삼봉 정도전의 벽이단론과 그 해석 문제 - 심문천답과 심기리편을 중심으로 (Exclusion of Heresies and Convergence of Three Religious Thoughts in ambong Jung Do-Jeon's Neo-Confucianism)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국철학사연구회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국철학논집 / 34호 / 7 ~ 40페이지
· 저자명 : 리기용

초록

이 논문은 조선전기 삼봉三峰 정도전鄭道傳(1342∼1398)의 벽이단闢異端(Excluding Heresy) 문제와 그 해석을 다룬 글이다. 조선 건국의 이념과 제도와 문물의 이론적 초석을 제공한 정도전의 대표적인 벽이단서로 간주된 일련의 저술 심문천답心問天答(1375), 심기리편心氣理篇(1394), 불씨잡변佛氏雜辨(1398), 특히 앞의 두 저술에 나타난 벽이단 문제를 다루었다. 정도전의 벽이단 특히 불교비판 문제에 대한 이해와 왜곡은 삼봉 사후부터 현대까지 계속되어 왔다.
정도전의 세 저술에 나타난 벽이단론의 변화는 유교의 자기 반성, 도교와 불교의 정치적 비판과 유교 중심적 수용, 그리고 정치적 필요성에 따른 교세의 축소를 위한 정책적 비판의 방식으로 전개된다. 그럼에도 불구하고 위의 세 저술이 그의 대표적 도교와 불교비판서로 간주된 것은 정도전의 글 그 자체에 기인한 것이라기보다, 오히려 권근의 주석과 서문에 나타난 평가에 기초한 것이다. 설상가상으로 연구자들이 갖고 있던 오해의 소지는 심에 대한 개념이 변화되었음에도 불구하고 불씨잡변에 나타난 불교비판을 전제로 앞의 두 저술에 무비판적으로 이해하였고, 심기리편에 나타난 개념을 심문천답에까지 소급 적용시켜 해석하였기 때문이다. 심문천답에 나타난 개념은 성리학적 심 개념으로 허령지각한 마음이 천리를 지각하고 선을 행할 수 있도록 하는 상식적 판단의 주체였다면, 심기리편에 나타난 마음은 불교의 일체의 인연화합이 일어나는 장인 주관적이면서도 초탈적인 심을 은유한 것이었다. 그리고 정도전의 일련의 저술에 일관되게 나타난 벽이단의 정신은 다름 아닌 인욕적 인심에 대한 천리天理이었으며, 주관적 마음과 육체적 기질에 대한 생리生理이자 의리義理였고, 인연화합의 허구적 심리현상에 대한 실리實理라는 기준이었다. 즉 정도전이 비판한 대상은 성리학적 리理의 필요충분조건을 충족시키지 못한 당시의 세태에 대한 비판이었다. 그리고 그 내용은 유교의 자기비판이었고, 유교를 통해 도교와 불교의 폐해를 극복하려 하였으며, 유교의 공고화와 부흥을 위해 불교의 폐단을 비판하는 것이었다.
이 고찰을 통하여 정도전의 벽이단론은 성리학적 정체성 확립을 위한 유학의 자기 비판적 태도인 동시에 도교와 불교의 포용 혹은 조화라는 융복합적 가능성이 포함되어 있으며, 정치적 이유로 불교 비판의 목소리가 점진적으로 강해진 것임을 알 수 있을 것이다. 부차적으로 거시적 안목에서 현대사회에서 유교의 벽이단론이 갖는 의미를 반추해 보는 한편, 과거의 종교대립과 갈등, 그리고 화합의 모색 문제를 재해석함으로써 종교다원주의 사회 속에 나타난 종교적 갈등 문제를 해결할 수 있는 방안을 모색해 볼 수 있을 것이다.

영어초록

This thesis focuses itself on understanding of anti‐heresy view of Early Chosun Neo‐Confucianism ‐ viewpoint of Confucianism toward Buddhism and Taoism. More specifically, this thesis discusses the criteria and of heresy while focusing on the understanding of Sambong Jeong, Do‐Jeon (1342~1398), who contributed to foundation of Chosun dynasty. Jeong, Do‐Jeon's writings on philosophy, economics and politics, political exclusion of Buddhism, and his writing on criticism of Buddhism show different attitudes. Former studies suggested that Jeong, Do‐Jeon criticized Buddhism and Taoism. However, this theory would like to add another view point that Jeong, Do‐Jeon also suggested harmony and tolerance. The contemporary reaction of buddhists shall also be given in this theory. Through this study, it can suggest a way to solve religious conflicts and make harmony by re‐interpreting religious conflicts of past, as well as ruminate the meanings of anti‐heresy of Neo‐Confucianism in current society's view Anti‐heresy of Neo‐Confucianism is a view point that excludes heresy to protect the original. Anti‐heresy, which developed in early Chin dynasty (an ancient Chinese empire) by Confucius, became magnified in Neo‐Confucianism while criticizing Buddhism and Taoism. Scholars of Neo‐Confucianism in late Korea dynasty and Chosun dynasty used anti‐heresy in political and scholarly matters. Jeong, Do‐Jeon was representative scholar of anti‐heresy. His writings also are considered representative books of Early‐Chosun anti‐heresy, especially focusing on criticizing Buddhism.
Jeong, Do‐Jeon aimed for ideal society where ideas of Neo‐Confucianism are realized. He strictly applied such ideas in founding principle, national system, and culture. As Neo‐Confucianism of Chinese Song dynasty focused on criticizing Buddhism and Taoism, Jeong, Do‐Jeon kept the criticism. However, his first two writings have certain issues on being classified as anti‐heresy writings. That is because the two books rather focus on enlightenment and convergence instead of exclusion. Nevertheless, the two books are considered as anti‐heresy writings because Kwon, Keun judged so in his annotation and preface. Sim‐Mun‐Chun‐Dab(心問天答) is a book of question and answer, not inter‐criticism between Buddhism and Confucianism. This book actually criticized personal desires that set national security and stability of people’s lives away. Therefore, this book is a book that focuses on criticizing people who follow personal desire and set Confucian principles away.
Sim‐Ki‐Li‐Pyeon(心氣理篇) was thought of as the first major criticism toward Buddhism and Taoism as it was written after Jeong, Do‐Jeon’s exclusion of Buddhism in 1391. However, this book is rather a book of enlightenment than a book of criticism. Sim, Gi, and Ri represent Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism respectably. This book was composed of three chapters, which are Sim‐Nan‐Ki(心難氣), Ki‐Nan‐Sim(氣難心) and Li‐Yu‐Sim‐Ki (理諭心氣). The chapters’ contents are Criticism of Taoism by Buddhism, Criticism of Buddhism by Taoism, and Enlightenment of Buddhism and Taoism by Confucianism. Therefore, the book is about leading Buddhism and Taoism toward Confucianism by converging them in the view point of Confucianism.
Bul‐Ssi‐Jab‐Byeon (佛氏雜辨) is a book that criticizes Buddhism, and was written only a little prior to his death. However, due to political reason, this book was not published for certain period of time. Although it has the form of criticism of Buddhism, the content actually focuses on criticism of negative phenomenon of Buddhism rather than the theory and concept of Buddhism. Thus, it would be more valid to regard criticism of Buddhism as what was derived from realistic and political reason for tactical purposes. Therefore, it is more valid to regard this criticism as what was overestimated due to Jeong, Do‐Jeon’s political standpoint. Also, such evaluation was more from Kwon, Keun’s annotation and preface, instead of from the book’s original message. It would be more likely to understand that Jeong, Do‐Jeon rather tried to find way to keep Taoism and Buddhism in check, and make way to future together in harmony.
There is an idea that the three books have in common, which is that Confucianism is a theory of loyalty and pursuits live principles, and the that heresy is bounded to gain and loss and pursuits hollow ideas. In general term, heresy that he suggested seems to be Taoism and Buddhism from historical background. However, heresy can be any group that focuses on profit instead of loyalty, and fixed principle instead of live principle. From such view point, it can be considered that his criticism not only was made toward Taoism and Buddhism, but Confucianism itself was also target of criticism.

참고자료

· 없음