• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.103-124
• /
• 2014

서명응의 "중용경위"는 '심은 태극이자 중이며, 또 "하도"의 중궁'이라는 선천학의 심법을 제시한다는 점에서 기존의 "중용"해석과 차이를 보인다. 다른 특징으로는 "중용경위"의 구성 체제가 독창적이라는 점이다. 더불어 이러한 체제와 그 내용이 "하도"와 긴밀히 연결된다는 점이다. 서명응은 "중용"의 구조와 서술방식이 선후천의 법상에 따라 서술된 것으로 본다. 이를 입증하기 위해 서명응은 통행본 "중용"의 33장 체제를 32장으로 재구성한다. 그리고 그는 이 총 32장의 전체 구성이 '태극-양의-사상'으로 전개되는 "선천도"의 구조와 같고, 개별 장들이 서로 '대대' 관계로 되어 있는 구조는 선천의 '대대' 구조와 같으며, 각 장 안의 문장에서 구와 절들이 '반대' 관계로 되어 있는 것은 후천의 '반대' 구조와 같다고 본다. 서명응이 제시한 이러한 선천의 구조는 결국 "하도"로부터 연역되어 나온 것이다. 또 그 안에 담긴 심으로 천명의 중을 체인하는 사상이 "하도"와 연결된다고 파악한다.

• The Journal of Korean Medical History
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.373-386
• /
• 1999

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.469-510
• /
• 2001

• Journal of Korean Medical classics
• /
• v.18 no.3 s.30
• /
• pp.95-105
• /
• 2005

통과대설기적외과의적급기내용적연구(通過對薛己的外科醫籍及其內容的硏究), 득출이하결론(得出以下結論): 1. 설기소저외과의적중최조편찬적시(薛己所著外科醫籍中最早編纂的時)${\lceil}$외과심법(外科心法)${\lrcorner}$(1528년(年)), 지후편찬적차서시(之後編纂的次序是)${\ulcorner}$외과발휘(外科發揮)${\lrcorner}$(1528년(年)), ${\ulcorner}$외과경험방(外科經驗方)${\lrcorner}$(1528년(年)), ${\ulcorner}$외과추요(外科樞要)${\lrcorner}$(1545년(年)), ${\ulcorner}$여양기요${\lrcorner}$(1554년(年)). 2. 설기개변이왕양의수증처방적악습(薛己改變以往瘍醫隨症處方的惡習), 파변증론치인용도료외과임상상(把辨證論治引用到了外科臨床上). 3. 재망진방면불근중시료국부적진찰(在望診方面不僅重視了局部的診察), 이차중시관찰전신적상태(而且重視觀察全身的狀態); 환중시료사진합참(還重視了四診合參), 우기중시료망진화절진(尤其重視了望診和切診). 4. 재치료방면령활지운용료소통(在治療方面靈活地運用了疏通), 발산(發散). 화해(和解), 보탁(補托), 온보등방법(溫補等方法), 이차환사용료침(而且還使用了針), 폄, 구(灸), 위등외치법(慰等外治法). 5. 설기소저적(薛己所著的)${\ulcorner}$여양기요${\lrcorner}$시일부조기간행적미풍병전저(是一部早期刊行的麻風病專著).

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.9-33
• /
• 2014

이 논문은 중국 남송시대 성리학의 집대성자인 주자(朱子)(1130-1200)가 "중용"을 어떻게 분장절(分章節)하고, 그 구성을 어떻게 이해하였으며, 나아가 "중용"을 어떤 책으로 규정하면서 어떤 입장을 갖고 해석하였는지를 살펴보는 것을 목표로 한다. 주자는 이정(二程)형제가 "중용"을 "공문(孔門)에서 전한 심법(心法)"으로 정의한 입장을 수용하면서, "중용(中庸)"을 표창(表彰)하여 "예기(禮記)"에서 분리 독립시켜 사서(四書)의 하나로 정립하였다. 그는 40세 전후에 "장구" 및 "혹문"의 초고를 완성하고, 20여년 간 수정한 끝에 "중용장구"의 서문을 썼다. 주자는 "중용"이란 글을 최초로 나름의 원칙을 갖고 유기적인 체계속에서 33장으로 분장(分章)하고, 사대절(四大節) 혹은 육대절(六大節)로 그 체계를 나누었다. 그는 이러한 분장절(分章節)을 통해 "중용"이란 책은 중화(中和), 중용(中庸), 군자지도(君子之道)의 비은(費隱), 천도(天道)로서의 성(誠)과 인도(人道)로서의 성지(誠之), 그리고 천인합일의 길을 제시한 책으로 구성되어 있다고 말하였다. 나아가 우리는 주자가 "중용"이란 책을 공자의 손자인 자사(子思)가 도통의 단서를 계승하기 위해서 기술한 책이라고 말하면서, "서경(書經)" "대우모(大禹謨)"의 구절과 "중용"의 내용이 합치된다고 하는 주장을 살폈다. 마지막으로 우리는 주자의 "중용"해석에서 나타난 특징을 살펴보았다. 주자는 나름의 일관된 철학적 형이상학적 입장을 갖고 "중용"을 해석하였는데, 그의 해석에는 이기론(理氣論), 이일분수설(理一分殊說), 성즉리(性卽理), 성발위정론(性發爲情論), 그리고 존양(存養) 성찰(省察)의 수양법 등이 고스란히 반영되어 있다는 것을 살폈다. 그리고 우리는 주자가 이런 "중용" 해석을 통해 유학의 정통성을 정립함과 동시에 도불(道佛)을 위시한 여타 학파를 비판 극복하려고 했다는 점을 살폈다.

• The Journal of Dong Guk Oriental Medicine
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.205-229
• /
• 1997

JuJinHyoung(朱震亨) is a well-known physcian of the four schools in the Jin(金) and Yuan(元) Dynasties. He lived in ZhejiangSheng(浙江省) which located in the southeast region of China. There was humid and heatful climate, this kinds of environments influenced to his medical thoughts. He persisted in the theory that Yang is ever in excess while Yin is ever deficient(陽常有餘陰不足論) and exhorted the therapy of subduing excessive Yang and making up deficient Yin by nourishing it, and he said about the theory of ministerial fire(相火論). So he was regarded as a representative of the nourising Yin school(滋陰派). And he said that the method of "Clearing away heat and nourishing blood" is suitable in pregnancy. So Stucellaria baicalensis GEORGI and Atractylodes macrocephala KOIDZ. Can be apply in case of treatment on Anti-abortion. Thus these theories have influenced on Obstetric & Gynecology in Korea.

• The Journal of Korean Medical History
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.129-148
• /
• 2000

By researching into "Sin Kan Kyung Bon Hwal In Sim Bup", written by Chu Kweon in the early Ming era, author have concluded that Chu Kweon pursued new medical ideas centered around recuperation. In particular, Chu Kweon has asserted that disease is caused by mind and prescribed 'Chung Hwa Tang' and 'Hwa Ki Hwan' for the cure. This idea is very unique.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.121-153
• /
• 2018

The eight most prominent students of Lee Jin Sang discussed and developed the doctrines of the Master while discussing with the surrounding Toegye scholars. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between the doctrines of Toegye and the doctrines of Hanju in their discussions. First, the two were originally aimed at the same scholarship, so they discussed in a friendly atmosphere and some of the Toegye scholars participated in Hanju group. but at a certain point, they were a violent atmosphere of confrontation. Next, I tried to clarify the confrontation between Juli and Jeugli. And I tried to explain that they had different thoughts about domination of li. In addition, I looked at the meaning of excessiveness and compromise, the key words to criticize others and defend oneself. Finally, I explained that the ultimate difference between the two schools is in the methods of mind cultivation.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.93-129
• /
• 2018

These days, the world finds itself in a time when 21st century human and societal practices can benefit from alternative viable models; as such models are desperately needed. Daesoon Jinrihoe seeks to show one model inspired by the historical kings, Yao and Shun. In Daesoon Jinrihoe, King Yao and King Shun (堯舜 yo sun) are recollected and projected into modern times. This paper is a study that examines what aspects of Daesoon Thought go into understanding Kings Yao and Shun and what insights their example can provide for modern people today. In Daesoon Thought, the 'Dao of Kings Yao and Shun' has appeared again because the 'Era of the Great Opening (開闢時代 gaebyeok shidae)' has arrived, and this era is characterized by 'Seeking Out the Beginning and Returning to the Original Root (原始返本 wonshi banbon).' This is not simply a return to ancient times. The seeds that fall on the ground grow up to overcome winds and rains, bring forth new fruits in the autumn, and their fruits contain the original seeds. The seeds are simultaneously the original seeds, but not the seeds themselves. Rather, they are complete bodies condensed and infused with abundant experience gained after multitudinous trials. In Daesoon Thought, Kings Yao and Shun are analyzed from the following four perspectives: first, as an ideal human image that combines the qualities of Sages and Heroes (聖雄 seong oong), second, as the historical background behind the truth of the 'Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence (解冤相生),' third, as an ancient model of the ideal world, and fourth, as Daesoon Jinrihoe's 'Mind Dharma (心法)' and also as the classical basis for the 'Cultivation of Dao (修道).' However, the meaning of Kings Yao and Shun in Daesoon Thought is not limited to traditional philosophical thought but also contains certain crucial differences. In Daesoon Thought, the qualities of sages and heroes are combined in a way that does not compromise or penalize, but in accordance with the rule of law and beyond, the ideal world is understood as a world in which there are no natural disasters and everyone enjoys beauty and splendor. Mind Dharma means the spiritual cultivation of the 'Dao of Mutual Beneficence' as presented by Sangje (上帝 the Supreme God) through sincerity, respectfulness, and faithfulness (誠敬信 seong, gyeong, shin). In addition, through the core truth of Daesoon Thought, the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence, the resolution of the grudges associated with Kings Yao and Shun will likewise eliminate the root-grudge plaguing humanity and divine beings. In this paper, I intend to deepen my understanding of Daesoon Thought through a study on our theology's understanding of Kings Yao and Shun, and I also wish to redefine the value of Daesoon Thought through the symbolization and reinterpretation of ancient historical figures.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.387-416
• /
• 2014

This article explored the duplicity relation between the Daxue/Zhongyong of Confucianism and the Yonghobigyeol of Taoism, which was advocated by Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon, who was a Confucian scholar and the progenitor of Sundoism. The view of Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon was that the Confucian scriptures that contain the mind control method handed down from Confucius are Daxue, Zhongyong and Zhouyixicichuan (周易繫辭傳). His another view was that Zhuzi (朱子) intentionally did not expose the original object of Confucian mind control method in the interpretation of Sangangling (三綱領) of Daxuezhangju (大學章句) annotated by him, since he was invoked by the contemporary logic of Sung Period (宋代). Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon added a new annotation on Daxue Sangangling and tried to disclose the original object of Confucian mind control method through new interpretation by explaining the implied meaning of character '中' (zhong) of Zhongyong Yunzhijuezhong (允執厥中) by way of Iljungron (一中論). In addition to this new interpretation, Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon took the Yuanxiangfa (原象法), which Confucius compiled as the extract of Yijing (易經) from Zhouyixicichuan (周易繫辭傳), as the core of Confucian metaphysical philosophy study. He suggested Yuanxiangfa as a methodology to reach the ultimate target of study together with the Yonghobigyeol of Taoism and paid attention to the close relationship between the two. Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon verified the original object of Daxue by new interpretation on Daxue Sangangling, left an analytical thought on the consistency among Daxue, Zhongyong and Xicichuan (繫辭傳) and the study method of Igyohabil (異敎合一), where he integrated the principle of Taoism and Confucianism. Bongwoo Gwon Tae-hoon left a new topic to Korean world of thought, which is as important as the Seondanhosuron (禪丹互修論) of Cheonghaja Gwon Geuk-jung (靑霞子 權克中) in Joseon Period.