PHILOSOPHICAL APORIA OF NEO-CONFUCIANISM DURING THE CHOSŎN DYNASTY

이동희 계명대학교 한국학연구원 2010 Acta Koreana Vol.13 No.2

This study analyzes the philosophical aporia which was exposed during the debates that developed amongst Neo-Confucianists during the Chosŏn era, whose positions were based on the philosophical theory of the Zhu Xi School of Thought. Of these various debates, the present study focuses on the discussion amongst the four scholars on the topic of Sadan ch’ilchŏng (四端七情, four beginnings and seven emotions)—which includes the debate over the notion of insim tosim (人心道心, human mind and moral mind)—and the arguments over Im Sŏngju’s theory of yugiron (唯氣論, ki-holistic Cosmology). The debates between Yi Hwang, whose penname was T’oegye, and Ki Taesŭng, whose penname was Kobong, saw Yi Hwang establish a moral theory while Ki Taesŭng argued about the structural facts around the functions of the heart or mind (心, sim). To this end, Yi Hwang introduced a moral argument, or axiological statement, in the form of the theory of sach’il hobal (四七互發論, the mutual arising of the four beginnings and seven emotions), a theory which was in turn based on notions such as those of sadan ibal (四端=理發, the four beginnings arise from principle (li)) and ch’ilchŏng kibal (七情=氣發, the seven emotions arise from material force [ki]). On the other hand, Ki Taesŭng opposed Yi’s theory, arguing that Yi’s dualistic presentation could lead to further misunder-standing. For his part, Yi Yi, whose pen name was Yulgok, inherited Ki’s perspective in his own debates with Sŏng Hon (penname Ugye). In this regard, Yi Yi argued that Yi Hwang’s theory of sach’il hobal was wrong in that while the seven emotions (ch’ilchŏng) represented the totality of human emotions, the four beginnings (sadan) were special emotions that nevertheless fell under the category of human emotions. On the other hand, Yi Yi asserted that the human mind (insim) and moral mind (tosim) were in fact interconnected, and could be mutually interchanged with one another (終始, chongsi). However, the theory of the mutual interchange between insim-tosim (終始論, chongsiron) presented as a counter-argument to the theory of the mutual arising of the four beginnings and seven emotions (sach’il hobal) can be likened to a value-based argument-ation, or moral argumentation. This was certainly contradictory, and also represented a case of philosophical aporia. This situation originated from the fact that Zhu Xi’s Thought was perceived as a thought based on natural law formed in the medieval period without a proper division of values and facts. In his discussions about the role of human nature (inmulsŏng) in Zhu Xi’s cosmo-logical theory of li-qi (理氣論, principle and material force), Im Sŏngju whose penname was Nongmun, emphasized the fact that Zhu Xi’s notion of liyi fenshu (理一分殊, universality and particularity) was representative of the universality and particularity that existed in all the myriad of things found in the cosmos. Im possessed a perspective of cosmology (nature) which regarded the universe as being filled with ki (holistic ki of the cosmos). Im believed that while the ki (material force) of the universe moves naturally by itself, the power of life (生意, saengŭi), or what could also be referred to as the vitality of life (生命性, saengmyŏngsŏng), was involved within ki itself. As a result, Im believed that Zhu Xi’s notion of li (理, principle) was in effect unnecessary. Meanwhile, based on the original condition of material force or energy, Im identified ki (material force) as the clearness of original ki (澹一淸虛, tamil ch’ŏnghŏ). However, as ki is not static, what we are in fact seeing is the clearness vs. unclearness of ki (淸濁粹駁, ch’ŏngt’ak subak). Therefore, the original condition of ki can be perceived as little more than a form of philosophical demand. Furthermore, Im argued that i’il punsu (理一分殊, one principle and its manifoldness) was the same as ki’il punsu (氣一分殊, one energy and different shapes), and that as such the possibility could not be ruled out that Zhu Xi’s liyi fenshu (理一分殊) was in fact based on the premise of qiyi fenshu (氣一分殊). As the concept of li (理) indicates principle and ki (氣) originally indicates material force, i’il punsu (理一分殊, one principle and its manifoldness), which under the religious-philosophy of the medieval period meant sharing in the divine, is more correctly perceived as li. However, as a close relationship exists between li and ki within the metaphysical category, one cannot fully deny the veracity of the notion of ki’il punsu (氣一分殊, one energy different shapes). This is the philosophical aporia of Zhu Xi’s li-qi theory that served as the religious philosophy (metaphysics) of the Medieval Era.

『환단고기』의 삼신 하느님에 관한 고찰

이찬구 ( Lee Chan Goo ) 국제뇌교육종합대학원 국학연구원 2016 선도문화 Vol.21 No.-

본 논문은 『환단고기』에서 말하는 하느님, 특히 三神(삼신)하느님의 성격에 관한 고찰이 목적이다. 이는 우리 민족이 일찍부터 믿어온 하느님의 존재를 밝히는 일이기도 하다. 한문을 쓰기전부터 일찍이 우리 조상들이 믿어 온 그 하느님은 어디에 근원한 분인가? 필자는 이를 『환단고기』를 중심으로 『삼일신고』와 견주며 찾아보았다. 기존의 주장처럼 『삼국유사』의 서두를 昔有桓因(석유환인)으로 해석하면 환인이 곧 하느님과 같은 역할을 하게 된다. 그러나 『환단고기』처럼 昔有桓國(석유환국)으로 시작하면 환인은 하느님의 뜻이 아님을 알게 된다. 환인과는 별도의 神, 즉 一神(일신)이 등장하게 된다. 그동안 환인(桓因)이라는 명호에는 帝釋(제석), 天帝(천제), 上帝(상제)등의 말로 수식되어 왔기 때문에 하느님과 동일시하는 경향이 있었다. 그러나 환인은 ‘하느님’이 아니라, ‘하늘의 해가 몸에 내재한 조상 지도자’라고 보는 것이 타당하리라고 본다. 천제(天帝)라는 칭호도 천상의 하느님이 아니라, ‘최고의 조상신’개념으로 사용한 것으로 볼 수있다. 다시 말해 당시 지도자에 대한 경칭(敬稱)으로 사용된 것으로 본다. 그리고 『환단고기』의 하느님 이해에서 중요한 것은 三神의 개념이다. 『환단고기』는 『삼일신고』가 天과 神을 구별하듯이 一氣로부터 삼신이 나온 것으로 이해하는 동시에 天과 三神을 구별하고 있다는면에서 그 공통적 의의를 발견할 수 있다. 이는 화이트헤드가 말한 과정철학의 신[三神]과 창조성[一氣]의 관계로도 이해할 수 있다. The purpose of this research paper is to study the characteristics of the God according to the ‘HwanDan-Koki(桓檀古記)’, especially of the Sam-shin Haneunim(三神 하느님), the Three Gods. ‘HwanDan-Koki is the records on the historical accidents about the ancient Korean nation. This effort is also to trace the existence of God that the Korean natives believed in from the early on. Where does God originates whom our ancestors believed in even before we used Chinese characters, Hanmoon(漢文) As the author of this study, I compared ‘HwanDan-Koki’ as the core reference with the ‘Samil-shinko(三一神誥)’ When we interpret the opening words of ‘Samgukyusa(三國遺事)’ as ‘Sukyu-Hwanin(昔有桓因)’, ‘Hwanin’ carries the same role as the God. However, if we read the text as ‘Sukyu-Hwankook(昔有桓國)’, according to the ‘HwanDan-Koki’, we can see that Hwanin does not mean the God. A il-shin, the One God, is a different God than Hwanin. Until recently, the name of Hwanin were described as Jeseok(帝釋), Cheonje(天帝), or Sangje(上帝) which mean the Emperor or the Heavenly God. This could be the primary reason why Hwanin were regarded as the same manner as the God. But Hwanin is not the God but it seems more appropriate to see his figure as ‘the ancestor leader who is immanently related to the Sun of the Sky’. Also, the title of Cheonje does not mean ‘the God of Heaven’ but the concept is used as ‘the highest God of ancestor’. In other words, the title was used in honorific way of the leader at that time. Moreover, the important aspect of understanding God of ‘HwanDan-Koki’ is the concept of ‘Sam-shin’. ‘HwanDan-Koki’ and ‘Samil-shinko’ share mutual common idea which make a division between the Heaven and the God as the understanding of the ideology that the Three Gods originate from the Il-Ch`I(一氣). It also can be understood as the relationship between the God and the Creations according to A. N. Whitehead’s the process-philosophy.