• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.141
• /
• pp.167-185
• /
• 2017

Chu Hsi inherited the proposition of Cheng Yi, and it spent him over ten years to finish writing the works of Xi Ming Jie, thus, making the thought of "Li Yi Fen Shu" bethe explanatory model of Xi Ming, therefore, playing the role to determine the tone of Xi Ming. At first, the thought of "Li Yi Fen Shu is a concept to embody the ethical significance of Xi Ming. But in terms of all the discussion about "Li Yi Fen Shu" of Chu Hsi in his life, this proposition is not only for the ethical significance of Xi Ming, but also includes much more general philosophical significance, revealing the general and special relationship of things. The former is the narrow "Li Yi Fen Shu", but the latter is the generalized one. This article won't discuss the generalized one, and it will take the narrow one as the research object. In the past research in academic circles, some scholars thinks that the proposition of "Li Yi Fen Shu" accords with the aim of Xi Ming, some others don't think so. Contrary to both of the two views, this article thinks that there is some conformity and inconformity between the explanatory model of "Li Yi Fen Shu" of Chu Hsi and the aim of Xi Ming. In other words, Contributions and limitations coexist when Chu Hsi explains Xi Ming in the model of "Li Yi Fen Shu", and there is not only the development to the intention of Xi Ming, but alsothe far meaning away from the aim of Xi Ming.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.52
• /
• pp.281-310
• /
• 2017

This paper is a reflective study of contemporary Korean scholars' claims that they criticize the explanation of Zhu Xi(朱熹, 1130-1200)'s psychology in which he explains that the 24th Hexagram of $F{\hat{u}}$[復卦] shows the state that the mind has not happened yet[未發]. Zhu Xi explains the 24th Hexagram of $F{\hat{u}}$[復卦] with the theory of no mind yet[未發說]. Several scholars in modern Korea, however, raise the question of whether "thoughtless[思慮未萌] but being not dark to perception[知覺不昧]" of the 24th Hexagram of $F{\hat{u}}$ is enough to explain the state of no mind yet. And they think that "thoughtless[思慮未萌]" is appropriate to explain the state in which the mind has not yet occurred, but it is not to "being not dark to perception". In this study, we would like to show that Zhu Xi's interpretation of the 24th Hexagram of $F{\hat{u}}$[復卦] fully explains the fact that "thoughtless[思慮未萌] but being not dark to perception[知覺不昧]" explain the theory of no mind yet[未發說]. Zhu Xi's 'the theory of no mind yet[未發說]' is divided into two periods, a period of 'old theory on $zh{\bar{o}}ngh{\acute{e}}$[中和舊說]' and a period of 'new theory on $zh{\bar{o}}ngh{\acute{e}}$[中和新說]'. He develops 'the theory of no mind yet[未發說]' on the basis of 'the theory that nature is body and mind is action[性體心用說]' during the period of old theory, and develops the theory[未發說] based on 'the theory that mind controls nature and feelings[心統性情說]' during the new theory. Between the two periods, the status of the mind changes from "the mind has already happened[已發]" to "through which the mind has not yet arisen and the mind has already risen[未發已發]". And its role also changes from 'what nature is happened' to 'presiding on nature and emotion.' This change affects the interpretation of the idea that the mind has not yet happened, that thoughts have not budged yet[思慮未萌], perception is not dark[知覺不昧].

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.38
• /
• pp.275-302
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to investigate Chu Hsi's theory of Ge Wu by analyzing the $L{\ddot{u}}$ shi daxuexie (呂氏大學解) in the Critique of Adulterated Learning (雜學辨). Critique of Adulterated Learning was written by Chu Hsi(朱熹) for the purpose of criticizing the confucian scholars who inclined to Taoism and Buddhism. Chu Hsi criticized $L{\ddot{u}}$ Pen-chung(呂本中)'s theory of Ge Wu Zhi Zhi, especially focusing on his understandings based on the Buddhist tendency. $L{\ddot{u}}$ Pen-chung considered Ge Wu Zhi Zhi as the processes of emerging Liang Zhi of the Subject to discipline by investigating the Li of things. He said "Regard an awakening as the standard of Ge Wu Zhi Zhi", as he payed more attention to the mind of the Subject rather than a long process of accumulation of Li. In comparison with him, Chu Hsi considered enormous each step to accumulate Li as more important to reach the completions of knowledge. Especially, while grasping Li, he considered they should have an understandings of things from the routines to the origins of the principles - that is from the principles of things to the reasons of things are. Chu Hsi approached to the Ge Wu in the meaning of political theory in his early days. However, Chu Hsi expands the width of his thought with a theoretical tool of 'Li-i fen-shu (理一分殊)' in the course of criticizing $L{\ddot{u}}$ Pen-chung's theory of Ge Wu Zhi Zhi. In that sense, His criticism of $L{\ddot{u}}$ Pen-chung(呂本中)'s theory was not only the process of struggling against Buddhist philosophies, but also the process of deepening of his philosophy.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.52
• /
• pp.311-340
• /
• 2017

This research focuses on the theory of Zhi-jue(知覺) by Kim Chang-Hyup(金昌協) through comparison between Kim Chang-Hyup's and Zhu Xi(朱熹)'s. In the point of supervision, Zhu Xi considered that Zhi-jue is one of the conditions caused by supervision, one the other hand, it is the action that make possible supervision. Kim Chang-Hyup emphasize the concept of Zhi-jue itself, he considered that Zhi-jue is the action that make possible supervision, and separate Zhi-jue from Xing(性) or Qing(情). In this process, Zhi-jue became the subject itself about supervision, so the mix about relation between Zhi-jue and supervision is solved. But there is a problem about gap between Zhi-jue and the nature from separate between Zhi-jue and Xing. Kim Chang-Hyup intend to separate Zhi-jue and Qing as subject and object, so he considered that Xing is not a reason of Zhi-jue, but rules. It's not a answer about what is the reason of Zhi-jue. Yet Zhu Xi also considered that Xing is the rules of Zhu-jue, only in the case that Zhi-jue means the resulf of supervision, Zhi-jue is considered as the effect of Zhi(智). So the relation problem about Zhi-jue as a subject and the nature is brought up by Joseon scholar who attempted to arrange the concepts of neo-confucianism. Eventually, in case of the relation about Zhi-jue and Xing, King Chang-Hyup and Zhu Xi has a common point, only in case of the relation about Zhi-jue and supervision, Definding Zhi-jue as the subject of supervision is the character of Kim Chang-Hyup's theory of Zhi-jue.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.63
• /
• pp.141-168
• /
• 2016

This paper studies Zhu Xi's critical comprehension about the theories of gewu zhizhi of senior Confucian scholars, focusing on the Daxue Zhangju, Daxue huowen, and Daxue huowen yulei of Zhuzi yulei. Zhu Xi described in depth the theory of gewu zhizhi of Sima Guang, disciples of the Cheng Yi(Lu Dalin, Xie Liangzuo, Yin Ch'un, Yang Shi), scholars of Hu-Xing province(Hu An-guo, Hu hong), Li Dong in the Daxue huowen and Daxue huowen yulei, by his understanding through a criticism of the theory of gewu zhizh, thereby formulating a theory of gewu zhizhi on the basis of Cheng Yi's theory. Through this criticism of senior Confucian scholars, Zhu Xi explained that the theory of gewu zhizhi was departed from a positive affirmation of things. Zhu Xi claimed that the crux of gewu zhizhi was a thorough understanding like a sudden release achieved by accumulating Li of things. This plan of Zhu Xi with respect to "Supplementary Chapter on the Gewu Zhizhi" showed that the theory of gewu zhizhi which was set up by himself corresponded to the theory of Cheng Yi's, and it was based on the Confucian tradition firmly.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.11
• /
• pp.255-292
• /
• 2005

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.37
• /
• pp.473-507
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study is to understand Zhuxi's Taoxuezhengzhi(道學政治) by reorganizing both his political opinion in each different political situation and his consistent political consciousness appeared in his whole political career. He concluded that the politics was the real problematic in Southern Sung, which made its structure distorted. This distorted structure of politics had widely rooted in whole sphere of society. In order to cure this political problematic, Zhuxi had focused on huangdi(皇帝) and chaoting(朝廷). That is why people is the basis of State and the result of politics, while huangdi and chaoting is the basis of politics and the beginnig of politics. According to Zhuxi, forming their political power group of their own will by using huangdi's power, the political elites close to only to huangdi made the function of chaoting unstable, with the result that the political decay produced. In chaoting, it resulted in the weakness of huangdi's power, the collapse of official discipline(紀綱), and the absence of public opinion(公論) and public aggreement(公議). Beyond chaoting, it resulted in the absence of political trust and the degeneration of public morals(風俗). In the Southern Sung were not altered the political orientation and culture based on the political decay, but only political orientation and characteristics of political elite only altered. This proves Zhuxi's approach that all problems in Southern Sung could resolve by the political approach. Zhuxi had suggested political issues in office. The alternatives for those political issues had basis of the theme, the one that saving people(恤民) is the purpose of politics. However his political ideas and the execution of them had been occsionally collapsed by the complex political structue, the mechanisms of political power, and the sameness and privatization of political geography in Southern Sung. Qingyuandanghuo(慶元黨禍) was the final stage of his political frustration, with the result that it led to the failure of Zhuxi's taoxuezhengzhi and interrupted the tradition of taoxue(道學) for the time being.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.55-80
• /
• 2014

Park, Se-dang criticized or accepted Zhuxi's annotation with his own way of understanding Confucian classics. His way of understanding Zhuxi can explain through the motive of writing his book, sabyeonrok and his basic view of scripture interpretation in the book. He thought one can achieve learning from lower to upper level. That means it is good for one to study from text easy to reach and attain, grasp. But if one begin to study from text or contents hard to understand, that will make to lose the proper way or province to the value of learning. This is what Park, Se-dang's basic point of interpreting Confucian classics, called 'learning from lower to upper level.' Park, Se-dang gave high praise Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi and Zhuxi who recreated confucianism into world from darkness. He thought Cheng-Zhu school corrected confucian's ways of learning went wrong from Chinese Han. So we need to reconsider the assessment of his view as anti?post-Zhuxi. He also thought there were a lot of way to understand Confucian classics. He insisted Zhuxi's way of annotating Confucian classics was one of them, and so as his. He understood Zhuxi's thought in this way of thinking and his academic method of 'learning from lower to upper level.' Therefore to interpretate Confucian classics new way he criticised or accepted Zhuxi's way of annotating scripture though his own way of understanding Confucian classics and academic method of 'learning from lower to upper level.'

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.38
• /
• pp.63-96
• /
• 2013

$L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) was one of the famous philosophers during the Southern Song period, and is called one of DongNamSanXian(東南三賢) together with ZhuXi(朱熹) and ZhangShi(張?). With his profound knowledge transmitted and uphold by JiaXue(家學), $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) established his learning system, interacting with scholars of those days. Principally, $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙)'s XinLun(心論) was based on Mengzi(孟子)' theory of LiangXin(良心) and BenXin(本心). $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) explained the meaning of such a conscience through ChuXin(初心) and Inner NeiXin(內心). According to $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙), ChuXin(初心) arouses when one encounters external things, and this one's intention enables us to make the right judgments over the outside objects. NeiXin(內心) means LiangXin(良心) and BenXin(本心) that recovered the ability of moral awareness. The important significances of $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙)'s XinLun(心論) are XinWai WuDao(心外無道), and XinWaiWuTian(心外無天). Through these, $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) emphasized that Tian(天), Dao(道), and Li(理) are one. $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) arranged a meeting of EHuSi(鵝湖寺), and exerted efforts to negotiate the academic differences between ZhuXi(朱熹) and LuJiuyuan(陸九淵). However, compared with LuJiuyuan(陸九淵) who asserted FaMingBenXin(發明本心), $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) put the emphasis on DaoWenXue(道問學) with self-awareness of conscience. Meanwhile, $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) valued much of Jing(敬) like ZhuXi(朱熹). But, to $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙), Jing(敬) meant WuJianDuan(無間斷) of ChunYiBuZa(純一不雜) DaoDeXin(道德心), and implied the same as Cheng(誠). $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙) stressed the reading and pursuit of study, however, he also asserted that Li(理) could be understood and realized through self-awareness of one's mind and its reflection, and working without interruption. $L{\ddot{u}}Zuqian$(呂祖謙)'s academic tradition of the XinXueDe XueFeng(心學的 學風), which reveals through compromise and confrontation with ZhuXi(朱熹), can be said that it will have a significant meaning of idealism of dispute in the Southern Song period.

• The Journal of Korean Medical History
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.45-57
• /
• 2001

Started to get over the political difficulties, Juhee put his heart into solving the mystery of "I-Chingchamdonggye", and the final answer he got was right this. In his coordinate ideology system, he positioned "I-Chingchamdonggye", in other word Dan. No, actually he reconfirmed the uprightness of his ideology system through "I-Chingchamdonggye" and Dan. Justness of Juhee's scholarship which was accused to be false study is ascertained even in trifling Dan and the classics of Dan. The fruit seems to be "I-Chingchamdonggyegoi".