서애 류성룡의 양명학 이해에 보이는 ‘양면성’ 해명 시론 - ‘尊德性’ vs ‘道問學’ 문제를 매개로

Abstract

This article attempts to resolve the problem of duality in Ryu Seong-ryong’s approaches to Yangming Learning by addressing the classic tension between “honoring the moral nature (zun dexing)” and “following the path of inquiry and study (dao wenxue).” Scholarship to date has shown that Ryu Seong-ryong endorsed Yangmin Learning on the one hand, and denied its legitimacy on the other. With regard to this problem, this article explains that it arose from the classic tension between Zhu Xi’s emphasis on “following the path of inquiry and study” and Wang Yangming’s emphasis on “honoring the moral nature.” This article argues the following points. First, Ryu Seong-yong emphasizes the balance between “honoring the moral nature” and “following the path of inquiry and study” referring to its locus classicus in the Doctrine of the Mean. Second, Ryu Seong-ryong makes it clear that, although inseparable, “honoring the moral nature” should be primary, and “following the path of inquiry and study” should be considered secondary as the practical method of honoring the moral nature. “Honoring the moral nature” is the purpose of learning and, therefore, sets the direction of moral self-cultivation; “following the path of inquiry and study” is the practical road map for “honoring the moral nature.” Ryu Seong-ryong heads the sequence in which the two are state in the Doctrine of the Mean: “honoring the moral nature(ⓐ) and following the path of inquiry and study(ⓑ)” instead of vice versa. In this view, Ryu arguest that the former should be the basis on which the latter could be achiev ed. ⓐ sets the direction of learning and its ultimate goals, and ⓑ is the road map of the empirical world one should follow ⓐ=ⓑ but as ⓐ⊃ⓑ. Third, Ryu takes seriously the Learning of the Mind which emphasizes “honoring the moral nature.” Based on such premise, Ryu also emphasizes “following the path of inquiry and study” which begins with the inv estigation of things. In this regard, honoring the moral nature precedes following the path of inquiry and study; howev er, in fact, the two are inseparable. In this way, Ryu Seong-ryong understands the relation between Zhuzi Learning and Yangming Learning. Speaking of Zhuzi Learning, Ryu points out its weakness in terms of “honoring the moral nature”; speaking of Yangming Learning, he points out its neglect of “following the path of inquiry and study.” In this way, this article explains the apparent duality of Ryu’s approaches to Yangming Learning.