南塘 韓元震의 「題寒泉詩後」에 대한 泉門의 대응 (2) - 朴聖源의 「韓南塘詩跋辨說」을 중심으로 - (Cheonmun(泉門)’s response to ‘JeHancheonsihu(題寒泉詩後)’ by Namdang(南塘) Han Won-jin(韓元震) focusing on the ‘HannamdangSibalByunseol(韓南塘詩跋辨說)’ by Park Seong-won(朴聖源))

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 한국문화 / 100호 / 213 ~ 249페이지
· 저자명 : 문석윤

초록

On the occasion of Choi Seok(崔祏: 1714-?)’s visit to Han Won-jin(韓元震: 1682-1751) Yi Jae(李縡: 1680-1746) wrote “Hancheonsi(寒泉詩)” and criticized Han, and responding to it Han also wrote “JeHancheonsihu(題寒泉詩後)” to criticize the views of Yi. However, when Yi passed away suddenly, the response to him remained as a task for his disciples, that is, Cheonmun(泉門). Choi Seok’s Cheonmunsabaekrok(泉門俟百錄) shows an aspect of such a response. He focused on the overall criticism of Han, but in the confrontation between Han and Yi Gan(李柬) within Hohak(湖學), he mainly rides on the stance of Yi Gan, and therefore, he could not reach any clear perception of the identity of Yi Jae or Rakhak(洛學), which was distinguished from all of them.
Park Seong-won朴聖源(1697-1757) basically defended Yi Jae's theory of mind and nature in “HannamdangSibalByeonseol(韓南塘詩跋辨說)”, emphasizing that Yi's theory of mind and nature could encompass the controversy theories within Hohak. In other words, according to Park, in addition to insisting on the identity of humans and animals, Yi also insists that the difference between humans and animals is not in the quality of nature but in the practice of the mind for the quality of nature, and it can solve Han Won-jin’s concerns about the blurring of the distinction between humans and animals. And in addition to insisting on the identity of the original mind of saints and ordinary people, Yi also permits that there can be some difference between saints and ordinary people in terms of the precise and excellent ki[血氣精英] aspect of the mind, so it also can be said that the position of the other side was also reflected.
Park Seong-won, through the process of defending Yi Jae and criticizing Han Won-jin, centered on the advanced awareness of the origianal li[本然之理] and the original ki[本然之氣], established the identity and main purport of Rakhak, and affected other scholars such as Kim Won-haeng(金元行: 1702-1772) and Yim Seong-joo(任聖周: 1711-1788) etc.

영어초록

On the occasion of Choi Seok(崔祏: 1714-?)’s visit to Han Won-jin(韓元震: 1682-1751) Yi Jae(李縡: 1680-1746) wrote “Hancheonsi(寒泉詩)” and criticized Han, and responding to it Han also wrote “JeHancheonsihu(題寒泉詩後)” to criticize the views of Yi. However, when Yi passed away suddenly, the response to him remained as a task for his disciples, that is, Cheonmun(泉門). Choi Seok’s Cheonmunsabaekrok(泉門俟百錄) shows an aspect of such a response. He focused on the overall criticism of Han, but in the confrontation between Han and Yi Gan(李柬) within Hohak(湖學), he mainly rides on the stance of Yi Gan, and therefore, he could not reach any clear perception of the identity of Yi Jae or Rakhak(洛學), which was distinguished from all of them.
Park Seong-won朴聖源(1697-1757) basically defended Yi Jae's theory of mind and nature in “HannamdangSibalByeonseol(韓南塘詩跋辨說)”, emphasizing that Yi's theory of mind and nature could encompass the controversy theories within Hohak. In other words, according to Park, in addition to insisting on the identity of humans and animals, Yi also insists that the difference between humans and animals is not in the quality of nature but in the practice of the mind for the quality of nature, and it can solve Han Won-jin’s concerns about the blurring of the distinction between humans and animals. And in addition to insisting on the identity of the original mind of saints and ordinary people, Yi also permits that there can be some difference between saints and ordinary people in terms of the precise and excellent ki[血氣精英] aspect of the mind, so it also can be said that the position of the other side was also reflected.
Park Seong-won, through the process of defending Yi Jae and criticizing Han Won-jin, centered on the advanced awareness of the origianal li[本然之理] and the original ki[本然之氣], established the identity and main purport of Rakhak, and affected other scholars such as Kim Won-haeng(金元行: 1702-1772) and Yim Seong-joo(任聖周: 1711-1788) etc.

참고자료

· 없음