율곡 이이의 리기론에 있어 장재와 이정 형제의 영향 - 나흠순(羅欽順)과 박순(朴淳)의 기 철학 비판을 중심으로

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to showcase how Yi Yi 李珥 accepts or criticizes Cheng brothers(二程; 程顥 & 程頤)’s concept of Li 理, or Zhang Zai 張載’s concept of Qi 氣. Yi Yi‘s criticism of Zhang Zai is revealed in his rebuke of Luo Qin-shun 羅欽順, a Neo-Confucian scholar of the Ming dynasty, as well as his debate with Park Shun 朴淳, a scholar of the hwa-dam 花潭 school at 16th century in Korea. Yi Yi’s opposition of Zhang Zai was estabLished through his original interpretation of the Cheng brothers. Contrary to Luo’s scepticism of the concept of ‘Suo-yi 所以’ in his contention of ‘Li-Qi Yi-wu 理氣一物’, Yi Yi embraces 'Suo-yi’ - a dividing Line between the Xing-er-shang 形而上 and the Xing-er-xia 形而下 - as a depiction of the Li, and inherits the fundamental view-points of Cheng-Zhu(程朱). Through this debate, Yi Yi denounces those who understand Li as something that requires Qi as prerequisite, and grants Li an independent status. The dispute between Yi Yi and Park Shun is significant in that it displays the critical stance Yi Yi takes towards the trend of the philosophy of Qi which begins with Zhang Zai. Zhang Zai evaluates 'Ultimate Void(太虛)’ as something that is deduced from the phenomenal level of Qi, while simultaneously considered transcendental, as a substance(本體). Yi Yi is critical of this dual status, and reduces Qi to a cycle of movement between yin 陰 and yang 陽. Yi Yi also adheres to Cheng Yi(程頤)’s “動靜無端, 陰陽無始” while arguing that Qi can only be comprehended as an aspect of movement in the phenomenal level, the infinite cycle of yin and yang, but not as the foundation or Substance of such movement. For Yi Yi, the foundation of yin-yang movement is Li. This contention is in accord with that of the Cheng brothers who criticize Zhang Zai while refusing Qi the status as substance. On the other hand, Yi Yi claims that Li is neither 'predecessor' to Qi which gives birth to phenomenal being and its transformation, nor is 'successor', something that can be detected only after Qi's movement. The distance between Cheng-Zhu and Yi Yi becomes clear in his claim that Li cannot exist independent of Qi. Although Li and Qi are independent of each other that is only as concepts; they should not be considered separate, independent entities. As a substance, the two 'neither precede nor succeed', but on the phenomenal level, it might be stated that Li precedes Qi. As opposed to the philosophy of Yi Hwang 李滉, who Yi Yi is often seen in comparison to, Yi Yi ostensibly puts more emphasis on Qi. Nevertheless, when compared to the trend of the contemporary Chinese Neo-Confucianism, Yi Yi’s stance clearly differs from those who elevates the Qi to substantial status. The fact that Yi Yi also underscores the independency of the Li should never be overlooked.