his creative understanding of those three masters ―or orders. It is considered that there is a hermeneutic perspective of his own. The purpose of this article is to highlight his own perspective which has four aspects as follows. First, Yanagi regards those three masters ―or orders― as an identical personality which has different developments aiming at Ippen(Jishu)’s Buddhism. Especially in the plot of Namuamitabutsu, not only it is represented in the introduction(序分) and the dissemination(流通分), but also in the main part(正宗分) it culminates with Ippen. In this article, it is discussed in Ⅱ.2. Second, the reason why Yanagi could have integrated approach to the three masters ―or orders― is that he did not belong to any specific orders. If he had been a religion scholar of a specific Buddhist order, then he could not acknowledge enough to the other two masters ―or orders. In this respect, it could be said that his methodology has more affinity with Korean Buddhism which has syncretic tradition rather than Japanese Buddhism which features sectarian tradition. Upon this subject, it is represented in Ⅲ.1.(1). Third, in consideration of his understanding is not based on a specific religious order, it holds syncretic Buddhism characteristics. At the same time, he takes his stand on deconstructing method which is free from quasi-historical restraints and is not bound by Buddhist traditions or doctrines. Though it has so-called genealogical feature, it does not mean that there is not any devotional or practical directivity in him. It is regarded that he stands both sides of methodology which are post-Buddhist order(脫宗門) and religious directivity internally. It is discussed in Ⅲ.1.(2). Fourth, bringing Pure Land thoughts into question, Yanagi who was an aesthetician shows a special interpretative realm. Especially replying to a question whether heaven and hell are fictional existence or not, he demonstrated that it could be more real because they are not histories but stories. I call his aesthetic approach as ‘fictional reality(卽虛現實) aesthetics’ which is borrowed from Uisang(義相)’s concept. In this point, Yanagi tries to get rid of preconceptions of modern/contemporary people who cannot accept Pure Land faith due to their scientific/empirical approach. Among those four features, the first one that he regards the Pure Land thoughts of the three masters ーor ordersー as an identical personality aiming at Ippen(Jishu)’s Buddhism can be acknowledged as an original stance of his own. This point of view, as he wanted, has aided materially in developing close-up 櫻井哲夫, 2014, pp.29〜32. of Ippen(Jishu). Though, there is nothing new because it has been pointed out several times already and well known, I summarized as a preliminary consideration. The second and third features, however, show that his approach has more affinity with Korean Buddhism rather than Japanese Buddhism. Even Yanagi might not expect this affinity. And this is the reason why I, who empathize deeply with him, started to translate Namuamitabutsu into Korean. Finally, the fourth feature can be regarded the most significant attainment that I have learned from Yanagi’s Namuamitabutsu. It could be said as an aesthetic demonstration which shows the existence of heaven or Amitābha to me/us who is/are destined to belong to contemporary society. Moreover, as this point of view enables harmonious coexistence(和諍) of early scriptures and Mahāyāna canons, it can prepare the ground for overcoming several side effects caused by ‘Human Buddha’ debates in some academic fields of Buddhism in Korea.