三峰과 涵虛의 本體認識과 言語觀 比較硏究

• 영문명: A Comparative Study on Sambong and Hamhu's Views on Reality and Language
• 발행기관: 한국동양철학회
• 저자명: 張成在(Jang,Sung-ja)
• 간행물 정보: 『동양철학』東洋哲學 제19집, 1~26쪽, 전체 26쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 철학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2003.07.30

국문 초록

이 글은 본체에 대한 인식과 언어와 관련해, 三峰과 涵虛의 견해를 비교해 살펴보고자 하는 것이다. 먼저 本體認識에 대해 三峰은 現象 事物들을 단계적으로 窮理함으로써, 본체를 直觀하려는 ‘下學而上達’의 방법을 주장하고 있다. 涵虛는 主觀의 分別認識에 의한 착각으로 顯現된 現象을 궁리하는 것은 無意味하다고 보고, 오히려 잘못된 分別認識을 단계적으로 제거함으로써 本體를 認識하고자 하였으나, 궁극적으로는 이 단계 또한 부정되어야 한다고 보았다. 한편 言語觀에 대해 三峰은 본체를 言語로 표현하기는 어렵지만 가능하다고 보고, 正名論에 입각하여 現象 사물들에 확대해서 명칭(‘名’)과 의미(‘實’)를 一致시킴으로써 사회와 윤리에 절대적 기준을 마련하고자 하였다. 涵虛는 本體를 言語로 표현하는 것은 불가능하며, 이에 따라 言語를 ‘方便’으로 간주하여 일부러 名과 實을 不一致시켜 分別認識과 言語의 함정에서 벗어나 본체를 직접 체험토록 유도하고 있다.

영문 초록

The result of my comparative study on Sambong(三峰) and Hamhu(涵虛)'s views of reality and language is summed up as follows. First, on the problem of how to know reality, Sambong and Hamhu both make much of intuitive knowledge through gradual steps ; but Sambong thinks, on the presupposition of the reality of appearances, that the reality as the substance of appearances has to be grasped by steps, while Hamhu believes that the reality of appearances is nothing other than illusion owing to discriminative recognition between subject and object, and that knowledge of reality is only possible by gradual negation of the wrong discriminative recognition. Further, Hamhu emphasizes that the steps of knowledge are also illusions constituted by the discriminative misconception, and concludes that it is not possible to get at indiscriminate reality without redenying knowledge-steps. Second, on the problem of language, Sambong and Hamhu both take it difficult to define reality by language; but Sambong considers it possible, if difficult. And so he expands the defined concept of reality and applies it to things and matters. As result, he believes, it becomes possible to relate correctly each name(‘名’ concept) and meaning(‘實’ definition). In this Doctrine, he seeks to found absolute criteria on the problems of social and moral affairs. On the other hand, Hamhu considers it wrong to objectify reality by means of language. And he shows deliberately the relation of name and meaning to be inconsistent so as to lay stress on the insignificance of language. According to him, the purpose of the use of language lies in letting man reflect the fact that differential language drives man to wrong apperception about reality, and leading man at last to insight of reality without falling into the trap of language. From what has been said above, I can finally draw this conclusion; Sambong admits the reality of appearances and attempts to construct a metaphysical system in order to ground an absolute notion of moral, while Hamhu believes such a metaphysical system and moral notion arise from the misconception about reality and attempts to refute them from a viewpoint of epistemology in order to escape from all prejudices about language and ethics.

목차

국문초록

Ⅰ.緖論

Ⅱ.本體認識

Ⅲ.言語觀

Ⅳ.結論

ABSTRACT

키워드

三峰 涵虛 本體認識 言語觀