여말선초 理學의 분화양상과 道統論

심예인 韓國學中央硏究院 韓國學大學院 2017 국내석사

Chosŏn was a state established by taking the "learning of principle" (K. ihak 理學 C. lixue) as its ruling ideology. Scholars have named the Confucianism of the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn mostly the “learning of nature and principle of Master Zhu” (K. Chujasŏngnihak 朱子性理學 C. Zhuzixinglixue), but there are some aspects which make it difficult to consider the Confucianism, coming from Yuan dynasty, as the learning of nature and principle of Master Zhu. It is because there were constant tendencies among the Confucian scholars of Koryŏ to subsume Lu Jiu-yuan's “the learning of the heart-mind” (K. simhak 心學 C. xinxue) as well as Zhu Xi's learning of principle, or learning of nature and principle. Furthermore, the argument that the Confucianism at that time should be called the learning of principle rather than the learning of nature and principle is supported by the fact that the name of an agency for propagating in earnest the Confucianism was the Directorate for Learning of Principle 理學都監. The learning of principle was also called the "learning of the Way" (K. Tohak 道學 C. daoxue). While the learning of principle is a value neutral concept used to explain all things by the principle, the learning of the Way is a concept that contains the logic of regarding Buddhism and Taoism as heterodox teachings along with the strong sense of the lineage of the Way. Accordingly, in order to clarify the orthodox line of transmission of the Way, the characteristics of the learning of the Way should be investigated. The learning of the Way of Chosŏn has been mostly used as a term merely referring to the learning and thoughts of the Confucian scholars, including Kim Gwing-pil and Cho Kwang-jo, in the sixteenth century. As the learning of the Way, however, was introduced during the late Koryŏ period, the usages of the term were found and moreover, its characteristics changed over a period of time. In the late fourteenth century the learning of the Way was used as a term indicating Cheng-Zhu learning from the Yuan dynasty or the learning of the principle itself. In the fifteenth century, the usage of the learning of the Way appeared as a concept mainly indicating the explication of the classics in contrast to the literary composition. The learning of the Way based on classical studies played a role as statecraft learning or ideology for rulers as well as literati. However, as hegemonic rulers like King Sejo or Prince Yŏnsan and corrupt political forces like old meritorious elites emerged, it came to be difficult to rectify the society only with the learning of the Way valuing the classical studies based on the explication of the classics. So, from the late fifteenth century, the learning of the Way related to meanings and principles (ŭiri 義理), focusing on practicality, was advocated while the learning attitudes of cultivating one's person, such as controlling the mind, nourishing inner nature, and abiding in reverence, were greatly encouraged. In the sixteenth century the learning of the Way went beyond the practical "study of meanings and principles" (ŭirihak 義理學) and was extended to the learning of the heart-mind (K. simhak 心學 C. xinxue), which was concerned with the cultivation of mind. Except for the break due to the different political stance, the master-disciple relationship in the learning of the principle continued until the early Chosŏn period from the late Koryŏ period, which became the foundation of the lineage of the Way. So far, according to the moral purist viewpoint of the lineage of the Way in the sixteenth century, the learning of the principle of Chosŏn has been understood through the lineage of scholars from Chŏng Mong-ju, Kil Jae, Kim Suk-ja, Kim Jong-jik, Kim Gwing-pil, and to Cho Kwang-jo. But the viewpoint of the orthodox lineage of the Way in the sixteenth century was a political product made by rural Neo-Confucian school, which might have had a problem of oversimplifying the diversity of the learning of the principle. Indeed, the prominent Confucian scholars of the time, such as Chŏng Mong-ju, Chŏng To-jŏn, Yi Sung-in, and Kwŏn Kŭn, who led the learning of the principle in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn, were Yi Saek's disciples. Therefore, Yi Saek cannot be removed from the lineage of the learning of the principle. Kwŏn Kŭn, a student of Yi Saek, also fostered a host of disciples pursuing the learning of the principle by means of marriage ties with the prestigious families of the time. Kwŏn Kŭn's scholarship was consecutively transmitted to Yu Pang-sŏn, Sŏ Kŏ-jŏng, Cho Wi, and Pyo Yŏ-mal on the one hand, and it was also passed down to Kim Pan, Yi Kwan-ŭi, and Chŏng Yŏ-chang on the other hand. Here at this point it is evident that Kim Jong-jik's disciples, such as Cho Wi, Pyo Yŏ-mal, and Chŏng Yŏ-chang, were also academically influenced by Kwŏn Kŭn. Likewise, the transmission of the learning of principle in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn was continued through the master-disciple relationship among the men from both the so-called "government-operated" school and the rural Neo-Confucian school. Among the scholars pursuing the learning of the principle in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn it was Yi Saek who was aware of the orthodox lineage of the Way. Yi Saek put an emphasis on the transmission of the Way from China to Koryŏ by tracing the orthodox line of the Way from Xu Heng to himself. Since Yi Saek, no attempt has been made to build the lineage of the learning of the Way by the same means that he introduced the orthodox line of the Way from China. The arguments on the orthodox lineage of the Way in Chosŏn are divided into three categories: the argument on the shrine service to Chinese Confucian scholars, on the shrine service to Korean Confucian scholars, and on the Confucian scholars who were not served in the shrines. There is something remarkable in these arguments about the orthodox lineage of the Way, which is the fact that opinions on the orthodox lineage of the Way were swayed by the social value of the time, and so spirit tablets in shrines were incessantly replaced over and over. There is something remarkable in these arguments about the orthodox lineage of the Way. The fact that opinions on the orthodox lineage of the Way were swayed by the social value of the time resulted in the incessant replacement of spirit tablets in the shrines. Arguments on the lineage of the Way in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn are characterized by the argument on the orthodox lineage of rulers and that of Confucian scholars. The argument on the orthodox lineage of rulers was an attempt to reestablish the royal lineage by the kings of Chosŏn, which was a state of the learning of the Way. This royal lineage was considered to have ceased since Emperor Wu of the Zhou dynasty. This is quite noticeable in the idea proposed by Chŏng To-jŏn who played a leading role in the establishment of the Chosŏn dynasty. The argument on the orthodox lineage of Confucian scholars was the assertion that, after Confucius, the Way passed down to the Chinese literati was again transmitted to the Confucian scholars of Chosŏn. The argument is subdivided into the officially recognized form of shrine service and the form of the orthodox lineage of the Way approved by the Confucian scholars. The orthodox lineage from Yi Che-hyŏn through Yi Saek to Kwŏn Kŭn was mainly accepted by the literati up to the fifteenth century. All of them, however, were removed from the orthodox lineage after the sixteenth century by reason of either inclination to Buddhism or lack of fidelity. In reality, in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn there were various arguments about the orthodox lineage based on transmission of scholarship. The first of them was the lineage of the Way from Yi Che-hyŏn through Yi Saek to Kwŏn Kŭn. The second was the lineage from Yi Saek through Chŏng To-jŏn to Kwŏn Kŭn. The third was the lineage from Yi Saek through Kwŏn Kŭn to Kil Jae. The fourth was the lineage from Chŏng Mong-ju, Cho Yong, Yun Sang, Kim Suk-ja, to Kim Jong-jik. The last was the lineage from Chŏng Mong-ju, Kil Jae, Kim Suk-ja, Kim Jong-jik, Kim Gwing-pil, Chŏng Pung to Pak Yŏng. In conclusion, as for the argument on the orthodox lineage in the late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn, there were various lineages of the Way, regardless of the orthodox lineage made by rural Neo-Confucian literati after the middle of the sixteenth century. 조선은 理學을 지배이념으로 하여 성립된 나라이다. 그동안 연구자들은 여말선초의 유학을 주로 ‘朱子性理學’이라고 명명해 왔지만, 고려 말 元에서 도입된 유학은 실제로 朱子性理學이라고만 말하기 어려운 측면이 있다. 朱熹의 理學(性理學)뿐만 아니라 陸九淵의 心學을 아우른 理學의 경향이 고려의 유학자들 사이에 일정하게 존재하고 있었기 때문이다. 더욱이 공민왕 때 유학을 본격적으로 보급하기 위해 설치한 기구의 명칭이 理學都監이었던 사실도 그 당시의 유학을 성리학이라고 하기 보다 이학이라 부르는 것이 더 바람직하다는 점을 뒷받침한다. 이학은 道學으로도 불렸다. 이학이 만물을 理로 설명하는 가치중립적인 개념이라면, 도학은 강력한 道統의식과 함께 불교·도교에 대한 闢異端의 논리를 내재한 개념이다. 따라서 도통을 밝히기 위해서는 도학의 성격이 규명되어야 한다. 그동안 조선의 도학은 주로 김굉필과 조광조를 비롯한 유학자들의 학문과 사상을 지칭하는 용어로만 강조되어 왔다. 하지만 도학은 이미 고려 말 이학이 도입되면서부터 그 용례가 발견될 뿐 아니라 시기별로 그 성격을 조금씩 달리하였다. 14세기 말 도학은 당시 원나라에서 도입된 程朱學 내지 이학 자체를 뜻하는 용어로 쓰였다. 15세기 도학의 용례는 주로 詞章에 대비된 講經을 뜻하는 개념으로 등장한다. 經學에 기초한 도학은 사대부뿐만 아니라 군주를 위한 학문과 사상으로서 治道學 내지 經世學의 역할을 담당하였다. 그런데 세조나 연산군과 같은 覇道的 군주와 부패한 정치세력이 부상하자, 강경을 통한 경학을 강조하는 도학만으로는 사회를 바로 잡기 어려워졌다. 이에 15세기 말부터 실천을 강조하는 義理的 도학이 주장되는가 하면, 治心·養性·居敬과 같은 수신의 학문 태도가 크게 권장되었다. 16세기 도학이 실천적 義理學을 넘어 마음을 닦는 心學으로 확대된 것이다. 도통의 근간이 된 이학의 사승관계는 정치적 입장의 차이로 갈라선 것을 제외하면, 고려 말 이후 조선 초기까지 거의 그대로 이어졌다. 그동안 조선의 이학은 16세기 節義的 도통론의 관점에 따라 鄭夢周-吉再-金叔滋-金宗直-金宏弼-趙光祖로 이어지는 계보로 파악되어 왔다. 하지만 16세기 도통론은 士林派에 의해 정리된 정치적 결과물로서 이 시기 이학 계보의 다양성을 지나치게 단순화시킬 우려가 있다. 실제로 여말선초 이학을 주도한 鄭夢周, 鄭道傳, 李崇仁, 權近과 같은 당대 巨儒들은 李穡의 문하에서 배출되었다. 따라서 이색을 여말선초 이학의 계보에서 빼놓을 수 없다. 이색의 문인인 권근 역시 당대 명문가와 혼인관계를 맺어 수많은 이학자들을 길러냈다. 권근의 학문은 柳方善-徐居正-曺偉·表沿沫로 이어지는가 하면, 金泮-李寬義-鄭汝昌으로 이어지기도 한다. 여기서 김종직의 문인인 조위, 표연말, 정여창 등이 모두 권근에게 학문적 영향을 받았음을 알 수 있다. 이처럼 여말선초 이학의 수수과정은 소위 官學派와 사림파 인물들의 사승관계를 통해 꾸준히 지속되어 왔다. 여말선초 이학자 가운데 가장 먼저 도통의식을 지녔던 인물은 이색이다. 이색은 원나라 許衡에서 자기에게로 이어지는 도통을 정리함으로써, 중국의 도통이 고려로 이어지고 있음을 강조하였다. 하지만 이색 이후 중국의 도통을 끌어와 도학의 계보를 연결하는 모습은 나타나지 않는다. 조선의 도통론은 크게 세 가지로 분류된다. 첫째, 중국의 선유들에 대한 文廟從祀 논의, 둘째, 조선 유자들에 대한 문묘종사 논의, 셋째, 문묘에 종사되지 않은 유자들의 도통 논의가 그것이다. 이러한 도통론에서 두드러진 점은 당대 사회의 가치에 따라 도통론이 좌우되어 문묘 종사의 대상들이 끊임없이 入享과 黜享을 거듭했다는 사실이다. 여말선초의 도통론은 君主道統論과 儒者道統論으로 특징지어진다. 군주도통론은 周나라 武王 이후 끊어졌던 王統을 이학의 나라인 조선의 국왕에 의해 다시 세우고자 한 도통론이다. 이는 조선 건국을 주도한 정도전에게 뚜렷이 나타난다. 유자도통론은 공자 이후 사대부의 영역으로 내려온 도학의 전수가 조선의 유자들에 의해 이어지는 도통론이다. 유자도통론은 문묘종사를 통해 공인되는 형태와 유자들 사이에 존재한 도통의식의 형태로 구분된다. 15세기까지 유자도통론은 이제현에서 이색을 거쳐 권근으로 이어지는 도통론이 주류를 이루었다. 그러나 불교에 기울거나 절의에 문제가 있다는 이유로 이들은 16세기 이후에는 모두 도통에서 제외되었다. 실제로 여말선초에는 학문의 전수를 바탕으로 한 다양한 도통론이 존재하였다. 첫째, 이제현-이색-권근으로 이어지는 도통이다. 둘째, 이색-정도전-권근으로 이어지는 도통이다. 셋째, 이색-권근-길재로 이어지는 도통이다. 넷째, 정몽주-조용-윤상-김숙자-김종직으로 이어지는 도통이다. 다섯째, 정몽주-길재-김숙자-김종직-김굉필-정붕-박영으로 이어지는 도통이다. 결국 여말선초 도통론은 16세기 중반 이후 士林勢力에 의해 정해진 도통과는 별개로 다양한 도통의 계보가 존재했다.