본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

The Duality of Citing Zhu Xi in the Annotations of the Daodejing during the Joseon Dynasty

2

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류한국어와문학

초록

The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics of five Joseon dynasty annotations of the Daodejing, a sutra of Daoism. The Joseon dynasty was a country that adopted Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism as its state ideology; as a result, Daoism and Buddhism were considered heresies. In order to investigate how the Daodejing, a book of heresy, was understood in Joseon, this article will focus on how Zhu Xi was cited in the annotations of the Daodejing. The way Zhu Xi was cited in these books can simultaneously reveal the annotators’ thoughts about both Laozi and Zhu Xi. Two conclusions were drawn from this study. First, the annotators from the Joseon dynasty understood dao as a metaphysical system of Neo-Confucianism and Zhouyi 周易 (Book of Changes). In so doing, they attempted to ascertain the common characteristics between Confucianism and Daoism. Secondly, there were two different purposes in the citations of Zhu Xi in the annotations of the Daodejing: to seek new alternative systems of thought using Zhu Xi’s authority and to defend the academic conformity of Neo-Confucianism by reinterpreting Laozi’s thoughts in the perspective of Neo-Confucianism.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics of five Joseon dynasty annotations of the Daodejing, a sutra of Daoism. The Joseon dynasty was a country that adopted Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism as its state ideology; as a result, Daoism and Buddhism were considered heresies. In order to investigate how the Daodejing, a book of heresy, was understood in Joseon, this article will focus on how Zhu Xi was cited in the annotations of the Daodejing. The way Zhu Xi was cited in these books can simultaneously reveal the annotators’ thoughts about both Laozi and Zhu Xi. Two conclusions were drawn from this study. First, the annotators from the Joseon dynasty understood dao as a metaphysical system of Neo-Confucianism and Zhouyi 周易 (Book of Changes). In so doing, they attempted to ascertain the common characteristics between Confucianism and Daoism. Secondly, there were two different purposes in the citations of Zhu Xi in the annotations of the Daodejing: to seek new alternative systems of thought using Zhu Xi’s authority and to defend the academic conformity of Neo-Confucianism by reinterpreting Laozi’s thoughts in the perspective of Neo-Confucianism.

참고문헌 (14)

  1. Bak, Se-dang, "新註道德經", ~
  2. Cheng, Xuanying, "老子義疏", ~
  3. Hong, Seok-ju, "訂老", ~
  4. Seo, Myeong-eung, "道德指歸", ~
  5. Wang, Bi, "老子注", ~
  6. Yan, Zun, "老子指歸" (1994), Zhonghua Shuju
  7. Yi, Chung-ik, "椒園談老", ~
  8. Yi, I, "醇言", ~
  9. Zhu, Xi, "朱子語類" (1984), Zhonghua Shuju
  10. Jo, Min Hwan, "Interpretations of the Daodejing" (2009), Seowon
  11. Kim, Hak Mok, "Bak Se-dang’s Interpretations of the Daodejing" (1999), Yemun Seowon
  12. Kim, Hak Mok, "Hong Seok-ju’s Interpretations of the Daodejing: Corrections for the Daodejing" (2001), Yemun Seowon
  13. Kim, Youn-Gyeong, "A Study of the Hagok School’s Interpretation of the Daodejing", 박사, pp.2009
  14. Legge, James, "The Sacred Books of China: The Texts of Taoism" (1891), Oxford University Press

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)