소남 윤동규의 역학 사상 발굴과 재구성 및 사상사적 위상

Abstract

This paper examines Yun Dong-Gyu(尹東奎)'s theory of the Book of Changes. As An Jeong-Bok(安鼎福), who wrote “Haengjang[邵南先生尹公行狀]” and “Jemun[祭邵南尹丈東奎文]” said, Yun Dong-Gyu's writings are nothing worth passing down to future generations, and only a few volumes of “Jiui(志疑)” exist. However, An Jeong-Bok mentioned in “Haengjang” that Yi Ik(李瀷) praised Yun Dong-Gyu for knowing the Taixuanjing(『太玄經』) well. The Taixuanjing is a key part to understanding Yun Dong-Gyu's study of the Book of Changes. Yun Dong-Gyu's status in the Seongho School was good, and we can see from the comments made by his early disciples that he was faithful to his role as a disciple. However, later, in the ‘Gonghuiro(公喜怒) debate’ that originated from Shin Hu-Dam(愼後聃), the young disciples followed the position of Yi Byeong-Hyu(李秉休), who agreed with Shin Hu-Dam's views, rather than following Yun Dong-Gyu, and as a result, he was gradually forgotten in the Seongho School. What Yun Dong-Gyu wanted to say through “Gyesajiui(「繫辭志疑」)” is that we should not try to understand the Zhouyi(『周易』) through Shao Yong(邵雍)'s Jiayibeifa(加一倍法). Yun Dong-Gyu wanted to say that since “Gyesajeon(「繫辭傳」)” is like a legend to the Zhouyi, in order to understand the Zhouyi we must diligently read the “Gyesajeon” and from there the principles of the Zhouyi are contained in the Geon(乾卦) and Gon(坤卦) hexagrams. Yun Dong-Gyu's view on divination seems to have followed Yi Ik. However, while Yi Ik left many records, such as the “Sigwago(「蓍卦攷」)”, which questioned Zhu Xi’s calligraphy, Yun Dong-Gyu only left a few short writings within the scope of Yi Ik, as the degree of “self-confidence(自得)” was low. He claims that the “Ha-do(「河圖」)” and “Nak-seo(「洛書」)” of the Yixueqimeng(『易學啟蒙』) were influenced by the contents of “Xuanli(玄攡)” of the Taixuanjing and “Yiwenzhi(「藝文志」)” of the Hanshu(『漢書』). However, Yun Dong-Gyu’s argument stops here and cannot go any further. Taixuanjing is a book written during the Han Dynasty. The original purpose of Yun Dong-Gyu's study of Taixuanjing was to criticize Shao Yong and Zhu Xi(朱熹). It would have been good if it had been expanded to become a commentary on Zhouyi, but it only ends with criticism of Shao Yong and Zhu Xi. It is regrettable. Yun Dong-Gyu's I-xue gives us many implications today, so we need to ponder his words.