초록
『진묵조사유적고(震默祖師遺蹟攷)』(이하 『유적고』)와 증산(甑山) 및 대순사상에 나타난 진묵(震默) 설화의 차이와 관련, 선행연구에서는 증산이 종교적 이유로 설화의 원 의도를 변형한 것으로, 또는 믿음과 가치관의 차이로 본다. 이는 한국불교와 증산·대순사상 간 가치관의 차이를 전제로 양자를 회통하려는 해석이다. 본 연구는 가치관에 따른 기술 차이라는 이상의 관점을 수용한다. 다만 이러한 기술 차이를 불교와 대순사상 간 세계관 차이가 아닌, 문헌 전승과 구전 전승의 차이라는 새로운 시각에서 접근한다. 이는 각각 19세기에 최초 문헌설화로 구성된 『유적고』와 18세기 이래 전래 된 민간전승을 의미한다. 이러한 해석 지평에서 진묵-봉곡(鳳谷) 관계를 조명하면, 『유적고』는 초의(草衣)·김기종(金箕鍾) 등 지식층의 가치관·의도를, 구전설화는 조선 후기 민중들의 희망을 투영한 것으로 해석된다. 증산 또한 천지공사에서 민간전승을 활용한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 한편 16C에서 19C에 이르는 유불 관계 맥락에서 『유적고』 찬술 경위와 의도를 분석했다. 특히 『완당집(阮堂集)』·승려 문집 등을 통해, 유학 측에서는 예도 정신의 진작이라는 시대 이념에 따른 자료의 순화·교정이 필요했고 초의 역시 불교에 불리한 구비전승을 윤색·삭제한 것으로 보았다. 반면 『유적고』에 수록되지 않은 진묵 설화가 18세기에도 존재했음을 보여주는 「영당중수기」 및 현존 구비전승을 볼 때 증산의 기술은 민중의 염원을 담은 시속의 민간전승을 수용한 것으로 평가했다. 즉 정치·사회적 이유로 유불 화합 내용만 채택한 『유적고』에 비해 『전경』은 조선 후기 회자 된 구비전승을 충실히 반영한 것으로 이해했다. 근거로는, 진묵-봉곡 관계를 조명한 구전설화에서 봉곡의 시기나 살해에 관한 서사가 많다는 점, 증산이 정치적 입장·신분이 아닌 마음과 뜻에 따라 모든 계층의 인물을 아울렀음을 들었다. 따라서 구전 전승의 특성상 면면히 이어 내려오는 서사 내용을 개작할 필요가 없었고 민중의 소리를 투영한 것으로 해석했다.
Concerning the differences in the tales between the Investigation of Historical Remains of Patriarch Jinmuk (hereafter, IHRPJ), as well as those which appear in Jeungsanist Thought and Daesoon Thought, previous studies view such differences as Jeungsan's intentional modification of the original intent of the narratives or as indicating differences in beliefs and values. This style of interpretation seeks to reconcile both Korean Buddhism and Jeungsanist and Daesoon Thought based on the premise that the former and the latter two exhibit differences in values. This study accepts the above view of the differences in description according to values. However, the differences between the tales of Jinmuk that appears in IHRPJ versus those in The Canonical Scripture can be approached from a new perspective, i.e., the differences that exist between literary and oral traditions; rather than only stemming from potential differences in the world views espoused by Buddhism and Daesoon Thought. These refer to the IHRPJ, which was constructed first as literary narratives in the 19th century; however, there was also folklore that had been handed down from the 18th century. As a result of examining the relationship between Jinmuk and Bonggok via this interpretive horizon, the contents of the IHRPJ are found to reflect the values and intentions of the intellectual class, such those held by Master Cho-ui and Kim Ki-jong, whereas oral traditions can be seen as a reflection of the hopes of the people of the late Joseon Dynasty. Jeungsan should also be interpreted as having utilized folklore in his teachings. Meanwhile, the circumstances and intentions behind publishing the IHRPJ are analyzed in the context of the text's historical background and the relationship between Confucianism and Buddhism during the 16th through 19th centuries. In particular, through the Compilations of Wandang and the collection of writings of Buddhist monastics, I have evaluated that Confucianism needed to purify and correct materials according to the ideology of the times in order to promote a spirit of morality and courtesy. Likewise, Buddhist Master Cho-Ui also embellished records to benefit Buddhism and deleted oral records that could harm the reputation of Buddhism. On the other hand, when viewing Records of Shrine Renovation and existing oral traditions, it can be shown that some Jinmuk tales existed in the 18 th century which were not included in the IHRPJ. Thereby, Jeungsan's description of Jinmuk tales can be reappraised as accepting the oral secular tradition that conveyed the wishes of the people. In other words, compared to the IHRPJ, which reflects only the harmonious content of Confucianism and Buddhism due to political and social factors, The Canonical Scripture reflects oral traditions that were widespread during the late Joseon Dynasty. As evidence, it can be suggested that there are many narratives about the relationship between Jinmuk and Bonggok that center on Bonggok's jealousy and the murder of Jinmuk. Jeungsan aimed to encompass people of all classes according to their minds and wills rather than their political positions or statuses. Therefore, Jeungsan did not need to rewrite the narrative content that had been passed down via oral tradition. Instead he embraced those narratives as a projection of the voices of the people.