서애 류성룡의 사회자본- 거경행간과 신뢰지지를 중심으로

정학섭 서애학회 2025 서애연구 Vol.11 No.-

서애 류성룡(1542-1607)은 어떤 품성, 능력, 리더십으로 임진왜란의 위기에서 나라를 구해내었는가? 그가 지닌 신뢰자본의 관점에서 적절한 해석을 도출하려는 것이 이 논문의 목적이다. 그는 유학사상의 거경행간(居敬行簡), 화이부동(和而不同), 주이불비(周而不比)의 정신과 태도를 습득하고, 이를 바탕으로 실천했기 때문에 타자간의 관계에서 신뢰를 획득할 수 있었다. 그는 왕과의 관계, 백성들과의 관계, 동료 선후배 관료들과의 관계에서 신뢰를 지지받았다. 이 신뢰지지가 있었기에 지도자로서 리더십을 발휘할 수 있었고, 전쟁의 위기에서 국가를 구해낼 수 있었다. 거경행간, 화이부동, 주이불비의 정신은 중용과 중화를 지향하고 실천한다. 서애 류성룡이 임진왜란의 전쟁 수행과정에서 ‘경’의 태도와 ‘간’의 품성으로 백성들을 대하는 구체적 사례는 『징비록』 곳곳에서 확인할 수 있다. 그는 ‘자처이경(自處以敬)’의 애민정신으로 백성들을 섬기며 ‘행간림민(行簡臨民)’함으로써 전쟁의 참화로부터 백성들을 구출해냈다. 그는 매사를 신중하고 공경스럽게 처리함으로써 임금과 동료 선후배, 백성들로부터 신뢰를 획득하고 있다. 서애 류성룡의 ‘거경행간’ 정신과 실천은 유정유일(惟精惟一)의 정신, 주일무적(主一無適)의 원칙주의와 집중(concenturation)에 근거하고 있다. 불천노(不遷怒)하고 불우인(不尤人, 억울함을 타자에게 원망하지 않음)하는 서애 류성룡의 지향과 실천이야말로 그 사람됨의 핵심 정체성(identity)일 것이다. 그는 그 당대 청렴의 아이콘(icon)으로서 사적 이익과 파당성을 취하거나 추구하지 않았다. 그는 늘 공적 지향을 하고 공공성에 기여하기 위해 최선을 다했다. 서애 류성룡은 초지일관 화(和)와 중(中)을 지향하고 실천했던 인물이다. 그는 대인관계에서 늘 화이부동(和而不同)과 주이불비(周而不比)의 태도와 처신으로 일관했다. 이러한 퍼스낼러티(personality)와 태도(attitude)를 지니고 타자와의 상호작용(interaction에서 신뢰(trust)를 획득할 수 있었다. 화이부동과 주이불비의 태도는 타자에 맹목적으로 부화뇌동하지 않고 조화로운 태도를 취한다. 자신의 주체적 의견 내지 관점을 취하면서 타자와 화합하고 연대(solidarity)한다. With what kind of character, ability, and leadership did Seo-ae Ryu Seong-ryong (1542-1607) save the country from the crisis of the Imjin War? The purpose of this paper is to answer this question by focusing on Seoae’s trusted capital. Seo-ae was able to acquire trust in his relationship with others because he obtained and manifested the Confucian virtues expressed in such maxims as “abiding in reverence while acting with simplicity(居敬行簡),” “harmonious without being the same(和而不同),” and “broadly inclusive, but not cliquish(周而不比).” He gained trust in his relationship with the king, the people, and fellow ministers. With this support of trust, he could exercise remarkable leadership to save the country from the crisis of war. By living up to the ideals of “abiding in reverence while acting with simplicity,” “harmony without being the same,” and “broadly inclusive, but not cliquish,” he was able to achieve moderation and neutralization. Specific examples and incidents that show how Ryu Seong-ryong treated the people with the attitude of ‘reverence’ and the character of ‘simplicity’ during the Imjin War can be found throughout the Jingbirok. By abiding in reverence, he served the people, and acting swiftly to attend to the people, he save them from the murderous war. Through extraordinary prudence and sincerity, he gained trust from the king, fellow ministers and the people. He exhibited reverence and sincerity and embodied the spirit of “being utmost in precision and unwavering in focus” as well as “holding fast to unity, without being swayed.” Through dedication and devotion, he embodied the Confucian maxim, “do not transfer anger and do not blame others.” The core identity of Ryu Seong-ryong as a complete person of virtue lay in his pursuit and practice of such Confucian maxims. As an icon of integrity at that time, he did not take or pursue private interests and partisanship. He always pursued public orientation and did his best to contribute to publicity. Seo-ae Ryu Seong-ryong is a person who aimed and practiced witg a constant and steady attitude. He was always consistent in his attitude toward others as taught by such Confucian maxims as: “be harmonious without being the same(和而不同),” and “broadly inclusive, but not cliquish(周而不比).” With this personality and attitude, he was able to gain trust in his interactions with others. By living up to such Confucian maxims, Ryu Seong-ryong could be harmonious with others without being submissive; by abiding by his own opinions or perspectives, he could harmonize with others and form solidarity.

졸재(拙齋) 류원지(柳元之)의 사상과 경세론- 서애학의 계승 전개와 관련하여

장승구 서애학회 2025 서애연구 Vol.11 No.-

서애 류성룡 사후 그의 학문과 사상은 어떻게 계승되고 전개되었을까? 류성룡에게는 문도와 제자들이 많이 있었지만 이들에 대한 연구가 활발한 편은 아니다. 서애학은 그의 제자들에게도 전승되었지만 후손들에 의해서도 계승되었다. 졸재 류원지(1598∼1674)는 류성룡의 장손으로서 서애학을 계승 발전시킨 대표적 학자이다. 류원지는 성리학에 대해서도 깊은 관심을 가지고 연구하였다. 그는 율곡 심성론의 문제점을 비판하고, 퇴계 성리학의 정맥을 계승하여 “성이 곧 이(理)”라는 주장을 펼쳤다. 또한 수양론에 특히 깊은 관심을 가지고 「수방심도병설(收放心圖幷說)」⋅「변화기질도병설(變化氣質圖幷說)」을 지었으며 주정거경(主靜居敬)을 주장하였다. 류원지는 성리설 뿐만 아니라 경세 문제에도 많은 관심을 가지고 있었다. 그의 경세론은 군권(君權)을 강조하고, 백성을 중시하여 백성의 민생을 최우선으로 하고, 군사 문제에 대해서도 상당한 관심을 가지는 특성을 보여주었다. 군권 중시의 연장선에서 예송 논쟁에서는 서인의 기년설을 적극적으로 비판하는 입장을 취하였다. 류원지는 임란 때 류성룡이 주화오국 하였다는 비난에 맞서 사실은 류성룡이 최선을 다해 구국활동을 하였고, 주화오국론은 잘못된 주장임을 역사적 사실에 근거하여 해명하였다. 류원지는 심학을 중시하면서도 경세에 지대한 관심을 가졌으며 군사 문제에도 조예가 깊었던 서애 류성룡의 학문과 사상을 계승하는 한편 서애의 구국활동의 정당성을 해명하는 등 서애학의 계승과 전개에 있어서 핵심적 역할을 하였던 17세기 후반 영남 남인의 대표적 학자라고 할 수 있다. After the death of Seoae Ryu Seong-ryong(1542~1607), who carried on and developed his learning and thought? Although Seoae had many disciples, scholars today rarely discuss their works. Seoae’s scholarship was not only passed down to his disciples, but also to his descendants. Joljae Ryu Won-ji (1598~1674) is a representative scholar who succeeded Seoae’s scholarship as his eldest grandson. Ryu Won-ji was also an accomplished scholar of Neo-Confucianism. In critique of Yulgok’s philosophy of mind and emotion, Ryu Won-ji followed Toegye’s philosophy: he argued that human nature is Princieple (li 理). In addition, with a particular interest in theory of moral self-cultivation, he wrote “An interpretation of reining in the unbridled mind with a diagram”(收放心圖幷說)” and “An interpretation of changing one’s temperament with a diagram,” in which he emphasized “prioritizing inner calm and residing in reverence(主靜居敬).” Apart from the theory of Neo-Confucianism Ryu Won-ji addressed the issues of government administration. He developed his own theory of administration by emphasizing monarchic power(君權) and the importance of the people. He prioritized the people’s livelihood, and paid keen attention to military affairs. In the ritual (禮訟) debate, he emphasized monarchic power, adamantly criticizing the position taken by the Seo-in faction. Countering the accusation that Ryu Seong-ryong pursued peace negotiations with Japan, Ryu Won-ji argued that Ryu Seong-ryong had done his best to save the country as the Prime Minister during the Imjin War. As a representative scholar of the Nam-in group during the 17th century, Ryu Wonji played a key role in terms of succeeding and developing Seoae’s scholarship who was immersed in moral self-cultivation while overseeing government administration and military affairs.

서애 류성룡의 양명학 이해에서 보이는 중층성 해명 - 17세에서 29세 사이의 기록을 중심으로

최재목 ( Choi Jae-mok ) 서애학회 2023 서애연구 Vol.8 No.-

Focusing on the records of adolescence and the ideological backgrounds of the time, this paper elucidates the middle layer of Ryu Seong-ryong's approach to Yangming Learning. Ryu Seong-ryong’s scholarship was well established in his early years before he studied under Toegye Yi Hwang’s (李滉, 1502-1572) guidance. Sources show that from in the year of 1558, when he was no more than seventeen, Ryu Seong-ryong came across Wang Yangming’s (王陽明, 1472-1529) literary collection. He recounted the gratifying experience of reading Wang Yangming’s writings to his father, and produced a hand-copied version of the Wang Yangming’s literary collection, which he kept for thirty-five years until it was burned during the Imjin War. This article addresses the following points: (1) neither Ryu Seong-ryong nor his father had antipathy towards Yangming learning; (2) his father did not caution Ryue against Yangming learning, which shows that he did not agree with the anti-Yangming voices of Joseon literati at the time; (3) It seems that Ryu Seong-ryong was excited to learn new intellectual trends from Ming China; (4) in his later years, Ryu Seong-ryong seems not to have lost interest in Yangming learning. Before meeting with Yi Hwang, Ryu Seong-ryong was far from being critical of Yangming learning. At the age of 21, he began to be critical of Yangming learning. In 1562, Ryu Seong-ryong studied at the Dosan Academy in Andong for several months. The influence of Yangming learning on Ryu Seong-ryong is shown in a poem he wrote at the age of 27 in 1568. In 1569, under the heavy influence of Yi Hwang, Ryu Seong-ryonhg criticized Wang Yangming and the relevant scholars, which Yi Hwang unhesitatingly endorsed. To King Seonjo who also developed a fondness for Yangming learning, Ryu Seong-ryong emphasized that importance of balance in learning between respecting innate virtue and learning the way. Between the two, it was that Ryu who set great store by the practicality, creativity, and dynamism of the mind was more intent on respecting innate virtue.

서애 류성룡의 양명학 이해에 보이는 ‘양면성’ 해명 시론 - ‘尊德性’ vs ‘道問學’ 문제를 매개로

최재목 ( Choi Jae-mok ) 서애학회 2022 서애연구 Vol.6 No.-

This article attempts to resolve the problem of duality in Ryu Seong-ryong’s approaches to Yangming Learning by addressing the classic tension between “honoring the moral nature (zun dexing)” and “following the path of inquiry and study (dao wenxue).” Scholarship to date has shown that Ryu Seong-ryong endorsed Yangmin Learning on the one hand, and denied its legitimacy on the other. With regard to this problem, this article explains that it arose from the classic tension between Zhu Xi’s emphasis on “following the path of inquiry and study” and Wang Yangming’s emphasis on “honoring the moral nature.” This article argues the following points. First, Ryu Seong-yong emphasizes the balance between “honoring the moral nature” and “following the path of inquiry and study” referring to its locus classicus in the Doctrine of the Mean. Second, Ryu Seong-ryong makes it clear that, although inseparable, “honoring the moral nature” should be primary, and “following the path of inquiry and study” should be considered secondary as the practical method of honoring the moral nature. “Honoring the moral nature” is the purpose of learning and, therefore, sets the direction of moral self-cultivation; “following the path of inquiry and study” is the practical road map for “honoring the moral nature.” Ryu Seong-ryong heads the sequence in which the two are state in the Doctrine of the Mean: “honoring the moral nature(ⓐ) and following the path of inquiry and study(ⓑ)” instead of vice versa. In this view, Ryu arguest that the former should be the basis on which the latter could be achieved. ⓐ sets the direction of learning and its ultimate goals, and ⓑ is the road map of the empirical world one should follow ⓐ=ⓑ but as ⓐ⊃ⓑ. Third, Ryu takes seriously the Learning of the Mind which emphasizes “honoring the moral nature.” Based on such premise, Ryu also emphasizes “following the path of inquiry and study” which begins with the investigation of things. In this regard, honoring the moral nature precedes following the path of inquiry and study; however, in fact, the two are inseparable. In this way, Ryu Seong-ryong understands the relation between Zhuzi Learning and Yangming Learning. Speaking of Zhuzi Learning, Ryu points out its weakness in terms of “honoring the moral nature”; speaking of Yangming Learning, he points out its neglect of “following the path of inquiry and study.” In this way, this article explains the apparent duality of Ryu’s approaches to Yangming Learning.

서애(西厓)의 ‘심(心)’ 이해에 관한 연구

김성실 서애학회 2024 서애연구 Vol.9 No.-

Seoae Ryu Seong-ryong (柳成龍, 1542-1607), a representative student of Toegye Yi Hwang (李滉, 1502-1571), was an accomplished statecraft thinker despite the lack of scholarship on this issue. As is well-known, he served as prime minister during the Imjin War (1592-1598). Even in his late years, Seoae continued to emphasize the importance of the mind, in which he differed from Toegye’s other disciples who doggedly focused on the Learning of Principle (lixue 理學). It was indeed the most important aspect of his learning; however, he was also guarded against falling into the learning of Wang Yangming (王陽明, 1472-1529). His interests in Yangming Learning and Buddhism grew in response to the Imjin War, which prompted him to change his view of life and attitude toward Zhu Xi 주희(朱熹, 1130-1200) Learning. He did not convert to Yangming Learning, the tendency toward the learning of the mind. Seoae’s thought and learning, which differed from Toegye’s other disciples, was formed during the existential crisis he confronted during the Imjin War. Zhu Xi Learning has been criticized for its lack of practicality and its absorption in ideological factionalism. Despite such criticisms, Zhu Xi learning is not impractical as its essential message lies in cultivating oneself with practical concerns. Even the Practical Leaerning (실학 實學) of the Late Joseon should not be considered antithetical to Zhu Xi Learning but the full blossoming of its practical mind and learning. Likewise, Seoae’s learning and thought could be considered the extension of Teogye’s practical spirit. The contest between Galam and Han Zhu over Seoae’s theory of spiritual sovereignty shows the ways in which they succeeded Teoye’s philosophy of li 理. However, it should be undeniable that Seoae was the legitimate heir to Toegye’s Learning and that his thought was firmed rooted in Toegye.

근현대 한국유학사에서 서애 류성룡에 대한 평가와 해명 - 근대계몽기로부터 1980년대까지를 중심으로

김민재 서애학회 2024 서애연구 Vol.10 No.-

The purpose of this study is to explain the possible reasons why Seoae(西厓) Ryu, Seong-Ryong(柳成龍) has been slighted in the history of Korean Confucianism during the period from the modern Enlightenment ear to the 1980s. For this purpose, this articles suggests two working hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the Ryu lineage, which demonstrated a remarkable adaptability to the challenges of the modern times, was a bit too cautionary in terms of promoting Ryu’s place in the history of Korean Confucianism. The second hypothesis is that as Seoae’s intellectual lineage continued through the generations, the distinctive flexibility of his thoughts weakened and became rigid, possibly preventing it from responding flexibly to the circumstances of the time. By examining how the five monographs on the history of Korean Confucianism fail to do justice to Seoae’s scholarship, this article will show that the two hypotheses are not groundless. The five works generally treat Seoae as someone ‘too weighty to ignore but too uncomfortable to address.’ In this light, this article prove the two initial hypotheses to be more than plausible.

서애 류성룡: 정적(政敵)에 의해 쓰여진 역사

최병현 서애학회 2025 서애연구 Vol.11 No.-

조선시대 역사를 한마디로 정의하자면, 정적(政敵)에 의해 쓰여진 역사이다. 정적의 역사는 인물의 평전(評傳)에 있어서 더욱 두드러진다. 그 이유는 역사가 진실을 표방하면서도 실제로는 당파(黨派)와 학맥(學脈), 혈맥(血脈), 혼맥(婚脈) 등, 여러 갈래의 복합적인 관계와 영향 속에서 기록되었기 때문이다. 본 논문은 조선 오백 년 역사에 있어 정적에 의해 쓰여지고 유통된 역사가 실제와 어떻게 다를 수 있는지, 서애 류성룡을 중심으로 살펴보는 것이다, 류성룡이 실례의 표본이 될 수 있는 것은, 그에 대해 기록한 『선조실록』 과 『선조수정실록』 모두가 그의 정적인 북인과 서인에 의해 쓰여졌기 때문이다. 또한 조선시대를 통틀어 그의 정적인 서인들이 장기적으로 집권해 왔기 때문에 그에 대한 부정적인 평가가 오늘날까지도 지속되고 있기 때문이다. 즉 그에게는 수정의 기회조차 주어지지 않았다는 것이다. 류성룡에 대한 부정적인 평가는 직접적인 것부터 우회적인 것에 이르기까지 다양한 형태로 나타난다. 비난을 칭찬으로 위장한다든지, 폄하하기 위한 비교를 하든지, 그럴듯한 일화를 만들어 정사에 끼워 넣는다든지, 있는 사실을 없는 사실로 만든다든지, 과정은 생략하고 결과만을 가지고 판단한다든지, 사실 접근에 있어 본말을 전도시킨다든지, 실로 다양한 수법을 동원하고 있다. The history of the Joseon dynasty is, in essence, shaped by its adversaries. The history of adversaries is even more pronounced in biographical accounts of individuals. This is because, although history claims to uphold the truth, it is in fact recorded within a complex web of relationships and influences—such as political factions, academic traditions, bloodlines, and marital ties. The Annals of the Joseon Dynasty underwent four rounds of revisions, each carried out under the pretext of correcting omissions or errors that had arisen amid national crises or political turmoil under previous regimes. However, while these revisions and amendments were conducted in the name of historical accuracy, the extent to which they actually brought the records closer to historical truth remains, and will continue to remain, a matter of debate. What is undeniable, however, is that these revisions were driven by political interests. This paper examines how the history written and disseminated by political adversaries over the 500-year span of the Joseon dynasty could differ from actual events, with a particular focus on Sŏae Ryu Sŏngnyong. Ryu Seong-ryong serves as a prime example because both The Veritable Records of King Seonjo (Seonjo Sillok) and the Revised Veritable Records of King Seonjo (Seonjo Sujeong Sillok), which document his life and deeds, were written by his political adversaries—the Northerners (Buk-in) and the Westerners (Seo-in), respectively. Furthermore, throughout the Joseon period, his adversaries, the Westerners, maintained long-term political dominance, which contributed to the persistence of negative evaluations of him to this day. In other words, he was never even given the opportunity for historical reevaluation. Distortions in the evaluation of historical figures take various forms: criticism disguised as praise, denigration through comparison, and manipulation of facts to shift blame, among others. These distortions are often carried out so subtly that ordinary people or future generations, unaware of the full context, easily accept them as truth. Even when the actual facts come to light, these distortions remain ingrained in people’s memories, like an indelible stigma or tattoo, refusing to fade. This is because storytelling is more powerful than history. Its strength lies in the fact that fabricated narratives are more compelling and spread more effectively. History, as Sima Qian titled his work Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji), is a fusion of historiography and record- keeping. The historian’s role is to interpret and judge. As long as the historiographical element (sa, 史) operates within history, history inherently contains a mechanism for reevaluation. The real question is whether one can wait for that moment to arrive. Consider the cases of Jeong Mong-ju and Jeong Do-joen. Jeong Mong-ju, though a loyal subject of Goryeo, was deemed a traitor to Joseon. Yet, he was quickly rehabilitated as a loyalist. In contrast, Jeong Do-jeon a key architect of Joseon’s founding, remained stigmatized as a traitor for nearly 500 years before his name was finally cleared. If Jeong Do-joen played a crucial role in establishing Joseon, Ryu Seong-ryong was instrumental in saving it from the brink of collapse. Although Ryu was reinstated soon after his impeachment, a fair assessment of his legacy has yet to be fully realized—even after 400 years. This is because the history written by his adversaries continues to shape the prevailing narrative. This is precisely why we must critically reexamine history as recorded by political adversaries.

서애 류성룡의 양명학 이해에 대한 연구- 시기별로 본 관점과 특징

조용미 서애학회 2025 서애연구 Vol.11 No.-

이 논문은 류성룡의 양명학에 대한 이해 관점의 특징을 그의 젊은 시절부터 만년에 이르기까지 시기별로 분류⋅검토하여 총괄적으로 살펴본 것이다. 먼저, 10-20대에는 양명학에 호기심이 있었다. 하지만 관료로서 활동할 시기로 ‘양명학에 관심을 가지고는 있어도, 명분적으로는 비판하는 시기였다. 어쨌든 이 시기는 류성룡의 일생에서 양명학에 대해 취했던 기본태도가 형성된 시기라 할 수 있다. 다음으로, 30-40대에는 ‘상산학’, ‘양명학’, ‘불학(선학)’에 관심을 가졌으나 기본적으로 정주학이라는 사상 노선을 유지하고 있다. 아울러 공적으로는 양명학으로의 이념 편향성을 정주학을 가이드라인으로 바로잡아 사상적 균형감을 찾아주려고도 한다. 불교 심취에 대해서는 자제를 표명하면서도 양명학과 불교를 직결시키지 않고 ‘양명학을 평가’하거나 양명학을 선학과 동일시 하는 분위기에서 양명학의 주체적 심학적 장점을 말하며 선학과 선을 긋기도 한다. 이처럼 양명학에 대한 관심과 호의적인 평가를 일부 살필 수 있지만, 그가 공적인 위치에 있었던 만큼 명분적으로는 비판해야 하는 갈등의 입장에 서 있었다. 마지막으로, 50-60대에는 왕양명에 대한 언급이 가장 많다. 이것은 임진, 정유의 양난 이후에 『전습록』, 『양명전서』 등을 통해서 왕양명의 사상을 세심히 탐구한 흔적이라 할만하다. 류성룡은 양명학의 존덕성적 경향을 부정하지 않고 그런 경지로 나아가기에 앞서 기본적으로 도문학에 대해 착실한 연마를 강조한다. 아울러 그는 양명학이 이룬 심학 방면의 내적인 성취와 깨달음을 부정하지 않는다. 다시 말하자면 양명학을 실제적, 실천적인 면에서는 어느 정도 ‘긍정’하나, 주리(主理)와 도문학(道問學)적 측면이 부족하다는 점에서 부정적 태도를 보인다. 그것은 양명학과 선(禪)을 ‘주심(主心)’의 입장으로 보기 때문이다. 그러나 원칙적으로 그는 양명학의 ‘주심’적 입장이 현실 대응에 있어 정해진 원칙 없이 자칫 즉흥적 주관에 치우칠 수 있다고 보고 격물궁리를 뺀 치양지가 아니라, 치양지의 공허함을 격물궁리로 보완해야 함을 피력한다. 하지만 그가 양명에게 차운하여, 옥연정사 벽에 시를 지은 것이나 병중에 『전습록』을 읽고 심경을 읊은 것을 보면 류성룡이 만년의 병상에서까지도 『전습록』을 꼼꼼히 읽고 동감, 실천하고 있었음을 간과해선 안 된다. 이런 기조는 류성룡이 양명학을 이해하는 데 있어 일관된 것으로, 주자학과 양명학의 장단점을 객관적으로 꿰뚫은 뒤, 그 균형감 위에서 양명학을 독해하고 있었다고 평가할 수 있다. 류성룡은 양명학의 유익한 측면을 인정하는 동시에, 조선의 주류 학문이었던 주자학의 관점에서 양명학을 지적하며 비판, 교정하려는 노력을 보였다. 이로써 자신의 학문적 입장과 위치를 더욱 확고히 하였다. 나아가 류성룡은 양명학에 대한 이해와 평가, 비판을 통해 주자학 자체의 장단점까지 비교, 대비하는 안목을 찾아냈다고 본다. 따라서 그는 무조건 양명학을 비판하려는 입장도 반대로 무조건 주자학을 수용ㆍ옹호하려는 입장도 아니었다. 여기에서 퇴계학이니 주자학이니 양명학이니 하는 어느 한편에 치우쳐서 평가하지 않는 그만의 ‘독특한 이해의 관점’이 존재할 수 있었다. 그것은 퇴계학, 주자학, 양명학 어느 쪽으로도 경도되지 않은 중도적, 공공적 입장이었기 때문이다. This paper comprehensively examines the characteristics of Ryu Seong-ryong’s perspective on Yangming Learning by classifying them chronologically from his youth to his later years. Firstly, it can be said that he was curious about Yangming Learning in his teens and twenties, but it was a time when he was working as a bureaucrat. So he was interested, but he had no choice but to criticize Yangmyeonghag. Therefore, this period was the time when Ryu Seong-ryong formed his basic attitude toward Yangmyeonghag in his life. Secondly, in his 30s and 40s, Ryu Seong-ryong showed interests in Lu Shangshan and Wang Yangming’s teachings as well as Buddhism. During this period, he stood by the basic teachings of Zhu Xi Neo-Confucianism, and publicly criticized Yangming Learning. He sought to redress balance by criticizing Yangming Learning from Zhu Xi’s perspective. He also distinguished between Yangming Learning and Buddhism without being immersed in Buddhism. Although Ryu Seong-ryong at times spoke favorably of Yangming Learning, as a government official, he was under pressure to criticize it publicly. Finally, in his 50s and 60s, he often made references to Yangming Learning, from which we can see that he studied Wang Yangming’s major works during the Imjin War. Ryu Seong-ryong does not reject the virtue-centered orientation (尊德性) of Yangming learning. Rather, he emphasizes diligent cultivation in the field of learning and inquiry (道問學) as a necessary foundation before one advances to such a level. At the same time, he does not deny the inner achievements and realizations in the learning of the mind that Yangming learning has attained. In other words, while he affirms Yangming learning to some extent in its practical and action-oriented aspects, he takes a critical stance on its shortcomings in terms of li-centered thinking (主理) and the scholarly discipline of the Way. This is because he sees both Yangming learning and Zen Buddhism as taking a “mind-centered” (主心) position. Fundamentally, he believes that Yangming learning’s emphasis on the mind may lead, in responding to reality, to reliance on subjective spontaneity without fixed principles. Therefore, he argues not for a form of “the extension of innate knowledge(致良知)” without “the investigation of things and the extension of principle(格物窮理),” but rather that the emptiness of “zhi liang zhi” must be supplemented by “ge wu qiong li.” Yet, we must not overlook the fact that Ryu composed a poem in response to Yangming and inscribed it on the wall of Okyeonjeongsa, or that he read the Instructions for Practical Living (Chuanxilu 傳習錄) and expressed his feelings about it while bedridden with illness. These facts suggest that even in his final years, Ryu read the Chuanxilu carefully, resonated with it, and sought to put it into practice. This stance reflects a consistent thread in Ryu Seong-ryong’s understanding of Yangming learning. He can be said to have engaged with it from a balanced perspective—grasping the strengths and limitations of both Zhu Xi’s philosophy and Yangming learning, and interpreting Yangming thought on the basis of that balanced judgment. Ryu Seong-ryong, while acknowledging the beneficial aspects of Yangming learning, also pointed out its flaws and sought to critique and correct it from the perspective of Zhuzi learning (Neo-Confucianism), which was the mainstream academic tradition in Joseon. In doing so, he further solidified his own scholarly stance and position. Furthermore, it can be said that through his understanding, evaluation, and criticism of Yangming learning, Ryu Seong-ryong gained the insight to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of Zhuzi learning itself. Thus, his approach was neither one of unconditionally criticizing Yangming learning, nor one of uncritically accepting and defending Zhuzi learning. In this, we can see his ‘distinctive perspective of u...

류성룡과 이이의 사상과 경세론 비교

장승구 ( Jang Seung-koo ) 서애학회 2023 서애연구 Vol.7 No.-

Ryu Seong-ryong(1542~1607) and Yi Yi(李珥, 1536~1584) were the two most representative administrators and philosophers of the late 16th century Joseon. As the most prominent scholars and statesmen, the two played leading roles in the intellectual and political world of the time. As contemporaries, they have considerable differences in terms of their ideas and political theories. This article is a comparative analysis of Ryu Seong-ryong and Yi Yi’s philosophical ideas and statecraft theories. In terms of philosophical ideas, as a loyal following of Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130-1200) Neo-Confucianism, Yi Yi was fundamentally opposed to Lu Jiuyan’s (陸九淵, 1139-1192) position. By contrast, Ryu Seong-ryong was a cutely aware of the limitations of Zhu Xi’s learning while recognizing its values. Particuarly, Ryu Seong-ryong was not completely convince of Zhu Xi’s theory of investigation of things and extension of knowledge, the fundmaental core of Neo-Confucianism. While being critical of Lu Jiuyan and Wang Yangming’s learning, he thought it was necessary to absorb the strengths of their approaches in terms of self-cultivation.

류성룡에 대한 일부 부정적 실록 기록의 재해석에 관한 연구 - 협상전략의 관점으로

백권호 ( Gwon Ho Paik ) 서애학회 2023 서애연구 Vol.8 No.-

The Joseon Dynasty was a society with a ‘gentleman’ and ‘great man’ complex. The agents who propped up the governance structure of Neo-Confucian moral political system were the social elites. In order to implement moral politics, they had to be ‘gentlemen’ and ‘great men.’ The retroactive method of qualifying as a gentleman and a great man was a self-confirming action. As Joseon society failed to evolve or develop, the elites became more and more self-assertive, and factional struggles intensified. Joseon became a closed society which allowed for no compromise or cooperation with opposing groups. Joseon society was by a win-lose game in which self-assertiveness symmetry was unilaterally strengthened. As a result, political purge and factional struggle would become the only way to solve social problems in Joseon politics. Contrarily, Ryu Seong-ryong’s self-assertiveness was not in conflict with his cooperative spirit. He sought to construct a society where win-win solutions or successful compromises could be made. He pursued ‘empathy’ based on his self-assertiveness while simultaneously pursuing ‘fairness’ and cooperation. Therefore, when faced with a national crisis, he promoted national reform as a fundamental solution to the crisis. The only weakness of Ryu Seong-ryong would be that he remained absolutely loyal to the King Seonjo. If this is judged based on the appearance of a 'standard great man' at the time, who was recognized as a 'gentleman' to point out the king's mistakes with courage and strongly demand changes to the king's mistakes, this is the characteristic of a gentleman with spirit, and if we judge it as a standard, it lacks the character of a nobleman. However, from a modern negotiation perspective, Ryu Seong-ryong should be seen as a model of win- win leadership that aims for empathetic communication based on sincerity. The reason why he showed himself as a man who never compromises or makes any concessions with his abstract attitude is towards himself. In the end, as the war came to an end and the reforms he had implemented were aborted due to by the vested interests of rivaling factions, he seemed to have chosen the ‘BATNA’ strategy of giving up further negotiations with King Seonjo and retired. It seems that King Seonjo was highly disappointed that Ryu Seong-ryong refused to go on an envoy mission. Although he was criticized for having refused the King's request it was a humble request on his part. The Joseon was in a critical period, as Hideyoshi had died and the war with the Japanese army was nearing its end. The question is whether the government's decision to dispatch Ryu Seong- ryong, a wartime Yeonguijeong to the Ming Dynasty during this time was normal from today's perspective. For Ryu Seong-ryong, to end the war and drive out the Japanese army was of the highest priority. Ryu Seong-ryong refused King Seonjo’s order for the sake of serving the country and people. His enemies at the court saw this as a golden opportunity to impeach Ryu Seong-ryong and to exempt themselves from the accusation of misleading the country with a conciliatory foreign policy. To reevaluate some of the negatively evaluations of Ryu Seong-ryong in the Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, this article argues that those evaluations stemmed from the limits of the Joseon era marked by the subservient respect toward Ming. By reinterpreting Ryu Seong-ryong’s position, this article argues that Ryu Seong-ryong embodied the leadership of coexistence, as demonstrated by his continuous efforts to cooperate with the opposing party with fairness and empathy in terms of political negotiation.