역학연구의 기본 범주와 상호관계 − 고려말 권근역학의 성격규정과 관련하여 −

Abstract

In this paper, the basic categories of study of I-CHING(易經) were divided into Symbols-Numbers(象數), Meaning-Principles(義理), and Divination(占筮), and their interrelationships were discussed, and Kwon Geun(權近)‘s study of ICHING was evaluated based on the criteria. The category of Symbols-Numbers(象數) includes all the details of the symbols and number of Si-Gwae(蓍卦). The category of Meaning-Principles(義理) includes the meaning(意) and Principles(理) that are based on Gwae-hyosa(卦爻辭) or appear in the Ten-commentary book(十翼) of I-CHING(易經). The category of Divination(占筮) also includes the interpretation of Gwae-hyosa(卦爻辭), which focuses on related Gil-Hyung(吉凶). Interrelationships are the relationships between Symbols-Numbers(象數) and Meaning-Principles(義理), Meaning-Principles(義理) and Divination(占筮), and Divination(占筮) and Symbols-Numbers(象數), and they also have overlapping relationships. Among them, the characteristics are particularly distinguished according to how you view the relationship between Symbols-Numbers(象數) and Meaning- Principles(義理), Meaning-Principles(義理) and Divination(占筮). Symbols-Numbers (象數) and Meaning-Principles(義理), can be evaluated according to the Symbols-Numbers(象數)’s root of Meaning-Principles(義理). In the case of a Meaning-Principles(義理) point of view, of course, the relationship weakens and the Symbols-Numbers(象數) basis decreases. On the other hand, from a Symbols-Numbers(象數) point of view, the relationship is naturally strengthened and the Symbols-Numbers(象數) basis increases. Meaning-Principles(義理) and Divination(占筮) are a matter of the original purpose and present use of I-CHING(易經), and can be viewed as mutually exclusive relationships or a consistent relationships. In conclusion, when looking at the categories and perspectives of a scholar's Symbols-Numbers(象數) and Meaning-Principles(義理), Meaning-Principles(義理) and Divination(占筮), it is of ‘separationof views’(離看) in the process because of the complexity and redundancy of these categories and their interrelationships, but comprehensively, it must be judged in a ‘combination of views’(合看) In particular, when looking at the position of organizing the history of study of I-CHING(易經), a criterion for relative evaluation of the so-called intensity is needed, which is a matter of originality and systemicity of 'establishment and generalization of independent principles'. This can be applied in common to all three categories. In this paper, we evaluated Kwon Geun(權近)‘s study of ICHING with this perspective. In terms of Symbols-Numbers(象數) and Meaning-Principles(義理) relationship, Kwon Geun(權近) basically recognized and followed the method of extracting Meaning-Principles(義理) based on Symbols-Numbers(象數) in the interpretive dimension of Gwae-hyosa(卦爻辭), but the Symbols-Numbers(象數) basis of Meaning-Principles(義理) is relatively low. In addition, it can be judged to be Meaning-Principles(義理) in terms of dealing with the meaning of Gwae-hyosa(卦爻辭) within a certain ideological system of his own. In the case of Kwon Geun(權近), it was considered that the relationship between Gil-Hyung(吉凶) and the principle of Gil-Hyung(吉凶) cannot be separated from each other. He argued on a principled level that the two were in parallel. but since the late Joseon Dynasty(朝鮮), when compared with Jeong Yak-yong(丁若鏞) and Shim Dae-yoon(沈大允), he has not originally established a theory on Divination(占筮). In the interpretation of Gwae-hyosa(卦爻辭), it also has a Meaning-Principles(義理) perspective that pursues the use of Meaning-Principles(義理) rather than the use of Divination(占筮), and this trend has since become the criterion for classifying scholars.