寒岡 鄭逑의 經學觀과 學庸解釋 (A Study on Hangang Jeong Gu's Views of Chinese Classics and Interpretations of Great Learning and The Doctrine of the Golden Mean)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 경북대학교 퇴계연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 영남학 / 58호 / 1 ~ 44페이지
· 저자명 : 최석기

초록

이 논문은 鄭逑(1543-1620)의 工夫論과 經學觀을 개괄한 뒤 『대학』․『중용』 해석에 대해 살펴본 것으로, 그 요지는 다음과 같다.
정구는 어려서부터 求道的 志向을 하여 博學과 實得을 추구하였으며, 體認․體察․體驗․體行의 공부를 견지하였다. 또한 내면공부에 힘써 思無邪․毋自欺․愼其獨 등을 중시하였으며, 敬을 聖學의 근본으로 보아 敬工夫에 주력하였다. 정구는 道問學․尊德性의 공부를 병행하되 실천방법에 있어서는 敬을 바탕으로 한 存養․省察을 중시하는 經學觀을 견지하였다. 그는 이런 관점에서 『心經』을 학문의 근본으로 삼아 敬의 의미를 발휘하여 『心經發揮』를 편찬하였다. 정구의 학문은 ‘敬’ 한 자로 집약되는데 『심경발휘』를 통해 드러내었다. 그는 程敏政의 『心經附註』를 개편하였는데, 가장 큰 특징이 三經․四書․宋儒說을 卷別로 분류하여 心學의 연원과 체계를 명료하게 구별한 점과 四書의 배열도 心之體와 心之用에 해당하는 부분을 나누어 구별한 점이다.
정구의 『대학』해석의 특징은 다음과 같다. 『심경발휘』 誠意章의 주석을 『심경부주』의 주석과 비교해 본 결과, 17조를 삭제하고 18조를 보충하였는데, 삭제한 설은 天德․誠․自欺 등 형이상학적 내용인 반면, 보충한 설은 毋自欺․愼其獨 등 구체적 실천에 관한 내용이다. 또 正心章의 주석을 『심경부주』의 주석과 비교해 본 결과, 37조를 삭제하고 25조를 보충하였는데, 삭제한 설은 정심장과 관련된 범범한 내용이고, 보충한 설은 정심공부의 핵심인 四有所에 관한 내용이다. 이를 통해 볼 때, 行의 구체적이고 실천적인 점에 중점을 둔 것을 알 수 있다. 다음 문집에 산견되는 『대학』 해석의 특징은, 主敬을 바탕으로 한 誠意․正心의 실천공부를 중시하며, 誠意章 해석에서 毋自欺 등 심성수양을 중시하며, 正心章 해석에서 心之體에 관한 存養工夫가 들어있는 것으로 보며, 齊家治國章 해석에서 齊家에 중점을 두어 化만 말한 것으로 본 것이다.
정구의 『중용』해석의 특징은 다음과 같다. 『심경발휘』에 수록된 제1장의 주석을 『심경부주』의 주석과 비교해 본 결과, 9조를 삭제하고 50조를 새로 발췌해 놓았는데, 삭제한 설은 未發已發에 대한 설이고, 보충한 설은 戒懼․愼獨․中和에 관한 설이다. 특히 未發의 戒愼恐懼와 已發의 愼獨을 存養․省察의 공부로 중시하고 있다. 이는 이론적 고찰보다는 실천적인 측면에 중점을 둔 것이다. 다음 『중용장 구』 제33장 제2절․제3절의 해석을 『심경부주』의 주석과 비교해 본 결과, 3조를 삭제하고 5조를 새로 보충하였는데, 삭제한 설은 이 2절과 연관성이 적은 내용이고, 보충한 설은 愼獨과 戒愼恐懼에 관한 내용이다. 문집에 산견되는 『중용』 해석을 검토해 본 결과, 전대의 설보다 더 심층적으로 해석한 측면이 있으며, 大全本 小註의 설과 文句의 字義를 정밀히 해석하는 성향도 확인할 수 있다.

영어초록

This study summed up the study theories and views of Chinese classics of Jeong Gu(1543-1620) and examined his interpretations of Great Learning and The Doctrine of the Golden Mean. The findings were summarized as follows: Being oriented toward the efforts of seeking truth at an early age, Jeong Gu sought after erudition and practical interest and stuck to the study of Chein, Chechal, Cheheom and Chehaeng. He also devoted himself to inner study, placing significance on Samusa, Mujagi, and Shingidok. Regarding Gyeong as the root of Seonghak, he was committed to the study of Gyeong. Those study theories of his were influenced by Jo Shi, his master. He kept the view of Chinese classics of studying both Domunhak and Jondeokseong and placing importance on Jonyang and Seolchal based on Gyeong in the practice methods. Taking that perspective, he found the base of his study in Shimgyeong and published Shimgyeongbalhui by exhibiting the significance of Gyeong.
His study can be integrated into “Gyeong,” which is demonstrated in his Shimgyeongbalhui. He reorganized Shimgyeongbuju by Jeong Min-jeong. Some of its biggest characteristics are distinguishing the origins and systems of Shimhak clearly by categorizing the Three Classics, Four Books, and Songyuseol by the volumes and dividing the arrangement of Four Books into the Shimjiche and Shimjiyong parts.
His interpretations of Great Learning can be summarized as follows: the study compared the Seonguijang annotations of Shimgyeongbalhui with the annotations of Shimgyeongbuju and found that 17 articles were deleted and 18 were supplemented. The deleted ones covered metaphysical content such as Cheondeok, Seong, and Jagi, whereas the supplemented ones covered the content of specific practice such as Mujagi and Shingidok. The study also compared the annotations of Jeongshimjang with those of Shimgyeongbuju and found that 37 articles were deleted and 25 were supplemented. The deleted ones covered common content related to Jeongshimjang, whereas the supplemented ones covered the content of Sayuso, the core of Jeongshim study. Those findings indicate that he focused on the specific and practical aspects of action.
His interpretations of Great Learning found throughout his collections of works had the following characteristics: first, he placed importance on the practice study of Seongui and Jeongshim based on Jugyeong; second, he placed importance on the practice study of mind cultivation such as Mujagi in his interpretations of Seonguijang; third, he considered Jonyang study about Shimjiche included in the interpretations of Jeongshimjang; and finally, he mentioned only Hwa in the interpretations of Jegachigukjang with a focus on Jega. Those interpretations of his are characterized by his focus on the cultivation of mind based on Jugyeong.
His interpretations of The Doctrine of the Golden Mean had the following characteristics: the study compared the annotations of Chapter 1 in Shimgyeongbalhui with those of Shimgyeongbuju and found that nine articles were deleted and 50 were newly extracted. The deleted ones addressed the theory of Mibalyibal, whereas the supplemented ones did the theories about Gyegu, Shindok, and Junghwa. He put special emphasis on Gyeshingonggu of Mibal and Shindok of Yibal as the study of Jonyang and Seongchal, which indicates that he focused on the practical aspects rather than theoretical considerations. The study also compared the interpretations of Sections 2 and 3 in Chapter 33 of Jungyongjanggu with the annotations of Shimgyeongbuju and found three articles were deleted and five were newly supplemented. The deleted ones covered the content whose connections to Section 2 were fewer, whereas the supplemented ones covered content about Shindok and Gyeshingonggu, being closely connected to Section 2. The study reviewed the content about his interpretations of The Doctrine of the Golden Mean found throughout his collections of works and found that he did more in-depth interpretations of certain aspects than previous theories and exhibited a tendency of interpreting closely the meanings of theories and phrases in Soju of Daejeon version.

참고자료

· 없음