퇴계 이황의 ‘무극이태극(無極而太極)’ 해석 변천 과정 연구

Abstract

This paper aims to examine in detail how T’oegye interpreted ‘That which has no Pole and yet (itself) the Supreme Pole(無極而太極)’ and the transition of its interpretations. According to “Explanation of the Diagram of the Heavenly Mandate(天命圖說)”, Toegye interpreted the ‘Supreme Ultimate(太極)’ as ‘principle(理)’ through the framework of ‘Heaven(天)=principle(理)=Supreme Ultimate(太極)-origination･flourishing･advantage･firmness(元亨利貞).’ In addition, it was considered that ‘That which has no Pole and yet (itself) the Supreme Pole(無極而太極)’ expresses the metaphysical characteristics of principle(理). Furthermore, he interpreted ‘The Absolute(pole, 極)’ as ‘principle(理)’ and interpreted ‘That which has no Pole and yet (itself) the Supreme Pole(無極而太極)’ as “the absolute of non-being and the absolute of great” However, in 1570, Ki Dae-seung criticized T’oegye’s interpretation above and argue to T’oegye that ‘The pole(Ultimate, 極)’ of ‘That which has no Pole and yet (itself) the Supreme Pole(無極而太極)’ was a metaphor, so it was not right to see ‘The pole(極)’ directly as ‘principle(理)’. T’oegye admitted that he misinterpreted ‘The pole(極)’ as ‘principle(理)’, and revised his theory based on the interpretation of Huang Gan(黃幹), Wu Cheng(吳澄), and Yao Lu(饒魯). And T’oegye changed his interpretation of “That which has no Pole and yet (itself) the Supreme Pole” according to Ki Dae-Seung claimed.