간재의 경학사상 연구

길태은(Gil, Tae-eun) 대동한문학회 2018 大東漢文學 Vol.56 No.1

This study analyses the research methodology in the study of the Confucian classics, which appears in Ganjae Jeonwoo’s Daehakgieui. By dividing sentences and clauses at this author’s discretion for annotation analysis, this study closely examined the interpretations of scriptures by dividing them into external and descriptive characteristics. External characteristics were further divided into exegetical and expressive methods. When annotating scriptures, Ganjae understood the logical structure and context of the overall text by fleshing out the concepts behind essential meanings or phrases. Thus, we can see that, before setting forth Myeongdeokseol, Ganjae interpreted the “heart” using the exegetical method. Next, this author studied the expressive characteristics in the text, such as wooan(愚按), jaju(自注), julbulgahyo(絶不可曉), sadanggangsang (似當更商), saseolbulhang(似說不行), and sadangjilmun(俟當質問). Moreover, this study examined the descriptive characteristics to see in what perspective Ganjae, an inheritor of the Gihonakron, interpreted the scriptures. First, Ganjae seemed to have adhered to the interpretations of Zhu Xi but, at the same time, he also criticized them. For instance, he claimed there was a need to revise the problematic parts of the scriptures in which the interpretation went against the context and meaning of the overall text, even if the interpretation was a product of Zhu Xi’s theory. Where Ganjae closely adhered to Zhu Xi’s theory, we can see that he abided by Zhu Xi’s interpretations through Zhu Xi Daejeon, followed Zhu Xi’s interpretations when citing various other documents, and criticized the opinions of other scholars with Zhu Xi’s theory, which all show Ganjae’s compliance with Zhu Xi’s interpretations. Conversely, where Ganjae criticized Zhu Xi’s theory, we can see that he respected Hokmun and criticized Zhu Xi’s interpretation using Zhu Xi’s theory by labelling Zhu Xi eoryu a “tentative hypothesis.” He criticized this interpretation by claiming it was a “hypothesis without a core” (a comment of Zhu Xi’s) and suggested a “mistranslation” of the scripture in Zhu Xi eoryu, all of which are instances that show Ganjae’s criticism of Zhu Xi’s interpretations. Second, while following the scriptural interpretations of previous Confucian scholars, Ganjae criticized them also. For instance, he proposed critical viewpoints of even the most prominent scholars of Gihonakron if their work contradicted the original intent of the context and based his criticism on the works of foreign scholars or the scripture itself. Third, Ganjae accepted the opinions of other scholars with a critical viewpoint. For instance, he would enumerate the annotations of scriptures by many other scholars and would selectively accept those that he would deem correct and accept some critically even if they exhibited differing viewpoints from Zhu Xi’s interpretation. Given the attitude of the scholars in the Noron and Nakron factions of looking down on the academia of the Qing Dynasty, and the consideration of the Japanese as only barbarians, this was indeed an unusual stance. Therefore, we can consider the reason for Ganjae’s impartial attitude towards academia devoid of personal opinions to be the “results of his pursuit of correct learning and his commitment to taking up the proper role of a scholar.” 이 연구는 간재 전우의「大學記疑」에 나타난 경학적 연구방법을 분석한 것이다. 주석 분석은 저자의 본의에 따라 분장 분절하여 경전 해석을 外形的 특징과 記述的 특징으로 나누어 살펴보았다. 외형적 특징에는 訓詁的방법과 文句的 방법으로 분석하였다. 간재는 경전을 주석하면서 중요한 ‘字意’나 ‘文句’가 나오면, 그것에 대한 개념을 자세히 풀어서 전체 문장의 논리적 구조와 맥락을 파악하였다. 따라서 간재가 명덕설을 개진하는데 앞서 심을 훈고적 방법으로 해석하고 있음을 볼 수 있다. 그 다음은 愚按, 自注, 絶不可曉, 似當更商, 似說不行, 俟當質問 등에서 나타나는 문구적 특징을 알아보았다. 그리고 기호낙론을 계승한 간재가 어떤 관점으로 경전을 해석하고 있는지 기술적 특징을 검토하였다. 본문 전체의 文脈이나 文義와 어긋나는 해석이 있다면 주자의 학설이라도 문제점을 수정해야 한다는 입장을 취하고 있다. 세부적으로 따르는 면을 살펴보면 주자대전 을 통해 주자주를 준수하며, 다양한 타 문헌을 인용하여 주자주를 준수하며, 주자설로 타 학자의 견해를 비판한 것은 모두 주자의 해석을 따르는 것이다. 비판하는 면을 살펴보면, 혹문을 존중하고 주자 어류는 ‘未定說’이라하면서 주자설로 주자주를 비판하며, 주자소주의 ‘未精核說’을 주장하여 비판하며, 경전해석에 대한 주자어류 ‘誤記說’을 제시한 것은 모두 주자의 해석을 비판하는 것이다. 둘째, 先儒의 경전해석을 따르면서 비판도 가하고 있다는 점이다. 예컨대 기호낙론계의 대학자라 하더라도 文脈의 본의가 다르게 해석되면 국외의 학자나 경전을 근거로 비판적 의견을 제시했다. 셋째, 타 학자들의 견해를 비판적으로 수용하고 있다는 점이다. 예컨대 여러 학자들의 경전 주석을 열거하면서 그 중에서 자신이 옳다고 생각하는 해석을 선택적으로 수용하거나 주자와 상이한 점이 있다하더라도 비판적으로 수용하였다. 이것은 당시 淸代의 학술을 무시하던 노론·낙론계의 태도나 일본을 夷狄으로만 취급하던 입장에서 볼 때, 분명 이례적인 태도였다. 이처럼 간재가 私見을 배제한 엄정한 학문 태도를 갖게 된 이유는 ‘正學을 추구하며 학자 본연의 역할을 자임한 노력의 결과’라고 볼 수 있다.

간재(艮齋)의 「독맹자(讀孟子)」 연구 - 수양론을 중심으로-

길태은 ( Gil Tae-eun ) 충남대학교 유학연구소 2020 유학연구 Vol.52 No.-

This study analyzes Reading Mencius (讀孟子) by Ganjae Jeonwoo (1841-1922) to examine his stance on Seongsa Shimje (性師心弟, let your natural mind govern your cultured mind) and Shimbonseong (心本性, natural mind and cultured mind are one), considering Mencius’s theory of self-improvement at the same time. To examine the annotations of Reading Mencius, the author segmented each chapter and verse for the analysis. In addition, special attention was paid to comments and interpretations added to the seven chapters of Collected Works of Mencius. Ganjae was interested in human mind and stressed its cultivation through “the control of the mind” and “respect.” Thus, this article takes the stance that Ganjae’s interpretations focus on Mencius’s theory of self-improvement and analyzes the commentaries accordingly. In addition, according to the analysis of each chapter and verse, Ganjae has reinterpreted the important classics from the worldview of Neo-Confucianism to emphasize Seongsa Shimje and Shimbonseong, and he used the two principles as the foundation to attack his critics. Furthermore, the perspective of his foundation built on Mencius’s theory of self-improvement can be understood based on “clarity of the mind” and “practice of respect.” Ganjae expressed the relationship between the cultured mind and the natural mind by adopting the position of Kiho (畿湖) school. He built his argument of the cultured and natural mind around Li (理) and Qi (氣), and his theory ultimately reached theoretical consistency for practicing ethical morality. This study examined whether Ganjae’s concepts of the cultured and natural mind could be analyzed considering Mencius’s Neo-Confucian theory of self-improvement. The three most important points from Ganjae’s annotation of Mencius’s work for cultivating oneself were selected as implications for the modern human beings: (1) the immovable spirit (不動心), (2) finding one’s own heart (求放心), and (3) cultivating one’s spirit (牛山章). These facets could be of help in cultivating human morality (e.g., developing immovable spirit, and overcoming selfishness and returning to propriety) and one’s own mind.

간재의 「大學記疑」에 나타난 경전해석 고찰

길태은(Tae-eun Gil) 대동한문학회 2024 대동한문학 Vol.81 No.-

이 글은 「대학기의」에 나타난 주석의 내용을 통해 간재 전우의 경전 해석의 특징을 살펴보는 데 있다. 그간 「대학기의」 분석은 거의 단편적인 사항에 대해 협의적으로 전개되어왔기 때문에, 전체적인 시야를 가지고 어떠한 관점 혹은 의도로 저술되었는지에 대한 검토가 필요하다. 곧 간재가 처했던 자리에 근본하여 보면, 그는 성리학자로서 성리학설로 경전을 분석하였을 것이며, 낙론의 전도자로서 도학을 추구하였을 것이라 유추할 수 있는데 이러한 지점들을 집중적으로 살펴보았다. 간재의 경전 해석은 경전의 본의와 주자학설로 입론하고 있지만, 만일 본의에 어긋난 경우라면 주자설 뿐만 아니라 기호학의 스승이라 하더라도 양보하지 않는 태도를 취하며 비판한다. 이러한 사견을 배제한 엄정한 학문 태도를 보이는 이유는 결국 ‘정학’을 추구하고 ‘이단’을 배척한 노력의 실증들이며, 전도자로서 기호 낙학의 도통의식의 결과물이라고 해석할 수 있다. 전술한 간재의 사상을 총괄하는 정신은 ‘尊性’으로 표현할 수 있지만, 그의 심설까지를 아우른다면 心本性 또는 尊性明氣 혹은 尊性養氣라고 해도 무리가 가지는 않을 듯하다. 바로 이러한 점들을 통해 간재가 기호 낙맥의 적전으로 당시 인물들과의 현실인식과 대응에서 차이가 생길수 밖에 없는 부분이다. 환언하면, 간재는 한말 도학의 교학적 위정척사의 실천적 지향을 보여주었고, 도학자로서 타학파의 이설 비판에 적극적이었으며, 스승의 유지를 받들어 斯道의 책임을 자임한 것으로서 도학을 추구한 해석이라고 할 수 있다. 따라서 간재의 경학사상을 성리학설로 경전의 본의를 탐구하는 ‘주자학적 경학’이나 ‘사서 중심의 경학’이라고 평가할 수 있다. 또한 간재의 경학을 다시 전도자로서 도학을 추구한 ‘도학적 경학’이라고 평가할 수 있을 것이다. The purpose of this article is to examine the characteristics of Ganjae Jeonwoo interpretation of the scriptures through the contents of the commentary in Daehakgieui. Since the analysis of Daehakgieui. has been conducted in a consultative manner on almost fragmentary matters so far, it is necessary to review what perspective or intention was written with the overall perspective. In other words, it can be inferred that he would have analyzed the scriptures through the theory of Neo-Confucianism as a Neo-Confucianist and pursued Taoism as a preacher of Nakron, and these points were examined intensively. Ganjae's interpretation of the scriptures is introduced as the main idea of the scriptures and the theory of Neo-Confucianism, but if it goes against the main idea, not only the main theory but also the teacher of Neo-Confucianism takes an unyielding attitude and criticizes it. The reason for showing a strict academic attitude that excludes these opinions is the demonstration of efforts to pursue suspension and reject heresy, and it can be interpreted as the result of consciousness of symbolism as an evangelist. The spirit of overseeing Ganjae's thoughts can be expressed as ‘Simbonseong’, but if it encompasses his psychology, it is not unreasonable to call it the mindfulness, ‘Jonsungmyeonggi’ or ‘Jonsungyanggi’. These points inevitably lead to differences in the perception and response of reality with the characters at the time as the enemy of Ganjae's preference. Therefore, it can be evaluated that Ganjae's Gyeonghak thought is a Jujahak Gyeonghak or a Librarian- centered Gyeonghak that explores the original intention of the scriptures with Neo-Confucianism theory, and Ganjae's Gyeonghak can be evaluated as a Dohak Gyeonghak that pursues Dohak as an evangelist again.

간재(艮齋) 전우(田愚)의 「독논어(讀論語)」를 통해 본 도의(道義)의 의미 연구

길태은 ( Gil Tae-eun ) 한국공자학회 2021 공자학 Vol.43 No.-

This study is a study that examines the meaning of Taoist righteousness through “The Analects of Confucius” with the center of Ganjae. The study scans the major perspectives in “The Reading of The Analects of Confucius” (「讀論語」) and explores The Analects of Confucius for what the Taoist commitment to loyalty and self-purification through teaching and learning meant to Ganjae’s life. Active in his scholarly pursuits from the latter half of the 19th century, Ganjae harbored a serious commitment to contesting aggressions from foreign forces and their cultures. In commenting on “learn” in “Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?” (from The Analects of Confucius) in his “The Reading of The Analects of Confucius,” Ganjae viewed Simhakseong (心學性), meaning “the mind should learn the heart,” as the correct type of scholarship. Cautioning that a person who construes the word as “upholding the mind (尊心)” may instantly be turned into a madman or an arrogant person, he insisted that the mind must conform to Taoist righteousness. In Ganjae’s critical mind, the paramount question is “how can a mind that can perform good and evil serve as the foundation of a pure and good nature?” In other words, Ganjae suggests that a mind practicing the Neo-Confucian philosophy on nature and principle creates the gentleman-scholar's spirit as well as the Taoist spirit. The teaching and learning and writing as committed to Ganjae’s self-purification through teaching and learning remained faithful to what Confucius presented as the way to realize the truth when he said, “When right principles of government prevail in the kingdom, he will show himself; when they are prostrated, he will keep concealed” Ganjae’s attitude in the study of Confucian classics was obviously grounded in the Taoist righteousness that lay great store on the upholding of the heart, which reflected the scholar’s criticism that the contemporary political and society-wide irregularities as well as the aggressions from Japan and the Western powers all resulted from a failure to shed light on the minds and energy of humans. Paying attention to the time period when Ganjae had to witness an extreme contradiction, the fall of the kingdom, and suffer the irrationality of the Japanese Occupation, one can understand the scholar’s critical mind regarding how to cope with his reality.

간재(艮齋)『중용기의(中庸記疑)』의 특징 연구 - 수장(首章) 분석을 중심으로 -

길태은 ( Gil Tae-eun ) 동양철학연구회 2019 동양철학연구 Vol.97 No.-

This study examines the characteristics of Study of Confucian Classics by analyzing annotation on Jungyonggieui of Gan-Jae Jeon-Woo. To do this, quantitative analysis method constitute a method to more clearly examine Gan-jae’s annotations for Confucian classics. In addition, when analyzing the notes, the author took a stance of fully respecting Gan-Jae as a Confucian scholar. The quantitative analysis method divides the text into chapters, sections, and paragraphs and identifies ‘in what chapter, section, or paragraph the author left many annotations.’ Of course, just because the author left many annotations in a certain chapter does not necessarily mean the chapter is important. However, it would help to ascertain the key message if many annotations are viewed as an attempt to ‘interpret the intended meaning of the original author quite in detail.’ Therefore, quantitative analysis results serve as the foundation to comprehend a in a more fine-tuned way. These method is one of the most widely used analytical method that identifies the ‘intended meaning of the author’ and ‘read between the lines(微言大義)’. What does Gan-jae emphasize in his Jungyonggieui? Chapter 1, section 1 of Jungyonggieui states ‘what Heaven confers is referred to as nature. Gan-jae continues to annotate the ‘Heaven’ letter along with the ‘nature’ letter to identify the intended meaning of ‘Heaven’. The second annotated letters following ‘Heaven’ are ‘energy’ and ‘conferred nature’. By presenting the original meaning of ‘energy’ and ‘nature’, he notes ‘right learning’. The third annotated letters are ‘what Heaven confers is called nature(天命之謂性)’. Gan-jae highlights that our ‘Confucianism’s essence(儒家宗主)’ lies in ‘respecting nature’ ‘nature’ in ‘what Heaven confers is called nature’. This is the ‘Confucianism’ found by Gan-jae. It states mind should be Sungsasimje(性師心弟) and mind should be based on nature and paraphrases mind should neither argue against right sense nor it should be used for oneself’.