南冥 철학과 ‘一本’論

Abstract

It is generally acknowledged that Nam-Myung’s thought characteristically centers on practice rather than theory. While he pays considerable attention to such metaphysical concepts as Human nature and T’ien Tao in pursuit of theoretical inquiry, Nam-Myung emphatically puts stress on everyday life when dealing with practice. For him the effectiveness of cultivation process is considered more significant than theoretical coherence. Thus he has chiefly tried to grasp the kernel of a sentence and to make it affect the practical cultivation, not adhering to its minutest interpretations. As a result Nam-Myung has subjectively selected among Neo-Confucian literatures, the traces of this selection can be found in a number of items recorded in 『Hakgi-Yupyeon』. There is no consensus yet about whether Nam-Myung was a Neo-Confucian or a Yangmingnian scholar. Both of those holding that he was an admitted Neo-Confucian and those arguing that he had some certain Yangmingnian tendencies, are in agreement with that Nam-Myung emphasized act up to one´s principles. In view of his letter to Toegye, it is undeniable that the then principal academic trend leaned toward Neo-Confucian theories. It might be contended that in reaction against this trend Nam-Myung attached importance to act up to one´s principles. However, this contention has little evidence. The reason why Nam-Myung put emphasis on act up to one´s principles is that he saw cultivation and Reality not as separable but as essentially unitary. This conception of the relationship between cultivation and Reality is in accordance with the thoughts in Confucius, Mencius, 『The Doctrine of the Mean』, 『I Ching』 upon which T’ien Tao and Jen Tao are regarded as one and the same. And at the same time this has much similarities with Ch’eng Hao’s thought. Of course Nam-Myung may be classified as a Neo-Confucian because Chu Hsi’s words occurs most frequently among the 900 items in 『Hakgi-Yupyeon』. But it also includes around 100 items of Ch’eng Hao’s words. I am not claiming that this would show that Nam-Myung inherited Ch’eng Hao’s idea of essentially one. What is clear is that Nam-Myung attached importance to act up to one´s principles since he took cultivation and Reality as unitary in essence. By means of 6 drawings, Nam-Myung shows that Moral mind, Human nature, and T’ien are unitary. As long as Moral mind, Human nature, and T’ien are regarded as unitary, act up to one’s principles or cultivation can also be counted as one and the same with Reality. This is the kernel of Nam-Myung’s theory of essentially one theory, and the very evidence that he made much of act up to one’s principles.