심학의 눈으로 본 고봉학

Abstract

To this day, there appeared about 30 papers on the correlation between Lee Hwang and Yangming studies, as well as the comparative research between Toe-gye studies and Yangming studies. However, there is only one paper concerning the correlation between Gi Dae Seung and Yangming studies, and the comparative research on them is still an unexplored field. Therefore in this paper, the author wants to take a comparative research on the theory of Principle–Ether–Mind–Nature (理氣心性論) of Gi Dae Seung and the study of Mind of Wang Yangming to find the relationship between the theories of those two scholars. This topic is focused on three aspects as follows. First, ‘the Nature is the Principle (性卽理)’ or ‘the Mind is the Principle (心卽理)’? Second, is the ‘innate knowledge (良知)’ the ‘Haevenly principle’ (天理)? Third, is man or great man (聖人) the heart of the world? And the answers are as follows. Firstly, about the issue of ‘the Nature is the Principle’ or ‘the Mind is the Principle’, it is obvious that Gi Dae Seung’s position is the former. Though he thinks that the Mind (心) is the combination (合) of the Principle (理) and the Ether (氣), that is absolutely different from the argument of Yangming’s study of Mind according to which ‘the Mind is the Principle’. In Yangming’s study of Mind, the Mind is not inherent in ‘the constant principle (定理)’. Connecting with all things in the world, the innate mind of man can independently make judgments on the right and wrong (是非), show the practical will and energetically take actions. The ‘practical principle’ which is originated from the mind is the very ‘Principle (理)’. That process from the Mind to the Principle is expressed in the statement that ‘the Mind is the Principle’. But in Go-bong’s thought, the Principle is the substance of the whole world, and the Mind is the perfect fulfillment of the transcendental ‘constant principle’ in the form of ‘nature (性)’. Thus the Mind ‘includes all the principles (具衆理)’, and that is the process from the Principle to the Mind. The Mind that can ‘include all principles and apply in all things (具衆理應萬事)’ has the superintendence over the Principle but has not the creativity over it. The next issue is the question that ‘is the innate knowledge the Heavenly principle?’. Gi Dae Seung refutes the thought of Luo Qinshun according to which ‘the innate knowledge is not the Heavenly principle’ and accepts the opposite thought expressed by the school of Mind of Yangming. The Heavenly principle that Gi Dae Seung mentions can be divided into the nature (性) that is not yet awakened (未發) (the substance 體) and the feeling (情) that is already awakened (已發) (the function 用). And the innate knowledge is regarded as equivalent to the function in the awakening state, not the substance in the pre-awakening state. The substance of the Heavenly principle is the immovable (不動) metaphysical principle and moral standard, so the innate knowledge cannot be the substance of the Heavenly principle although it can express that Heavenly principle. The innate knowledge has only the role in showing the Heavenly principle - as the substance – through the function of loving and respecting. However in the study of Mind of Yangming school, the Heavenly principle is the very innate knowledge. The Heavenly principle is not divided into the substance in pre-awakening state and the function. The Heavenly principle is not the metaphysical principle or the moral standard, but the organic attribute of the mind that ‘changes according to the circumstances’ (隨時變易), and the main agent in the relationship with all things in the world, so it is the very innate knowledge. The last issue mentioned in the paper is the argument concerning ‘the heart of the world (天地之心)’. Wang Shouren thinks that ‘man’ is the heart of the world, while Gi Dae Seung states that ‘great man (聖人)’ is the heart of the world. In Wang Shouren’s viewpoint, regardless of all differences in rank and disposition, all men by nature have the innate knowledge that is the main agent of the interrelation and mutual apperception with things in the world, thus all men can become the heart of the world. In contrary, Gi Dae Seung thinks that there is in this world the Way (道) as the unchangeable rule (所以然之故), only great man (聖人) can apprehend perfectly that Way and conserve it, and thus only great man can become the heart of the world. The ordinary man cannot directly understand the Way, only through the 6 classics that contain great men’s teaching on the Way can ordinary men have chances to approach the Way. Go-bong studies are different from the study of Mind of Yangming. Go-bong studies lay stress on the universal Principle, not the Mind as the subject of the individual. And the innate knowledge which is considered the subject of the life in the viewpoint of the study of Mind is limited to the moral function which is the appearance of the universal Principle. Moreover, in Go-bong’s viewpoint, who can preserve perfectly that Principle is only the great man, not the ordinary man. That difference in the metaphysical theories makes further differences in the theories of cultivation and governance.