亂中의 人心과 義理 — 旅軒 張顯光의 <龍蛇日記>를 중심으로 —

Abstract

This article focuses on Yeheon’s consideration and solution for the hostile of social circumstances during the time of the Japanese invasions. Yeheon thought that the Chosun dynasty must have faced such disorder before the war happened. People including the king and his subjects did not live their life according to the righteous principle, and the state was not under control in a way that it should accomplish the Dao. Yeheon thought that the Japanese invasion, which is more like a flood or certain disasters, was not primarily responsible for the harshest of environments. Yeheon paid his attention to the fact that even after the Japanese invasions ended, people were still in disorder losing their mind-and-heart. People’s mind-and-heart became that of animals because of starvation and disease. This is because the government made people trapped in a difficult situation by forcing them to prepare for military operations, rather than taking care of them. As a result, in Yeheon’s view, the main cause of the social disorder was people’s lack of mind-and-heart, which brought about their actions of brutality like those of animals. Although Yeheon himself did not form righteous armies, he instead suggested a right path to overcome and solve the social disorder by describing and analyzing in detail the reality of the war as well as the problems of policies. In particular, Yeheon studied the Zhou yi at the time because understanding the principle of fortune and misfortune, as well as the rise and fall of a state, could give a proper solution to the social turmoil of his times. In Yeheon’s eyes, the most important thing to do in the time of people’s losing mind-and-heart was to follow li and accomplish the Dao in their daily life. And this was what he, as a gentleman, should do. Yeheon thought that in spite of the harshest of environments, one can still preserve one’s grace and dignity, which would overcome one’s adversity. This gives us the following questions: should one put aside one’s grace and dignity to overcome wartime perils? Or in so doing, one should face more severe time after a short period of peace and stability? These questions concern the relationship between one’s morality and the state’s responsibility, and what is the right way of doing one’s duty to the state is the main philosophical subject in this article.