심론의 시각에서 본 김흥락과 허유의 인물성동이론 해석 고찰

Abstract

This paper aims at comparing the interpretation of the theory of Imulseongdongi(人物性同異論) between Seosan Kim Heung-rak(1827~1899) and Husan Heo Yu(1833~1904), who were members of the Toegye school in the 19th century, and also confirming the theoretical difference between the two. In addition, it was examined how the theory of Inmulseongdongi (人物性同異論) was related to the interpretation of sim(心: heart), a new point in the 19th-century controversy over the theory of sim. Seosan regarded gi(氣) as important as li(理) from the viewpoint of simhapligi(心合理氣), which also appears as the emphasis on gijiljiseong(氣質之性) in the theory of Inmulseongdongi(人物性同異論). To understand seong(性) under the category of gijil(氣質), the real seong(性) is one of gijiljiseong(氣質之性). Husan places li(理) above gi(氣) from the point of view of simjeukli(心卽理), which appears as the emphasis on bonyeonjiseong(本然之性) in the theory of inmulseongdongi. Gijiljiseong(氣質之性) is just one transformed from bonyeonjiseong(本然之性) due to gijil(氣質), so the substance of seong(性) is one of bonyeonjiseong(本然之性). If you, as Seosan did, look at gijiljiseong(氣質之性) as seong(性), the human’s seong is different from that of the thing, since seong inherent in gijil becomes different, biased and blocked by gijil depending on its right and deviation. On the other hand, if you look at bonyeonjiseong as seong, as Husan did, both parts get Heaven-given gunsoonosang, therefore the human and the thing will share the same seong. In conclusion, it is confirmed that the theory of Inmulseongdongi(人物性同異論), shared by Seosan who represented the Jeongjae school and Husan who represented the Hanju school, kept developing as an extension of their sim theories in the 19th century, when the interpretation of these theories was strengthened, the Neo-confucianism characteristics.