建圖闡義與工夫精蘊——以李栗谷遺佚的性理圖爭議為焦點

Illustrating the Content of Principles and Self-cultivation Theory with Diagrams: Focusing on the Dispute over the Lost“Neo-Confucianism Chart”of Yi I

散佚著作的考掘與纂輯是學者詩文集彙編之要事，不過，當發掘的文本產生爭議時，事情就演變得曲折且複雜。
本研究探討一幅未收錄在朝鮮著名鉅儒李珥（栗谷，1536-1583）之著作中的性理圖象。蓋朴世采（南溪，1631-1695）在栗谷逝後，接手一批栗谷的遺作，其中有一幅有圖無文（圖說文字），旨在敘明「持敬、講學、省察」三修養工夫綱領的〈為學之方圖〉，乃欲將其編入《栗谷先生續集》中。然而，這幅圖象作品卻遭到栗谷嫡系傳人宋時烈（尤庵，1607-1689）的強烈質疑，認為圖中概念語詞的選定與安置明顯有誤，應非出自栗谷先生之手。
於是，此〈為學之方圖〉的真偽與正確與否，引發了當時學人的高度關注。對反於宋時烈的質疑，朴世采、尹拯（明齋，1629-1714）、金榦（厚齋，1646-1732）等人則是極度贊同此圖象的內容，乃著力於回應質疑，說明該圖象的概念語詞其來有自，實本於朱子之著作，當無可疑議，甚至通過詳盡地說明，進行圖象意旨的掘發與再造，闡揚各概念語詞的深義與關聯性。至於反對的一方，如宋時烈、韓元震（南塘，1682-1751）等，則是基於不滿意此圖象，紛紛再另外繪製出個人改繪修訂的圖型。
透過對這個圖式之論議與改繪的分析，我們可以看到朝鮮儒者對於朱子學工夫論關鍵語詞的精采討論與細密的觀點辨析，尤其是藉由「以圖論理」的方式組構出一幅完整的儒學修養工夫論圖象，這一點更顯朝鮮儒學的獨特性與精采之處。

This project aims to discuss”Diagrams on the Way of Learning”which is not included in the works of a Korean Confucianist Yi I（1536-1584）. After Yi I passes away, Park Se-chae（1631-1695）receives a diagram of self-cultivation theory without any explanation of words. He wishes to add this diagram to Yi I’s work but Yi L’s successor Song Si-Ryeol（1607-1689）points out several mistakes and denies it to be Yi I’s work. However, Park Se-chae, Yun jeung（1629-1714）and Gim gan（1646-1732）approved this diagram. To respond Song Si-Ryeol’s questions, they propose the words in the diagram are well-founded. Besides, they reinterpret the content of the diagram and explain the relation between conceptual words. At the same time, due to dissatisfaction, the opponents revise and redraw the diagram. So through this project, we can witness the Korean Confucianists’splendid discussion about self-cultivation theory. And the exploration of diagrams makes Korean Confucianism more unique and impressive.