『맹자』의 위상 논의를 통해 본 조선조 경학관의 한 양상

Abstract

Han Yu, a literati from Tang dynasty, was the first to outline a lineage of Confucian philosophy, which is as follows: Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, Zhou Gong, Confucius, Zengzi, Zisi, and Mencius. His statement that “should one seek to observe the way of sage (聖人), they ought to begin with Mencius” stands for his genealogy. Some Chŏson scholars discussed the stature of Mencius by borrowing this statement; by examining such discussions, this study aims to delineate one aspect of the view held by Chŏson scholars on Chinese Classics. Works discussed in the paper are arguments (論) written by 16th century scholars Ku Pongryŏng and Ki Taesŭng, along with the prefaces by 17th century scholar Cho Ik and 18th century scholar Yi Ik, attached to their works on Mencius. Ku Pongryŏng claimed that should one seek to observe the way of a sage, they ought to begin by pursuing Mencius’s mind. In the perspective of Song era Neo-Confucianism, and by adding his own original interpretation – transferring the way (道) through the mind (心) - he expounded the validity of Han Yu’s statement. Ki Taesŭng sought to add to the Han Yu’s original statement, suggesting that Six Classics (六經) are instruments of the pursuit. He argued that learning the essence of Six Classics is crucial in order to learn the way of sage and he believed that Mencius’s discussions reflect the essence of the Six Classics. However, both agreed that Han Yu’s scholarship itself is unrefined, and concluded by advising the reader to read and study according to the orders presented by Zhu Xi. On the other hand, Cho Ik of 17th century argued in the preface of Edition for Studying Mencius (學孟編) that the way of sage is too big and wide to be easily learned, and therefore it should be pursued through Mencius. Furthermore, he ruled that without learning Mencius one cannot learn the way of sage, and that reading The Analects first may lead one to heresy, since one would not be able to grasp the significations of the words - and thereby reversed the order of reading suggested by Zhu Xi. Yi Ik, of 18th century, said in the preface of Quick Notes from Reading Mencius (孟子疾書) that Mencius succeeded Zengzi and Zisi and wrote seven chapters (七篇) of Mencius after Confucius had passed. Yi Ik also wrote that Mencius comes later - chronologically speaking - and that its message is more detailed. Since it is comparatively recent and its words are clear, Yi Ik argued that Mencius should be the starting point in seeking the way of sage. In Yi Ik’s perspective, the primary purpose is to properly understand Mencius, as it confers the way of sage in the most detailed fashion; and Zhu Xi’s annotation is a mere an instrument in achieving said purpose. In two 16th century writings, the writers ruminate over root of Neo-Confucianism - Han Yu’s genealogy - and what it means to revere Mencius. Their purpose, it seems, is to probe if Han Yu’s words contradict Zhu Xi’s teachings, and to come up with an appropriate response in such case. On contrary, after 17th century there is a tendency to emphasize the stature of Mencius in order to question Zhu Xi’s perspective on Four Books (四書). Cho Ik reversed the reading order of Four Books suggested by Zhu Xi, and rearranged the chapters and verses of Mencius on accords with his own viewpoint. He especially stressed the stature of Mencius to justify his reasons for having his book in a different system from Zhu Xi’s work. Yi Ik criticized the academic trend which blindly followed Zhu Xi’s interpretations, and accounted his intention for writing Quick Notes from Four Books, saying that academic progress comes from having doubts. Here, the significance of the classic - Mencius - is the key basis for the argument that one should not be bound to existing annotations in order to reach its essence. To summarize, the validity of the statement by Han Yu - “should one seek to observe the way of sage, they ought to begin with Mencious” - was discussed as a starting point of Zengzi and Zhu Xi studies. And after 17th century, it also functioned as a basis in relativizing the interpretation of Zengzi and Zhu Xi. It appears that the way the stature of Mencius is discussed is closely related to the attitude scholars of each era have towards Zhu Xi Studies.