삼봉 정도전의 도가철학 해석의 관점과 그 한계 비판

이종성 ( Lee Jong-sung ) 한국동서철학회 2018 동서철학연구 Vol.0 No.88

한국도가철학사를 이해하는 데 있어서 여말선초의 삼봉 정도전(1342-1398)은 매우 중요한 위치를 점유하고 있는 인물이다. 그는 조선건국의 철학적 이념을 유가적 세계관을 통해 제시했을 뿐만 아니라, 그 이념의 수호를 위하여 불교와 도가를 배척하는데 앞장선 인물이다. 그동안 정도전의 불교비판에 대해서는 수많은 연구 성과가 축적되었음에도, 도가비판의 한계에 대한 개별적인 연구는 아직 본격적으로 시도된 적이 없다. 이 연구는 이 점에 주목하고 정도전의 도가철학 해석에 대한 기본 입장과 그 한계를 검토하고자 한 연구의 목표와 필요성에 의해 기획되었다. 이글은 먼저 정도전의 학문적 기본 입장에 대해 주목한다. 정도전은 도가철학을 이단의 성격을 갖는 기학(氣學)으로 규정한다. 그런데 이러한 기학의 한계는 그가 제안하는 또 다른 이단학문인 불교의 심학(心學)에 의하여 공격된다. 뿐만 아니라 기학과 심학은 정도전 스스로 리학(理學)이라고 규정한 유학의 최종 범주 틀로부터 타자의 학문으로 배척받게 된다. 결과적으로 정도전의 도가비판은 그의 불교비판과 마찬가지로 유가를 수호하기 위한 호교론의 방편으로 제안된 것임이 확인된다. 다음으로 이 글은 정도전의 도가철학 해석의 입장과 그 한계에 대해 주목한다. 이 글은 정도전이 본 도가철학 해석에 관한 기본 입장을 네 가지 측면에서 검토한다. 즉 도가철학은 (1) 불연속적 세계관의 특징, (2) 반윤리적 특징, (3) 현실 부정적 도피주의의 특징 (4) 불로장생 추구의 특징 등을 갖는다는 것이 그것이다. 그러나 이 글은 이와 같은 정도전의 도가철학 해석의 관점이 결코 객관적이거나 공정한 평가일 수 없다는 점을 문제 삼는다. 이에 이 글은 최종적으로 정도전의 도가철학에 대한 부정적 해석의 관점에 대하여 주목하고, 그 한계 비판을 각각 네 가지 측면에서 검토한다. 요컨대 도가철학은 정도전이 본 것과는 다르게 (1) 존재와 생명의 영속성, (2) 세속윤리 부정의 도덕론, (3) 현실 비판적 현실주의, (4) 생사초월의 생사관 등의 의의를 가지고 있다는 점을 확인한다. 이러한 검토의 결과 정도전의 도가철학에 대한 해석의 관점이 특정한 목적의식에서 제시된 것임을 분명히 확인하였을 뿐만 아니라 그 연장선상에서 정도전에 의해 왜곡되었던 도가철학의 의의를 새롭게 복권시키는 계기를 마련하게 되었다고 본다. In understanding the history of Korean Taoist philosophy at the end of Koryo and the early Joseon dynasty, Sambong Jeong Do-jeon (1342-1398), is a person who occupies an important position. He not only presented the philosophical ideology of the foundation of Joseon through the Confucian viewpoint of the world, but also took the initiative in rejecting Buddhism and Taoism. While there have been a number of research results of Jeong Do-jeon's criticism of Buddhism, there has not been individual research on the limits of Jeong Do-jeon's criticism of Taoism. Therefore, this study is based on the objective and necessity to examine Jeong Do-jeon's basic position of the interpretation of Taoist philosophy and its limits. In the first place, this writing pays attention to Jeong Do-jeon's basic position of studies. Jeong Do-jeon defines Taoist philosophy as Qi studies with the nature of a cult. Yet this limit of Qi studies is attacked by the mind studies of Buddhism which he regards as another cult. Furthermore, the Qi studies and mind studies are attacked as other studies from the final frame of category he himself defines Li studies as. As a result, Jeong Do-jeon's criticism of Taoism, like his criticism of Buddhism, is certain to be presented as a way to protect his religion. Then, this writing focuses on Jeong Do-jeon's interpretational perspective of Taoist philosophy and its limits. This writing examines the basic position of Jeong Do-jeon's interpretational perspective of Taoist philosophy in four aspects. They are: (1) the characteristic of a discontinuous viewpoint of the world, (2) that of immorality, (3) that of escapism to deny reality, and (4) that of the quest to live ever-young. This writing, however, focuses on the fact that Jeong Do-jeon's interpretational perspective of Taoist philosophy was never a fair valuation. Thus, this writing finally pays attention to Jeong Do-jeon's negative interpretation of Taoist philosophy and gives criticism of its limits in the following four aspects. In short, the meaning of Taoist philosophy, unlike Jeong Do-jeon's perspective, has (1) the permanence of beings and lives, (2) the morality to criticize morality, (3) the realism to criticize reality, (4) the view of life and death to transcend life and death. Through the result of this examination, Jeong Do-jeon's interpretational perspective of Taoist philosophy is certain to be presented with a certain objective. Furthermore, the meaning of Taoist philosophy which has been distorted by Jeong Do-jeon is seen to have a chance to be renewed.

한국철학 : 삼봉 정도전의 벽이단론과 그 해석 문제 -심문천답과 심기리편을 중심으로

리기용 ( Ki Yong Lee ) 한국철학사연구회 2012 한국 철학논집 Vol.0 No.34

이 논문은 조선전기 삼봉三峰 정도전鄭道傳(1342∼1398)의 벽이단闢異端(Excluding Heresy) 문제와 그 해석을 다룬 글이다. 조선 건국의 이념과 제도와 문물의 이론적 초석을 제공한 정도전의 대표적인 벽이단서로 간주된 일련의 저술 심문천답心問天答(1375), 심기리편心氣理篇(1394), 불씨잡변佛氏雜辨(1398), 특히 앞의 두 저술에 나타난 벽이단 문제를 다루었다. 정도전의 벽이단 특히 불교비판 문제에 대한 이해와 왜곡은 삼봉 사후부터 현대까지 계속되어 왔다. 정도전의 세 저술에 나타난 벽이단론의 변화는 유교의 자기 반성, 도교와 불교의 정치적 비판과 유교 중심적 수용, 그리고 정치적 필요성에 따른 교세의 축소를 위한 정책적 비판의 방식으로 전개된다. 그럼에도 불구하고 위의 세 저술이 그의 대표적 도교와 불교비판서로 간주된 것은 정도전의 글 그 자체에 기인한 것이라기보다, 오히려 권근의 주석과 서문에 나타난 평가에 기초한 것이다. 설상가상으로 연구자들이 갖고 있던 오해의 소지는 심에 대한 개념이 변화되었음에도 불구하고 불씨잡변에 나타난 불교비판을 전제로 앞의 두 저술에 무비판적으로 이해하였고, 심기리편에 나타난 개념을 심문천답에까지 소급 적용시켜 해석하였기 때문이다. 심문천답에 나타난 개념은 성리학적 심 개념으로 허령지각한 마음이 천리를 지각하고 선을 행할 수 있도록 하는 상식적 판단의 주체였다면, 심기리편에 나타난 마음은 불교의 일체의 인연화합이 일어나는 장인 주관적이면서도 초탈적인 심을 은유한 것이었다. 그리고 정도전의 일련의 저술에 일관되게 나타난 벽이단의 정신은 다름 아닌 인욕적 인심에 대한 천리天理이었으며, 주관적 마음과 육체적 기질에 대한 생리生理이자 의리義理였고, 인연화합의 허구적 심리현상에 대한 실리實理라는 기준이었다. 즉 정도전이 비판한 대상은 성리학적 리理의 필요충분조건을 충족시키지 못한 당시의 세태에 대한 비판이었다. 그리고 그 내용은 유교의 자기비판이었고, 유교를 통해 도교와 불교의 폐해를 극복하려 하였으며, 유교의 공고화와 부흥을 위해 불교의 폐단을 비판하는 것이었다. 이 고찰을 통하여 정도전의 벽이단론은 성리학적 정체성 확립을 위한 유학의 자기 비판적 태도인 동시에 도교와 불교의 포용 혹은 조화라는 융복합적 가능성이 포함되어 있으며, 정치적 이유로 불교 비판의 목소리가 점진적으로 강해진 것임을 알 수 있을 것이다. 부차적으로 거시적 안목에서 현대사회에서 유교의 벽이단론이 갖는 의미를 반추해 보는 한편, 과거의 종교대립과 갈등, 그리고 화합의 모색 문제를 재해석함으로써 종교다원주의 사회 속에 나타난 종교적 갈등 문제를 해결할 수 있는 방안을 모색해 볼 수 있을 것이다. This thesis focuses itself on understanding of anti-heresy view of Early Chosun Neo-Confucianism - viewpoint of Confucianism toward Buddhism and Taoism. More specifically, this thesis discusses the criteria and of heresy while focusing on the understanding of Sambong Jeong, Do-Jeon (1342~1398), who contributed to foundation of Chosun dynasty. Jeong, Do-Jeon`s writings on philosophy, economics and politics, political exclusion of Buddhism, and his writing on criticism of Buddhism show different attitudes. Former studies suggested that Jeong, Do-Jeon criticized Buddhism and Taoism. However, this theory would like to add another view point that Jeong, Do-Jeon also suggested harmony and tolerance. The contemporary reaction of buddhists shall also be given in this theory. Through this study, it can suggest a way to solve religious conflicts and make harmony by re-interpreting religious conflicts of past, as well as ruminate the meanings of anti-heresy of Neo-Confucianism in current society`s view Anti-heresy of Neo-Confucianism is a view point that excludes heresy to protect the original. Anti-heresy, which developed in early Chin dynasty (an ancient Chinese empire) by Confucius, became magnified in Neo-Confucianism while criticizing Buddhism and Taoism. Scholars of Neo-Confucianism in late Korea dynasty and Chosun dynasty used anti-heresy in political and scholarly matters. Jeong, Do-Jeon was representative scholar of anti-heresy. His writings also are considered representative books of Early-Chosun anti-heresy, especially focusing on criticizing Buddhism. Jeong, Do-Jeon aimed for ideal society where ideas of Neo-Confucianism are realized. He strictly applied such ideas in founding principle, national system, and culture. As Neo-Confucianism of Chinese Song dynasty focused on criticizing Buddhism and Taoism, Jeong, Do-Jeon kept the criticism. However, his first two writings have certain issues on being classified as anti-heresy writings. That is because the two books rather focus on enlightenment and convergence instead of exclusion. Nevertheless, the two books are considered as anti-heresy writings because Kwon, Keun judged so in his annotation and preface. Sim-Mun-Chun-Dab(心問天答) is a book of question and answer, not inter-criticism between Buddhism and Confucianism. This book actually criticized personal desires that set national security and stability of people`s lives away. Therefore, this book is a book that focuses on criticizing people who follow personal desire and set Confucian principles away. Sim-Ki-Li-Pyeon(心氣理篇) was thought of as the first major criticism toward Buddhism and Taoism as it was written after Jeong, Do-Jeon`s exclusion of Buddhism in 1391. However, this book is rather a book of enlightenment than a book of criticism. Sim, Gi, and Ri represent Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism respectably. This book was composed of three chapters, which are Sim-Nan-Ki(心難氣), Ki-Nan-Sim(氣難心) and Li-Yu-Sim-Ki (理諭心氣). The chapters` contents are Criticism of Taoism by Buddhism, Criticism of Buddhism by Taoism, and Enlightenment of Buddhism and Taoism by Confucianism. Therefore, the book is about leading Buddhism and Taoism toward Confucianism by converging them in the view point of Confucianism. Bul-Ssi-Jab-Byeon (佛氏雜辨) is a book that criticizes Buddhism, and was written only a little prior to his death. However, due to political reason, this book was not published for certain period of time. Although it has the form of criticism of Buddhism, the content actually focuses on criticism of negative phenomenon of Buddhism rather than the theory and concept of Buddhism. Thus, it would be more valid to regard criticism of Buddhism as what was derived from realistic and political reason for tactical purposes. Therefore, it is more valid to regard this criticism as what was overestimated due to Jeong, Do-Jeon`s political standpoint. Also, such evaluation was more from Kwon, Keun`s annotation and preface, instead of from the book`s original message. It would be more likely to understand that Jeong, Do-Jeon rather tried to find way to keep Taoism and Buddhism in check, and make way to future together in harmony. There is an idea that the three books have in common, which is that Confucianism is a theory of loyalty and pursuits live principles, and the that heresy is bounded to gain and loss and pursuits hollow ideas. In general term, heresy that he suggested seems to be Taoism and Buddhism from historical background. However, heresy can be any group that focuses on profit instead of loyalty, and fixed principle instead of live principle. From such view point, it can be considered that his criticism not only was made toward Taoism and Buddhism, but Confucianism itself was also target of criticism.

정도전(鄭道傳) 재상정치론(宰相政治論)의 유교적 연원과 정치철학적 함의

이홍주 충남대학교 유학연구소 2023 儒學硏究 Vol.64 No.-

The purpose of this research is to investigate the Confucian Political and Philosophical meaning and origin of 'The Theory of Premier’s Politics,' the key point of the political idea of Confucian Scholar Sambong Jeong Do-jeon(三峯鄭道傳) (1342-1398). When the discourse of 'The Builder of the Royal Dynasty, Jeong Do-jeon,' is usually accepted, it would be cognized that the political idea of Jeong Do-jeon cannot but be confronted with the Joseon Dynasty's royal powers based on hereditary monarchy. Thus, this study poses the awareness of the issue about how Jeong Do-jeon would redress and justify the antinomic conflict relations with 'the common Theory of Premier’s Politics' and Joseon Dynasty's hereditary monarchy, and about what they are built on. Against this backdrop, Jeong Do-jeon made the plan of 'The Theory of Premier’s Politics,' based on the abdication system, the past legacy of Confucian system, and the times of peace that was maintained during the reign of King Yun and King Sun in the Chinese ancient age. The Theory of Premier's Politics that Jeong Do-jeon intended to pursue makes it as a major premise that the abdicated king must descend the throne and face the south to test the qualification of wise and competent vassal to act as ruler, and that wise and competent vassal must do the best to take care of the royal court and subjects. Needless to say, King can make the only person with blood ties succeed to the throne, in hereditary monarchy, and thus abdication is no longer permitted. Meanwhile, Vassal can hand throne over to wise and competent subjects, anytime, which makes it possible to secure the fundamental stability of the State. The conflicts with moral character of ruler and real political power remained as the long dilemma in the Confucian political history. Jeong Do-jeon had cognized that it would be hard to realize the image of ideal monarch having virtue and ability in hereditary monarchy, by nature. Thus as the alternative to it, he worked out the political system that wise and competent vassal would correctly establish insufficient virtue of monarch and act as ruler in the political circle. It can be considered the Confucian Political and Philosophical meaning of 'The Theory of Premier’s Politics' of Jeong Do-jeon is to secure ideological justification and qualification of ruling power, with the political efficacy and stability. 본 연구의 목적은 유학자 삼봉 정도전(1342-1398)의 정치사상의 요체인 ‘재상정치론’의 유교정치철학적 의미를 규명하고 그 연원을 밝히는 것이다. ‘왕조의 설계자정도전’ 담론을 수용한다면, 이러한 정도전의 정치적 구상이 세습 군주제에 기반한조선의 왕권과 대립할 수밖에 없음을 인지할 수 있다. 따라서 통설인 ‘재상정치론’과조선의 세습 군주제의 이율배반적 갈등 관계를 정도전은 과연 어떻게 봉합하고 정당화하는지, 그리고 그 근거는 어디에 있는지가 본고의 문제의식이다. 이러한 배경에서 정도전은 유교의 만들어진 과거, 즉 선양 신화와 요순의 관계에착안하여 ‘재상정치론’을 구상한다. 상왕은 물러나 남면하여 현능한 신하에게 통치대행이라는 시험에 들게 하고, 현능한 신하는 이러한 시험에 임하여 최선을 다해 조정과 신민을 보살피는 것, 이것이 정도전이 구상한 재상정치론의 원형이다. 물론 현실의 세습 군주제에서 군위는 혈연에게만 승계되므로 더이상 선양이 있을 수 없지만, 재상의 신위는 현능한 이에게 얼마든지 이양하여 통치자의 현능과 국가 근본의안정성을 동시에 확보하는 것이 가능하다. 통치자의 도덕적 품성과 현실 정치력의 상충은 유교 정치사의 유구한 딜레마였다. 정도전은 세습 군주제에서 덕성과 능력을 아울러 갖춘 이상적 군주는 선천적 차이로 인해 실현되기 힘들다는 것을 인지하고 있었다. 그래서 그 대안으로 현능한 신하가 군주의 부족한 덕성을 바로잡고, 정치 일선에서 통치를 대행하는 정치체제를 구상한 것이다. 통치 권력의 자격과 이념적 정당성 그리고 정치적 효율성과 안정성을함께 확보하는 것이 정도전 ‘재상정치론’의 유교정치철학적 의미라고 할 수 있다.

정도전의 경학관과 성리학적 질서의 지향

도현철(Do Hyeon-chul) 한림대학교 태동고전연구소 2008 泰東古典硏究 Vol.24 No.-

정도전은 주자의 사서오경(四書五經)의 주석(註釋)을 받아들이고, 세계와 인간, 사회를 성리학의 리기(理氣), 태극(太極), 성정(性情) 으로 설명하였다. 《대학》과 《중용》을 통하여 천도(天道)와 인도(人道)를 재확인하고 《논어》와 《맹자》를 통하여 유학의 경세 론(經世論)을 이해하였으며, 오경(五經)을 통하여 수기치인(修己治 人)의 학을 말하고 도통(道統)을 제시하였다. 정도전은 《주례》에 의한 중앙집권체제와 재상정치론을 제시하 였다. 불교를 이단으로 비판하였고, 주자가례의 시행을 통하여 유교의 예적 질서를 확립하고자 하였으며, 성리학의 명분론(名分論) 및 춘추대의(春秋大義)와 천리인욕설(天理人欲說)을 기초로 의(義)와 공(公)에 의한 공적 관계를 내세웠다. 그런데 정도전은 정치적․사상적으로 제대로 평가받지 못했다. 왕자의 난을 일으켰다는 이유로 반역, 간신으로 죽임을 당하고, 태종이 즉위하면서 정도전의 부정적인 평가는 확립되었다. 문묘종사(文 廟從祀)에 배향되지 못하였고, 김종직, 신흠, 허균과 같은 조선 유학자들은 정도전을 부정적으로 인식하였다. 이는 정도전이 모반을 꾀하였다는 점이 국가의 공식적인 사실로서 인정받게 되고, 성리학의 도통(學統)을 학문 수수(收受)의 사실 여부나 학문 업적보다는 의리(義理) 정신의 실천에 그 기준을 삼은 결과였다. 조선시기에 정도전을 부정적으로 인식해도, 사상면에서 달리 볼수 있는 여지가 있다. 정도전과 동시대 유학자인 권근이 평가하고, 500여년이 지난 지금의 정도전 연구에서 인정하듯, 정도전이 불교를 배척하며 성리학을 진흥한 공을 받아들일 수 있기 때문이다. In this article, the bases of Jeong Do Jeon s philosophy in terms of Confucian classic texts, and the characteristics of his political ideas(政治思想), are examined. Jeong Do Jeon explained Ju Hi s annotation(註釋) of Four texts and Five classics(四書五經), and the issue of humans and the society, with concepts such as Ih-Gi /理氣(Ih and Gi elements of the universe), Taegeuk /太極(Taegeuk principle of the universe) and Seongjeong /性情(nature of human beings). He reasserted Confucianism s Way of the universe (天道) and Way of the humans(人道) through Daehak and Jungyong, understood Confucianism s suggestion of how to govern the world(經世論) through Noneo(Confucius words) and Maengja(Mencius words), and commented upon the task of building one s character and then leading the others( 修己 治人 ) and suggested the line of legitimacy(道統) , through his interpretation of the Five classics(五經). Jeong Do Jeon presented a centralized format of political governance and a concept of governance led by the ministers, based upon the teachings of Juryae/周禮. He criticized Buddhism as heresy, tried to establish a protocol-based Confucian order by implementing the dictations of Juja Garyae throughout the society, and supported a public and official relationship between people & entities built upon righteous(義) & public(公) elements, based upon the notion of a righteous cause(名分論) , Chunchu s grand righteousness(春秋大義) and the theory of Universe s reason and humans desire(天理人欲說) of Neo-Confucianism. Yet in subsequent periods Jeong Do Jeon s philosophy was not appreciated for what it was worth, in terms of politics and philosophy. In a political reality, he was killed as a treacherous figure under the charge of treason and of staging the insurrection of the princes, and after King Taejong rose to the throne a negative evaluation of his actions became complete. He was not admitted into the Munmyo/文廟 shrine and was not paid any respect in its services(從祀). A lot of Seoweon/書院 schools were erected, yet his achievements and their academic values were not reevaluated. Kim Jong Jik or other Sarim figures who were faithful to Neo-Confucianism, and Joseon dynasty Confucian scholars like Shin Heum or Heo Gyun also maintained a negative attitude toward Jeong Do Jeon. This means that the charges that Jeong Do Jeon faced, committing treason, was established as a nationally official fact. It was a result of the Joseon society, which embraced Neo-Confucianism as its own doctrine(國是), establishing the line of legitimacy in Neo-Confucian studies(學統), neither with the criteria to base such line upon facts regarding actual exchanges(收受) of studies nor with individuals accomplishments, but with the criteria to base such line upon an obligatory determination to realize the spirit of righteousness(義理) in the world. Even if he had been negatively viewed for the duration of the Joseon dynasty period, we can still reevaluate his philosophy in many different ways. No matter what kind of negative reviews had been suggested over the years, Jeong Do Jeon should be noticed for his vetoing Buddhism and promoting Neo-Confucianism, as had been already acknowledged by Confucian scholar Gweon Geun who lived in the same period with Jeong, by Lee Deok Mu who lived in the latter half period of Joseon, and by many people who still study Jeong s thoughts after some five hundred years.

정도전의 「陣法」에 보이는 병학사상에 대한 검토

허대영 ( Heo Dae-yeong ) 조선시대사학회 2020 朝鮮時代史學報 Vol.92 No.0

Jeong Do-jeon is also known as a military expert in early Chosŏn period. He established the system of command and control and set up military discipline for Chosŏn dynasty. The basis for his reform of the military system can be found in his writing ‘Jinbup’. This study examines Jeong Do-jeon’s military thought by analyzing his ‘Jinbup’ and the source of it. Many parts of ‘Jinbup’ quote from the ‘T'ung-tien’. When Jeong Do-jeon made changes to the original text, it had two patterns. One is excluding Yin(陰) and Yang(陽) thought and the other one is emphasizing the military formation discipline for mass troops more than the individual martial art training. In Koryŏ dynasty, military ritual and discipline was practiced near the building of taoism. Also, it was common that the military ritual was performed along with the taoist ritual. Moreover at that time, Tàiyǐ(太一), kind of divination, was popular as military science. Jeong Do-jeon, who took a political stance against all those teachings that do not conform to Confucianism, attempted to establish new military system, excluding such ideas as Yin-Yang(陰陽), Five Elemental(五行), and divination. The new type of the military discipline that Jeong Do-jeon established combined the military discipline in ‘Rites of Zhou(周禮)’ and ‘Kaiyuan Rites(開元禮)’ from Tang Dynasty. Both of them emphasized military formation discipline more than the individual martial art training. They also emphasized more of the infantry’s role that organized formation than hunting type military discipline that focused on cavalry’s tactical movement. His new type of military discipline was established in consideration of the military surrounding from late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn period that needed to make a large scale troop for large army of enemy. The large scale troop, however, was likely to cause troubles such as an excessive growth of soldiers and generals. In order to keep them in check, Jeong Do-jeon advocated that the best army must have benevolence, righteousness and moderation. He also suggested that the best army, which has benevolence, righteousness and moderation, should be commanded by ‘Confucian General(儒將)’. The ancient military thought in east asia has three essential factors, the Tiān(天), Di(地), Rén(人). In earlier times, Tiān and Di were more important than Rén. In terms of military thought, the Rén is organization, tactics, battle formation, etc. As time passes by, the importance of Rén will grow gradually. Jeong Do-jeon’s military thought was also in line with this tendency, attempting to emphasize Rén more than Tiān and Di, and further transform the military discipline from cavalry to infantry.

정도전의 「陣法」에 보이는 병학사상에 대한 검토

허대영 조선시대사학회 2020 朝鮮時代史學報 Vol.- No.92

Jeong Do-jeon is also known as a military expert in early Chosŏn period. He established the system of command and control and set up military discipline for Chosŏn dynasty. The basis for his reform of the military system can be found in his writing ‘Jinbup’. This study examines Jeong Do-jeon’s military thought by analyzing his ‘Jinbup’ and the source of it. Many parts of ‘Jinbup’ quote from the ‘T'ung-tien’. When Jeong Do-jeon made changes to the original text, it had two patterns. One is excluding Yin(陰) and Yang(陽) thought and the other one is emphasizing the military formation discipline for mass troops more than the individual martial art training. In Koryŏ dynasty, military ritual and discipline was practiced near the building of taoism. Also, it was common that the military ritual was performed along with the taoist ritual. Moreover at that time, Tàiyǐ(太一), kind of divination, was popular as military science. Jeong Do-jeon, who took a political stance against all those teachings that do not conform to Confucianism, attempted to establish new military system, excluding such ideas as Yin-Yang(陰陽), Five Elemental(五行), and divination. The new type of the military discipline that Jeong Do-jeon established combined the military discipline in ‘Rites of Zhou(周禮)’ and ‘Kaiyuan Rites(開元禮)’ from Tang Dynasty. Both of them emphasized military formation discipline more than the individual martial art training. They also emphasized more of the infantry’s role that organized formation than hunting type military discipline that focused on cavalry’s tactical movement. His new type of military discipline was established in consideration of the military surrounding from late Koryŏ and early Chosŏn period that needed to make a large scale troop for large army of enemy. The large scale troop, however, was likely to cause troubles such as an excessive growth of soldiers and generals. In order to keep them in check, Jeong Do-jeon advocated that the best army must have benevolence, righteousness and moderation. He also suggested that the best army, which has benevolence, righteousness and moderation, should be commanded by ‘Confucian General(儒將)’. The ancient military thought in east asia has three essential factors, the Tiān(天), Di(地), Rén(人). In earlier times, Tiān and Di were more important than Rén. In terms of military thought, the Rén is organization, tactics, battle formation, etc. As time passes by, the importance of Rén will grow gradually. Jeong Do-jeon’s military thought was also in line with this tendency, attempting to emphasize Rén more than Tiān and Di, and further transform the military discipline from cavalry to infantry. 정도전은 조선 초 군사 제도 개혁 및 군사훈련을 정립한 군사전문가였다. 정도전이 실시한 일련의 군사제도 개혁의 사상적 배경은 그의 저술인 「陣法」 등을 통해서 확인할 수 있다. 정도전 「陣法」의 많은 부분은 『通典』에서 인용하였음을 확인할 수 있는데, 이 때 원전의 내용을 변용하는 경우 2가지 경향성이 나타났다. 하나는 陰陽술의 배제, 다른 하나는 보병 중심의 진법훈련 강조였다. 「陣法」에서 나타나는 경향성이 여말선초의 군사적 상황 속에서 비슷하게 나타나는지 검토하여 정도전 병학사상의 특징을 살펴보았다. 고려시대 군사의례 및 군사훈련은 도교 건물인 태청관 및 그 일대에서 시행하였고, 장수가 출정하기에 앞서 도교의례인 초례가 행해지는 것이 상례였다. 또한 여말선초 시기 병학의 하나로서 점술에 가까운 태일병법이 유행하고 있었다. 이런 상황에서 이단 배척을 주창하였던 정도전은 새롭게 정립하는 병학에서 음양, 오행, 점술 등의 내용은 의도적으로 배제하고자 하였다. 이는 천시나 지리보다는 人和가 중요하다는 정도전의 평소 인식과도 상통하는 바였다. 정도전은 『周禮』 대열의 형식과 唐의 군사훈련 방식을 결합한 군사훈련을 지향하였다. 두 군사훈련 방식은 공통적으로 개인의 무예 훈련보다는 집단의 진법훈련을 중시하였으며, 또한 기병을 중심으로 한 사냥 형식의 훈련보다는 상대적으로 보병의 역할을 강조하였다. 이는 고려 말 이래 대규모 군대 운용이 필요했던 군사환경의 변화 때문에 나타난 현상이었다. 게다가 군대의 규모가 확대됨에 따라 무장 세력에 대한 견제가 필요하였고, 이를 위해 가장 강력한 군대는 인의․절제의 군대임을 역설하고 이들을 통솔할 장수상으로 儒將을 추구하였다. 동아시아 고대 병학은 天時․地利․人和의 3개 요소 중 천시와 지리의 중요성이 전제된 상태에서 인화, 즉 전술, 진법 등의 역할을 논하였다. 시간이 흐르면서 병학에 있어서 천시․지리적 요소는 부차적이게 되는데, 『漢書』 예문지의 병학 분류에서 음양이 권모, 형세의 다음에 배치되는 것은 이를 반영한다고 할 수 있다. 정도전의 병학은 고려 말까지 유행한 천시․지리적 요소를 배제하여 인간 중심적인 병학을 정립하고자 한 것이며, 이와 함께 기존의 기병중심의 훈련체계를 보병 중심의 진법 훈련체계로 변화시키고자 한 것이다.

삼봉 정도전의 의식세계(意識世界) 연구 - 해배(解配) 이후 조선 건국 시기를 중심으로 -

문철영 단국대학교 동양학연구원 2008 東洋學 Vol.44 No.-

In this paper, we try to understand the consciousness of Jeong Do-jeon who was an innovative politician and a radical theorist in the late Koryeo Dynasty and the early Joseon Kingdom by grasping and dividing the wandering age, the revolutionary age and the founding age about the poet and literature of Jeong Do-jeon. We have searched how Jeong Do-jeon subjugated his desire in the trouble between the social condition and the individual desire. For example, Jeong Do-jeon leaded the revolutionary day of the storm and stress to the foundation of Joseon Kingdom and composed a poem that gives a very good picture of what his life was then. After the beginning of new dynasty was achieved through a coup d’etat, he boarded a ship with a king and written a poetry under a clear sky. By the way he adopted an intensive method in the last phrase and clause of this poem. It was a case for a merger of revolution and the pride of the new dynasty that he born in the inside. This poem depicted the convulsion and the anxiety of revolutionary process. Also, this expression is not the end of calmness but the regeneration. In this manner, we understood the new hope and volition that Jeong Do-jeon borne in mind with the beginning of new era through this brief poem. Therefore, this paper importantly analyzed the contemporary writing that revealed the inner world of Jeong Do-jeon. Because his writings including the politics, the economy and the philosophy abstracted it. 이 논문은 정도전의 시문을 유랑기·혁명기·창업기로 구분하여 파악함으로써, 여말선초에 있어 혁신적인 대정치가이자 실천적이며 급진적인 이론가이기도 한 인간 정도전의 의식세계를 이해해 보고자 하였다. 즉, 대정치가나 이론가 이전에 한 인간으로서의 정도전이 당시 사회상황과 개인적인 욕망과의 갈등 속에서 그 자신의 욕망을 어떻게 극복해 나가면서 인간적인 성숙을 이루어 가는가를 살펴보고자 한 것이다. 유랑기(우왕 3년~9년)에서는 관조와 낯설음의 변주로 그의 내면세계를 파악하려 하였다. 유배생활을 겪으면서 터득한 “생전의 곤궁쯤이야 근심할 것도 못되며 이제 다시 공명이나 부귀를 구하지도 않겠다”는 마음의 여유가 그의 관조적 내면세계의 한 축을 형성하고 있었다면, 3년의 유배생활이라는 뻥 뚫린 삶의 공백 속에서 이제 막 만난 세상에 대한 낯설음이 격리되었던 삶과 세월의 흐름 속에서 그의 내면세계의 또다른 한 축을 이루고 있었다. 재기와 모색의 시기(우왕 9년~14년)에서는 스스로 새로운 희망을 찾아 나선 정도전의 천심(天心)을 향한 새로운 충정을 만날 수 있었다. 함주에서의 이성계와의 만남을 통하여 새로운 역사의 시작을 꿈꾸고, 주역을 읽는 가운데서도 혁명을 위한 천심을 나타내고 있다. 이제는 더 이상 낯설음과 관조가 아닌, 천심을 향한 새로운 충정이 일고 있었던 것이다. 위화도 회군(우왕 14년) 이후 혁명기에서는 고립과 비상(飛翔)을 중심으로 그의 내면세계를 이해하려 하였다. 천심을 향한 혁명의 길을 걷는 동안 정몽주·이숭인을 비롯한 성균관 시절 이래의 절친한 교우관계가 더 이상 용납될 수 없음을 예감하고 있었고, 그러한 고립감 속에서도 천심을 향해 비상하려는 욕구가 그의 내면세계를 형성하고 있었다. 조선 건국 시기에는 그의 가슴벅참과 떨림을 느낄 수 있었다. 역성혁명의 최전선에 서서 새로운 왕조 창업이라는 한국 역사에 획을 긋는 大役事를 이룬 후, 잠시 숨을 고르는 듯 태조 2년 가을 임금을 모시고 長湍에서 배를 타고 맑은 하늘 아래노닐 때의 감회를 읊은 시의 결구인 “지금이 바로 조선나라 제2년일세(此是朝鮮第二年)”이라는 구절에서 볼 수 있었듯, 내면에 품고 있는 혁명의 당위성에 대한 자신감과 새 왕조 개창에 대한 자부심이 그의 가슴벅참과 떨림 속에서 전해질 수 있었다. 새로운 시대의 개막과 함께 정도전의 마음 속에서 솟구치고 있는 새로운 희망과 고려말의 암울하고 옹색한 시대적 분위기를 떨쳐버리고 새롭게 일어서려는 의지를 ‘백성 편히 살리는 그 일’에 대한 천심에 대한 열정과 함께 읽을 수 있었던 것이다. 이렇게 정도전 자신의 내면세계 속에서 겪는 갈등과 좌절과 그 극복의 모습들은 그의 정치·경제·철학 등에 관한 뛰어난 저작물에서는 오히려 사상(捨象)되어 버리기 쉽다는 전제하에서, 이 논문에서는 그의 내면세계의 추이를 비교적 잘 보여 주고 있는 그의 시문을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 하지만 아무리 사실적인 시라 할지라도 일정한 추상성을 띠게 마련인 점에서 볼 때, 시문을 통한 정도전의 내면세계의 구체적 형상화에는 일정한 한계가 남을 수밖에 없는 노릇이다. 그리고 그의 남아 있는 시문이 각 시기별로 골고루 쓰여 있지는 않다는 점은 그의 내면세계의 추이를 파악하는 데 있어 어려움으로 작용하였다. 이러한 부분들을 추후에 보완할 수 있었으면 한다.

권근의 유교 정치 이념과 정도전과의 관계

도현철(Do, Hyeon-chul) 한국역사연구회 2012 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.84

Examined in this article is how Gweon Geun justified his serving of two countries, and why he decided to cooperate with Jeong Do-jeon. Gweon Geun wanted to make the world a place ruled by Confucianism instead of Buddhism. He compiled important academic points of the Confucian philosophy when he wrote Ib’hak Do’seol and 『O’gyeong Cheon’gyeon-rok』. He intended to establish Confucianism as a legitimate, one-and-only righteous form of study. He argued that Confucianism was the ‘real, substantial’ philosophy(實學) to lead the world, and criticized Buddhism as a heresy that would impede the world’s efforts to become a better one. Based upon a Neo-Confucian view of the world, he criticized Buddhism as a school of thoughts that did not recognize the objective world and its principles, and a mere form of belief that eventually forced people to ignore their own human obligations. In his eyes, Buddhism was a religion for the animals, as it allowed people to sever all the personal relationships, either between a king and a vassal, or between a father and son, by having them commit to a Buddhist way of life. He also argued that Buddhism considered all actions as of the mere heart(imagination), and did not acknowledge the existence of a principle or an obligation, from which the actions would generate, or upon which the actions would operate. With Neo-Confucian theories regarding the ‘Human nature(“Inseong, 人性”)’ and the ‘Law of Nature(“Cheon’ri, 天理)’ in mind, Gweon Guen considered morality to be very important, and hoped for an enlightenment to come to the people, based upon all that. He also wanted a world in which the people’s good nature would be more refined(or corrected from a corrupted state) with the concept of ‘Respect(Gyeong, 敬),’ so that morality could firmly be established. In order to maintain social stability and order, he preferred a character-building exercise based upon people’s moral nature and respect, to the employment of external forces such as law enforcement or institutional corrections. He wanted to reinforce school education, and modified the national examination system to prioritize Creative writing(製述), so that the Confucian concept of morality would dominate the people’s consciousness and living patterns. In the meantime, Gweon Geun decided to join the new dynasty and bring his plans to realize his political philosophy in motion. First, to support Jeong Do-jeon’s plans for a new dynasty in theoretical terms, he authored the foreword for 『Bulshi Jab’byeon』, and highlighted the book’s meaning. He depicted Jeong Do-jeon as a visionary who intended to establish a new country, and explained Jeong’s academic traits, from the perspective of the Neo-Confucian argument of legitimacy. Gweon Geun participated in the publication of 『Gyeong’je Mun’gam』 which did not thoroughly cited all the Chinese materials consulted in its creation. In 『Gyeong’je Mun’gam』, Jeong Do-jeon cited the Chinese texts yet marked them as his own thoughts, and Gweon Geun did the same, because he agreed with Jeong Do-jeon’s thoughts and accommodate his intentions. In short, Gweon Guen tried to establish an idealistic Confucian soceity, and joined the Joseon government, established a relationship with the powerful Jeong Do-jeon, and tried to accommodate his intentions.

14세기 정도전의 유교입국론

정성식 동양고전학회 2020 東洋古典硏究 Vol.0 No.81

본 연구의 목적은 14세기 여말선초의 왕조교체기에 활동한 유학사상 가 정도전의 유교입국론을 고찰하는 데 있다. 고려 말 유학자들은 위화 도회군 이후 역사의식의 차이를 보임에 따라 보수와 혁신이라는 동원이 류적 양상으로 대립하였다. 정도전의 현실주의적 입장에서 바라보면, 고려 말의 시대 여건은 고 려조의 명맥을 부흥시킬 수 없을 정도로 매우 열악하였다. 국가 운영시 스템이 비정상화됨에 따라 사회 구조적 모순을 척결하기 위해서는 근본 적인 처방이 요청된다고 파악한 정도전은 고려조의 정통성을 부인하고 체제변혁을 추구하였다. 정도전은 오랜 전통적 관념이었던 불교 이념에서 유학 이념으로의 사 상적 패러다임을 전환을 시도하였다. 이를 위해 정도전은 고려 말에 수 용된 성리학을 이념적 기반으로 하여 불교 교리의 이론적 문제점들을 지적하며 비판하였다. 고려 말 조선 초기라는 시대 상황에서 주장된 정도전의 불교 비판은 유학자로서의 사명감에서 비롯된 것이라 볼 수 있으며, 사회이념론이 었다. 정도전이 유교 입국을 위해 전개한 패러다임의 전환 과정은 불 교와 도가라는 이단의 비판을 통한 유학으로의 사상적 전환을 도모한 모습이었다. 정도전의 유교 입국 과정에서 나타난 또 하나의 특성은 유교적 전장(典章) 제도의 사회적 구현을 통한 유교 정교 이념의 토착 화라고 하겠다. The purpose of this study is to consider Jeong Do-jeon's Theory of Confucian state construction during the historical transition period of the late Goryeo and early Joseon Period. At the end of the Goryeo Dynasty, Confucian scholars were at odds with each other due to the differences in historical consciousness after the Yuhwa-do group, which developed into a homogeneous aspect of conservatism and innovation. From the realistic perspective of Jeong Do-jeon, the conditions of the late Goryeo Dynasty were so poor that it was impossible to revive the Goryeo dynasty. Jeong Do-jeon denied the legitimacy of the Goryeo dynasty and pursued the transformation of the system after he realized that fundamental prescriptions were required to eradicate social structural contradictions as the national operating system became abnormal. Jeong Do-jeon attempted to change the ideological paradigm from the Buddhist ideology, which had long been a traditional concept, to the idea of studying abroad. To this end, Jeong Do-jeon criticized the theoretical problems of Buddhist doctrines based on the Neo-Confucianism accepted at the end of the Goryeo Dynasty. Jeong Do-jeon's Buddhist monument, which was claimed during the late Goryeo and early Joseon Periods, was a kind of social ideology, starting from a sense of mission as a Confucian scholar. Jeong Do-jeon's paradigm shift toward Confucian entry was seen as an attempt to shift his ideas to studying abroad through the criticism of heresy of Buddhism and Taoism. Another characteristic that emerged during Jeong Do-jeon's Theory of Confucian state construction is the indigenousization of Confucian political ideology through the social implementation of the Confucian norm system.

鄭道傳의 학문과 功業 지향의 정치론

정호훈(Jeong Ho-Hoon) 한국사연구회 2006 한국사연구 Vol.135 No.-

This writing addressed the Political Thought of Jeong Do-jeon, who is the leading role of Joseon's foundation. Jeong Do-jeon criticized Goryeo Society based on the New Confucianism(Seongrihak), and mapped out a Political System, which is required for the new Nation Joseon. Jeong Do-jeon externalized a Plan that can step up the Unity in Politics and the Centralization in a System, by taking Advantage of this Thinking. 《Joseongyeonggukjeon(朝鮮經國典)》 was a Book that contained this Political Conception. The Point that is noted in this Book is many. First, it stressed much a Role of the Law in operating a Nation. What the Law is the mainly instrumental Means for the good Government was Jeong Do-jeon's Idea. Second, he thought that the Nation's Citizenship needs to be intensified largely. What becomes the Core was an Issue that increases the Nation's commanding Power over the People and the Land. Third, he considered that the practical Operation of a political System needs to be attained centering on the prime Minister. Fourth, his political Theory of centering on the prime Minister had a characteristic that attaches Importance to ‘an Achievement’. It was said that the Achievement and the Result are completed by realizing such moral Character and Talent through Bureaucracy, with the prime Minister and Officialdom of having Virtue and Capability. His political theory was much distant from a political Theory of Jujahak(Zhu Xi philosophy), which had the Logic that Bureaucrats including a Monarch preferentially require the perfect Morality, and on the Basis of this, need to perform Politics. Jeong Do-jeon was arranging for a political Theory based on the New Confucianism, but didn't utilize Jujahak enough. This political Theory had Tendency of Hsun tzu(荀子) more strongly than of Mengtzu(孟子). What his learning comes to be excluded by Sadaebu(ruling elite) in Joseon, without being accepted, seems that this Element functioned greatly. In terms of trying to maintain the Position as a Sovereign along with Autonomy as Yangban(兩班) Sadaebu(士大夫), the political Theory of Jujahak was more efficient. What people in the 16th Century had tried to establish a System of learning from Jeoluipa(節義派) since Jeong Mong-ju, was a part of an Effort aiming to have the political Theory of Jujahak as their Thinking.