17세기 말 心性論에 있어서 儒佛 교섭의 가능성

Abstract

During the 18th century, an academic argument arose concerning human nature and animal nature (人物性同異論爭) among members of the Seo-in (西人) Faction. This argument has been judged to be the reason for development of Neo-Confucianism. But in the late 17th century, there was another argument about taekeuk (太極 the source of the dual principle of yin and yang). Chu Shi had derived ideas of 'the whole embodies a single taekeuk (統體太極)' and 'each things contain their own taekeuk (各具太極)' from the theory of the one principle and its diversity. The theory of taekeuk consists of the ideas, and it is the ontology of the mind. Therefore it is possible to regard the argument about taekeuk as the beginning of the argument about human nature and animal nature which was led by Park Se-chae, Kwon Sang-yu, Jo Seong-gi, and Kim Chang-heup. Kwon Sang-yu is a younger brother of Kwon Sang-ha, a leading authority of the theory of different natures of human and animal. Thus his theory of taekeuk was likely to be the foundation of the theory of different natures of human and animal. On the other hand, Kim Chang-heup is a younger brother of Kim Chang-hyeop, a leading authority of the theory of identical natures of human and animal. So it is possible to see his theory of taekeuk as the foundation of the theory of identical natures of human and animal. In the late 17th century, there was an argument concerning the nature of the mind (心性) within the Buddhist community. A Buddhist monk named Woonbong Daeji published a book titled “shimseongnon (心性論 a thesis on the nature of the mind)”. This book tells us that the argument was mainly about the theory of a monistic nature of the mind (一性論) and the theory of a pluralistic nature of the mind (多性論). The former theory asserts that all beings possess dharma-kāya (法身 the body of dharma), but that it only achieves completion and perfection when all minds are united(人人法身摠爲一者). The latter theory asserts that all beings possess an autonomous mind and all beings are complete and contain perfect dharma-kāya (人人法身各各圓滿). This argument is logically similar with the argument about human nature and animal nature. The Confucian idea of 'each thing contains its own taekeuk' matches the theory of a pluralistic nature of the mind, while the idea of 'the whole embodies a single taekeuk' matches the theory of a monistic nature of the mind in logic. The former match emphasizes the haecceity of all beings, and the latter match emphasizes the holistic feature of all beings. When one consider this logical similarity, it is possible to draw a possibility of ideological interaction between Confucianism and Buddhism. Buddhism is based on the idea that all beings posses their own nature of Buddha. Thus the Buddhist theory of the nature of the mind matches the theory of identical natures of human and animal of the Nak school (洛學) and is similar to Kim Chang-heup's theory of taekeuk. He had a profound knowledge of Buddhism and associated with Buddhists throughout his life. It was very common that a Confucian studying at Buddhist temple and associating with Buddhists at the time, especially Confucians from the Nak school. From the information gathered above, the theories of the original nature in Buddhism and Confucianism are likely to be derived from the ideological interaction between Confucianism and Buddhism.