20세기 후반 중국에서는 사상사를 다시 쓰게 만들 1973년의 ‘마왕태 한묘’와 1993년의 ‘곽점 초묘’ 발굴이 있었는데, 이글은 두 번째 발굴과 관련된다. 1998년 5월 형문시박물관에서 『곽점초묘죽간』이라는 책이 나오자 많은 학자들의 관심을 끌게 되었다.
발굴본 전적이 출토될 때마다 학문적으로 중국이 주도권을 잡으려는 의도가 엿보이는 상황에서, 일본인 학자(池田知久)나 미국인 학자(Robert H. Henricks)는 적극적으로 개입하고 있는 반면, 우리 학자는 상당히 뒤처지고 있다. 이를 탈피하기 위해 다음과 같은 연구태도는 필수적이다.
첫째, 수입철학을 벗어나기 위해서는 우리 논문에 대한 인용과 비판이 필수적이다.
둘째, 철학사적 기술이 절실하여, 황로학 등에 대한 우리식 정의가 필요하다.
셋째, 기초전적과 논문은 단순하므로 자료를 공유하자.
이를 위해 이글에서는 중국의 곽기와 한국 김경수의 저서를 일목요연하게 소개하고 비판적으로 이해한다. 곽기는 그의 책은 먼저 『노자』, 『태일생수』, 『오행』, 『성지문지』(成之聞之: 작자는 고쳐 『大常』으로), 『성자명출』(性自命出: 「上」, 「下」를 각각 『有性』과 『求心』으로 設題) 6종을 설명하고 있고, 다음으로 곽점죽간과, 『주역』(周易), 『논어』(論語) 그리고 ‘자사(子思)학파’ 및 ‘도가’의 관계를 다룬다. 김경수는, 중국 학계에서 말하는 지금의 유법투쟁사관은 유가에 대하여 도가와 법가가 결탁하여 대립하였다는 주장인데, 한대의 정치는 유가와 도법가가 대립하지 않았으며 도법가(道法家)는 근거 없는 현대의 창작물이라는 입장에서 새로운 주장을 내놓는다. 그에게는 『태일생수』조차 유가계열의 작품으로, 『존덕의』가 도가계열에 가까워지고 있는 것으로 분류된다.
이런 주장에 대해 한국학계는 반응해야 한다. 중국학계는 도가가 유가를 반대하지 않았다는 주장에 무게가 실리는데, 한국학계는 그 가능성을 낮게 보고 있다. 또, 태일신앙에 대해서는 한국학계가 중국보다 더 많은 관심을 보이고 있다. 아울러, 한국에서 이루어진 새로운 황로학 연구가 집약되어야 할 때다.
There were two amazing excavations which are worth rewriting the history of Chinese philosophy. One is Han dynasty tomb of Mawangtui(1973), the other one is Chu tomb of Guodian(1993). This paper related with the later, since the city museum of Jingmen has published Guodian Chumu Zhujian. Whenever excavation happens, China intends to lead it academically. While some Japanese(Ikeda Tomohisa) and American(Robert H. Henricks) participate with this situation, Korean scholars are just following them. To overcome it, research attitudes are required. First, to escape from import philosophy, quotation and critique for Korean works are necessary. Second, historical description for Chinese Philosophy is needed, for example, definition of Hwanglao is welcomed. Third, because basic materials and theses are limited, we could handle them in common. For them, I would like to introduce two scholars, who are Guoyi of China and KIM Kyungsu of Korea. Guo, first of all, not only interpreted 6 materials(Laozi, Taiyishengshui, Wuxing, Chengzhiwenzhi entitled Dachang, Xingzimingzhu separated with Youxing and Qiuxin), but also treated between Guodian Bamboo and classic texts and thoughts including the Book of changes, the Analects of Confucius, the school of Zisi, and Taoism. KIM insists that Confucianism and ‘Taoistic legalist’ are not antagonistic in politics of Han dynasty. Furthermore, against Chinese scholars who maintains the view of struggle history of Confucianism and (Taoistic) legalism which was prearranged thing between Taoism and Legalism, KIM asserts Taoistic legalist is a modern definition. According to him, Taiyishengshui is one of Confucian works; Zundeyi is closing to Taoist serials. We, Korean scholars, have to response them. While Chinese stresses Taoist is not against Confucianism, Korean thinks that possibility are low. On the religion of Taiyi, Korean concerns about it more than Chinese. Besides, new researches on Hwanglao studies in Korean should be concentrated.
There were two amazing excavations which are worth rewriting the history of Chinese philosophy. One is Han dynasty tomb of Mawangtui(1973), the other one is Chu tomb of Guodian(1993). This paper related with the later, since the city museum of Jingmen has published Guodian Chumu Zhujian. Whenever excavation happens, China intends to lead it academically. While some Japanese(Ikeda Tomohisa) and American(Robert H. Henricks) participate with this situation, Korean scholars are just following them. To overcome it, research attitudes are required. First, to escape from import philosophy, quotation and critique for Korean works are necessary. Second, historical description for Chinese Philosophy is needed, for example, definition of Hwanglao is welcomed. Third, because basic materials and theses are limited, we could handle them in common. For them, I would like to introduce two scholars, who are Guoyi of China and KIM Kyungsu of Korea. Guo, first of all, not only interpreted 6 materials(Laozi, Taiyishengshui, Wuxing, Chengzhiwenzhi entitled Dachang, Xingzimingzhu separated with Youxing and Qiuxin), but also treated between Guodian Bamboo and classic texts and thoughts including the Book of changes, the Analects of Confucius, the school of Zisi, and Taoism. KIM insists that Confucianism and ‘Taoistic legalist’ are not antagonistic in politics of Han dynasty. Furthermore, against Chinese scholars who maintains the view of struggle history of Confucianism and (Taoistic) legalism which was prearranged thing between Taoism and Legalism, KIM asserts Taoistic legalist is a modern definition. According to him, Taiyishengshui is one of Confucian works; Zundeyi is closing to Taoist serials. We, Korean scholars, have to response them. While Chinese stresses Taoist is not against Confucianism, Korean thinks that possibility are low. On the religion of Taiyi, Korean concerns about it more than Chinese. Besides, new researches on Hwanglao studies in Korean should be concentrated.
