恆齋李匡臣緒論 : 初期江華學派における陽明學受容

Abstract

This paper deals with Yi Kwangsin 李匡臣 (known as Hangjae 恆齋, 1700-1744), a follower of Jeong Jedu 鄭斉斗, and an important figure in the early Kanghwa school 江華學派. Jeong Jedu (known as Hagok 霞谷, 1649-1736) is renowned as the earliest genuine recipient of the Wang Yangming school 陽明學 during the Yi Dynasty, and his school is known as the Kanghwa school because he went into reclusion on Kanghwa Island 江華島 in his later years. In recent years the existence of Yi Kwangsin's collection known as the Hangjae-Hui･Kwangsingong-yugo (the previous version) 恆齋諱匡臣公遺稿 (先藁) has come to light. Yi Kwangsin who became versed in Wang Yang-ming school through the teaching of Jeong Jedu argued on the similarities and differences between the schools of Zhu Xi 朱熹 and Wang Yang-ming, and following the death of Jeong Jedu, he was asked by Jedu's first son, Jeong Hu'il 鄭厚一 to assist in editting the posthumous writings of his father. If the intellectual point of view of Yi Kwangsin were to be summed up in a word, it would be as a mediator of the Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming schools. The intent of Zhu Xi's “knowledge of principle through the investigation of things" 格物窮理 was not intended for one to learn the principle of things, but the aim was practice in knowing the principle of mind through knowing the principle of things, which is nothing other than the Xin-xue 心學 of Wang Yang-ming. The greatest point of difference between the Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming schools was over the interpretation of Confucian adage “knowing the character of things leads to knowledge"格物致知, but this was nothing more than an argument over different exegetical and reading traditions of the classics, in terms of actual practice, there was no outstanding difference between the two schools. Such was Yi Kwangsin's stated position. He was determined to reconcile the Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming schools, or more properly the schools of Zhu Xi and Hagok. This line of argument surely reflects the social and intellectual circumstances of the Yi Dynasty which was utterly dominated by the authority of the Zhu Xi school. Among the pronouncements of Jeong Jedu, there are found a number that tend to reconcile the Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming schools. Nevertheless, only when his interpretations of the The Great Learning 大學 and other works are examined thoroughly in contrast to those of Yi Kwangsin, can one gain a renewed appreciation of just how accurate and systematic was Jeong Jedu's understanding of the Wang Yang-ming school. As noted above, reflecting on the circumstances of Yi Dynasty social conditions and thought, the existence of pronouncements, or lack there of, tending to reconcile the two schools cannot be linked immediately to a particular intellectual position； and one must, in the end, take the trouble of examining each thinker's concrete understanding of the schools of Zhu Xi and Wang Yang-ming. It is difficult to endorse the traditional view that interprets Jeong Jedu's intellectual position as seeking to reconcile the two schools.