원시불교와 초기불교의 명칭에 관한 논쟁 고찰 -일본불교학계의 상황을 중심으로-

Abstract

This essay examines the debate regarding the terms Primitive Buddhism and Early Buddhism as used in Japanese Buddhist academia. As a means of referring to traditional Buddhism, the terms Primitive Buddhism, Early Buddhism, and Fundamental Buddhism, all of which are still commonly used in academic circles, are estimated to have been established by Japanese scholars during the Meiji period (1868-1912). Primitive Buddhism and Fundamental Buddhism seem to have originated from Masaharu Anesaki (姉崎正治), while Early Buddhism comes from Junjiro Takakus (高楠順次郞). Based on what has been extracted from the existing Suttapiṭaka and Vinayapiṭaka, these terms refer to Buddhism beginning around the time of the Buddha until the Mahāsāṃghika-Sthavira schism. In 1986, Mitsuyoshi Saigusa (三枝充悳) insisted that the term Primitive Buddhism be discarded and the term Early Buddhism be adopted. This led to a naming debate, which reconfirmed that the word ‘primitive’ contains the fervor that some Japanese scholars have for the Buddha’s one teaching (原音) and the roots of Buddhism, which have been passed down since the late 19th century. In the case of Korean Buddhism, it seems there are more instances of the term Early Buddhism than there are Primitive Buddhism. This seems to be done as a way to avoid the uncivilized or incomplete tone ‘primitive’ denotes. Recently, it has been the case that many Japanese scholars also prefer the term Early Buddhism to Primitive Buddhism. This may suggest that ‘early’ is thought to be a more objective expression while ‘primitive’ implies a value judgment at the root of Buddhism. Furthermore, using the term Early Buddhism provides a persuasive basis for a case to define the early, middle, and late periods. Thus, this essay attempts to make such clarifications.