우담과 갈암의 사단칠정 소종래에 대한 인식비교 -심유이본에 대한 대응을 중심으로-

Abstract

This paper tries to examine how the concept of the Sojongrae, mentioned in the theory of Four-Seven, was perceived and discussed over time. For Toegye, Sojongrae was a clear basis for distinguishing the Four from Seven, but the process of discussion inevitably revealed the ambiguity of the concept. Yulgok saw that this concept of Sojongrae meant two roots when one's mind was not born. He brought the discussion to cognitive process anded into two. Galam and Wudam have different reactions to these criticisms. Wudam claimed that Yulgok misunderstood the regression and insisted that two roots of mind criticism does not apply. Galam, on the other hand, affirmed two roots of mind because he thought that having two roots in mind doesn't matter. However, their affirmations and negations do not just coincide with criticism and discussion of Yulgok. Wudam says that the Sojongrae is not the two roots of unborn mind, but the split-off point of the heart just emerging. In other words, he accepts Yulgok's argument in terms of the cognitive process, and see that the terms of the regression are not problematic. Galam, on the other hand, does not agree with the context of the discussion as cognitive process, and argues that he can share his words with Li and Ki if mind does not yet born. His discussion was near by Toegye, and far from Yulgok. That's why the criticism of two roots of mind was no problem for him. In conclusion, the context of discussing the pros and cons of two roots of mind and Sojongrae is different, but how to perceive Sojongrae is not much different. criticized it as a two roots of mind. And it present that mind should be divided.