비베카난다의 붓다관에 대한 비평 : 遊行(sannyāsa)과 出家(pabbajjā)를 중심으로

Abstract

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.