근대 이후 한국 불교계 지식인은 다양한 방식으로 한국불교의 정체성을 탐구했다. 1930년 최남선은 「조선불교: 그 동방문화사 상에서 그 지위」에서 한국불교의 성격을 ‘통불교’로 규정하고, 그것을 한국불교의 우수성으로 간주했다. 해방 이후 학계에서 한국불교의 정체성을 찾는 과정에서 일부 학자는 최남선의 통불교론을 소환한다. 이후 불교학계에서 많은 학자가 통불교론을 지속적으로 유통시키거나 변주했다. 그 결과 ‘통불교’ 뿐만 아니라 회통불교･총화불교 등 몇몇 개념과 이론이 함께 유통됐다. 한국 불교 전통 속에서 ‘민족의 주체성’을 탐색하는 이런 논의는 그 의도와 계기를 불문하고 분명 ‘민족주의 불교 담론’이라고 할 법하다.
1970년대와 80년대 논의된 통불교론이 ‘1930년 최남선’이라는 하나의 연원에서 유래한 것처럼 보이지만, 실은 전혀 다른 또 하나의 연원이 존재했는데, 바로 조명기(1905-1988)의 불교전체주의이다. 1940년 일본 파시즘이 식민지 한국에서도 강력하게 작동하던 시기, 불교계 지식인 조명기는 불교전체주의 개념을 제시했고, 또한 그것을 한국불교의 성격으로 규정했다. 해방 이후 1960년대 조명기는 불교전체주의를 ‘총화불교’로 개칭하였고, 이 총화불교론으로 이후 민족불교 담론에 적극적으로 참여했다. 조명기의 총화불교론은 그가 해방 이전 확립한 불교전체주의의 연장이다. 식민지 시기 형성된 그의 불교관과 세계관은 해방 이후에도 대단히 강고하게 지속됐다. 대표적인 불교학자로서 또한 학교 행정가로서 영향력을 고려하면 통불교론 담론 지형에서 그의 역할을 짐작할 수 있을 것이다.
필자는 본고에서 해방 후 통불교론에는 최남선의 ‘민족주의 경향의 불교론’ 외에 ‘불교전체주의’라는 다분히 ‘식민주의 경향의 불교론’이 한 연원으로 존재했음을 밝히고자 한다. 이를 통해서 식민지 시기 형성되고 작동한 ‘식민지 근대성’(colonial modernity)이 해방 이후까지 여전히 지속했음을 확인하고자 한다.
Since modern times, Korean Buddhist intellectuals have explored the identity of Korean Buddhism in various ways. In 1930, Choe Namseon defined the nature of Korean Buddhism as Tong Bulgyo (Unified Buddhism) and used it as a basis for asserting the superiority of Korean Buddhism over Chinese or Japanese Buddhism. Choe Namseon (1890-1957) aimed to forge a distinct Joseon minjok (Korean nation) identity early on, and in the process of defining this national identity, he emphasized the excellence of ancient Korean Buddhist culture. After liberation, during the search for the identity of the Korean people and the essence of Korean Buddhism, the government and academia once again turned to Choe Namseon’s doctrine of Tong Bulgyo, attempting to establish it as the defining identity of Korean Buddhism. Subsequently, some intellectuals within the Buddhist community continued to circulate and modify the concept of Tong Buddhism. In this process, several notions and theories related to the idea of Tong Bulgyo, such as Hoetong Bulgyo (Syncretic Buddhism) and Chonghwa Bulgyo (Total Unity Buddhism), were proposed. Such discussions aimed at exploring “national identity” or “national excellence” can be classified as belonging to the realm of ‘nationalist Buddhist discourse.’ However, apart from Choe Namseon’s perspective, another theory called Chonghwa Bulgyo, with different origins, also contributes to this discussion. This theory was introduced by Jo Meonggi (1905-1988). In 1940, during the period of oppressive Japanese fascist rule in colonial Korea, the Buddhist intellectual Jo Meonggi presented the concept of Bulgyo jeonchejuui (Buddhist totalitarianism) and characterized Korean Buddhism as a form of totalitarianism. After liberation, in the 1960s, Jo Myeongki renamed Bulgyo jeonchejuui as Chonghwa Bulgyo and actively participated in the discourse of national Buddhism using this theory. In essence, Jo Myeonggi's theory of Chonghwa Bulgyo retained the content of Bulgyo jeonchejuui. His views on Buddhism and philosophy, which were developed during the colonial period, persisted strongly even after liberation. This paper reveals that in addition to Choe Namseon’s “Nationalist Buddhism,” there was another colonial Buddhism theory called Bulgyo jeonchejuui within the discourse of Tong Bulgyo after liberation. Consequently, it highlights how colonial modernity continued even after liberation.
Since modern times, Korean Buddhist intellectuals have explored the identity of Korean Buddhism in various ways. In 1930, Choe Namseon defined the nature of Korean Buddhism as Tong Bulgyo (Unified Buddhism) and used it as a basis for asserting the superiority of Korean Buddhism over Chinese or Japanese Buddhism. Choe Namseon (1890-1957) aimed to forge a distinct Joseon minjok (Korean nation) identity early on, and in the process of defining this national identity, he emphasized the excellence of ancient Korean Buddhist culture. After liberation, during the search for the identity of the Korean people and the essence of Korean Buddhism, the government and academia once again turned to Choe Namseon’s doctrine of Tong Bulgyo, attempting to establish it as the defining identity of Korean Buddhism. Subsequently, some intellectuals within the Buddhist community continued to circulate and modify the concept of Tong Buddhism. In this process, several notions and theories related to the idea of Tong Bulgyo, such as Hoetong Bulgyo (Syncretic Buddhism) and Chonghwa Bulgyo (Total Unity Buddhism), were proposed. Such discussions aimed at exploring “national identity” or “national excellence” can be classified as belonging to the realm of ‘nationalist Buddhist discourse.’ However, apart from Choe Namseon’s perspective, another theory called Chonghwa Bulgyo, with different origins, also contributes to this discussion. This theory was introduced by Jo Meonggi (1905-1988). In 1940, during the period of oppressive Japanese fascist rule in colonial Korea, the Buddhist intellectual Jo Meonggi presented the concept of Bulgyo jeonchejuui (Buddhist totalitarianism) and characterized Korean Buddhism as a form of totalitarianism. After liberation, in the 1960s, Jo Myeongki renamed Bulgyo jeonchejuui as Chonghwa Bulgyo and actively participated in the discourse of national Buddhism using this theory. In essence, Jo Myeonggi's theory of Chonghwa Bulgyo retained the content of Bulgyo jeonchejuui. His views on Buddhism and philosophy, which were developed during the colonial period, persisted strongly even after liberation. This paper reveals that in addition to Choe Namseon’s “Nationalist Buddhism,” there was another colonial Buddhism theory called Bulgyo jeonchejuui within the discourse of Tong Bulgyo after liberation. Consequently, it highlights how colonial modernity continued even after liberation.